Regional Compliance for eSIM Cloud Encryption

• Encryption is now mandatory: Regulations like the EU’s GDPR and NIS2 Directive, and PCI DSS 4.0 require encryption of data at rest and in transit, often using AES-256 and TLS 1.3.
• Key management is critical: Secure storage, regular rotation, and localised control of encryption keys are becoming non-negotiable under laws like GDPR.
• Regional differences complicate compliance:
  • Europe: Focus on data localisation and encryption key sovereignty.
  • California (CCPA): Prioritises consumer transparency over prescriptive encryption rules.
  • APAC: Diverse, fragmented standards with strict enforcement in some nations like India and Turkey.
• Emerging trends:
  • Multifactor authentication (MFA) is increasingly required for accessing sensitive systems.
  • Continuous runtime monitoring and vulnerability management are gaining traction, especially under European regulations.

For global providers like ZIM Connections, aligning with the strictest standards (e.g., GDPR) as a baseline is often the best approach to ensure compliance across jurisdictions. However, this comes with high costs, including investments in hardware security modules (HSMs) and cloud infrastructure tailored to regional laws.

Quick Comparison

Providers must stay ahead by integrating strong encryption, robust key management, and compliance-by-design principles into their platforms from the outset.

Why Is Data Residency A Challenge For Cloud Encryption? – Cloud Stack Studio

Overview of Regional Compliance

The regulatory landscape for eSIM cloud encryption varies significantly across regions, reflecting different priorities in data protection, consumer rights, and national security. As of early 2025, 144 countries have enacted data protection or consumer privacy laws, covering most of the global population. However, the specific rules around encryption and key management differ widely between jurisdictions, creating a complex compliance environment for organisations operating internationally.

Europe leads with one of the most structured frameworks, where encryption is mandatory under regulations like GDPR. This includes encryption in transit and at rest, alongside strict data residency rules that prevent personal data from leaving national borders without proper safeguards. The NIS2 Directive reinforces these rules, explicitly requiring "policies for the use of cryptography and encryption" as part of cybersecurity compliance. Notably, 42% of organisations see encryption and key management as central to achieving digital sovereignty, particularly when complying with EU data transfer regulations.

In contrast, California’s CCPA takes a less prescriptive approach. Instead of mandating specific encryption protocols or data localisation, its focus is on consumer transparency and individual rights. Companies must clearly disclose their data practices and provide mechanisms for users to access, delete, or opt out of data sales. While encryption is strongly recommended as a security measure, the CCPA does not enforce strict technical standards like those in Europe.

The Asia-Pacific (APAC) region adds another layer of complexity with its diverse and evolving regulations. Some countries align closely with European standards, while others enforce stricter measures. For instance, Turkey banned eight global eSIM providers in 2025 for violating data localisation laws, and India removed Airalo and Holafly from app stores over compliance issues and fraud allegations. Meanwhile, nations like Australia, Brazil, China, and the UAE are tightening their oversight with more rigorous licensing and security requirements.

Enforcement strategies also differ significantly. European regulators emphasise system-wide compliance, conducting comprehensive audits and imposing hefty fines for violations. The NIS2 Directive even includes personal liability clauses for managers, ensuring cybersecurity is prioritised at the highest levels. In California, enforcement revolves around breach notifications and consumer litigation, creating legal accountability through civil cases rather than direct regulatory action. APAC regulators, on the other hand, often act decisively, imposing bans on non-compliant services without issuing prior warnings or fines.

Encryption standards like AES-256 and TLS 1.3 are now widely required, while outdated protocols are being phased out. For example, PCI DSS 4.0, effective from March 2025, mandates encryption of cardholder data both in transit and at rest, with detailed technical specifications. Similarly, GSMA certification ensures that eSIM solutions meet stringent encryption and data privacy standards, granting digital certificates for secure communication between devices and carrier systems.

Key management remains one of the most challenging aspects of compliance for eSIM providers working across multiple regions. European laws often require encryption keys to stay under sovereign control, which may involve deploying hardware security modules (HSMs) within specific jurisdictions. Some organisations are exploring homomorphic encryption to balance jurisdictional requirements with the flexibility of global cloud services. California, by contrast, allows more freedom in technical implementation, while APAC nations vary – some demand physical storage of keys within national borders, while others permit logical separation within shared infrastructures.

Beyond encryption, identity and access management (IAM) has become a cornerstone of compliance worldwide. By 2025, nearly every major cyber regulation includes provisions for strong authentication and access control. For example, the EU’s NIS2 Directive explicitly requires multifactor authentication (MFA) or continuous authentication for accessing sensitive systems. Similarly, proposed updates to HIPAA in the United States would mandate MFA for administrators and remote access to health data systems. This focus on IAM is driven by the reality that many breaches stem from compromised credentials or excessive access privileges.

Implementation timelines further complicate the compliance landscape. PCI DSS 4.0 came into effect in March 2025, while the EU AI Act introduces staggered deadlines, with some requirements starting in 2025 and full compliance for high-risk systems required by 2026 or 2027. In APAC, enforcement tends to be swift, as seen in Turkey’s immediate bans of eSIM providers in 2025, leaving no room for extended transition periods.

For eSIM providers operating globally, these varied requirements create a daunting compliance challenge. Often, the strictest regional standards become the de facto global baseline. Providers cannot afford to design separate security architectures for each region due to the interconnected nature of cloud infrastructure and the need for seamless roaming. This has led many to adopt European standards as their foundation, adding additional layers to address region-specific requirements.

1. GDPR (Europe)

Under GDPR, encryption shifts from being a mere option to an absolute necessity for eSIM platforms. Organisations must take comprehensive steps to protect subscriber data, credentials, and device identifiers.

Encryption Requirements

GDPR, along with other European regulations, makes encryption a core requirement. Article 32 specifically calls for the "encryption of personal data" as a key technical and organisational measure. For eSIM cloud platforms, this means securing data at every stage – whether in transit or at rest. Communications between devices, SM-DP+ servers, and carrier systems must be encrypted using modern standards like AES-256 and TLS 1.3, while phasing out outdated protocols. The NIS2 Directive further strengthens these rules, requiring essential services, including telecoms, to adopt robust encryption practices.

GSMA certification provides a clear way to demonstrate compliance. It validates that eSIM solutions offer strong encryption, efficient profile management, and data privacy across the entire system – from eUICC to SM-DP+ servers and carrier provisioning. Following GDPR’s "privacy by design" principle, encryption must be integrated into the platform’s architecture from the beginning. Organisations should also maintain detailed records of their technical specifications, encryption algorithms, and security evaluations.

Key Management Policies

Effective encryption relies heavily on secure key management, a critical aspect of GDPR compliance. Organisations must establish and document procedures for key generation, storage, rotation, and destruction. In cloud environments, encryption keys should be stored separately from the data they protect, using hardware security modules (HSMs) or similar technologies. Access to these keys should be limited to authorised personnel, safeguarded by multi-factor authentication. Regular key rotation and secure backups are essential for preventing data loss and meeting regulatory requirements.

To satisfy GDPR audits, organisations need to provide evidence of their key management practices. This includes annual security reviews, access control policies, and detailed documentation of their encryption processes.

Data Residency and Sovereignty

GDPR also enforces strict rules on data residency, ensuring the personal data of EU citizens remains within EU borders unless adequate legal frameworks are in place. For eSIM cloud platforms, storing subscriber data in non-EU locations without appropriate safeguards is not permissible. Many providers address this by setting up dedicated EU cloud regions, using localised key storage, placing HSMs within EU data centres, or employing advanced techniques like homomorphic encryption when suitable.

eSIM platforms must rely on EU-based infrastructures for generating, storing, and managing encryption keys, ensuring that these processes remain within EU jurisdictions. GSMA-certified SaaS solutions can simplify compliance by offering centralised remote provisioning that aligns with GDPR and other related regulations. Transparency is another GDPR requirement – eSIM providers must clearly explain their encryption practices to users and respond to data subject access requests promptly. Additionally, overlapping standards like PCI DSS 4.0, which mandates encryption of cardholder data both in transit and at rest, are increasingly aligning with GDPR’s broader data protection strategies.

2. CCPA (California, USA)

The California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) adopts a "reasonable security" standard, which differs from the more detailed requirements of GDPR. Instead of mandating encryption explicitly, the CCPA uses a principles-based approach, positioning strong encryption as the benchmark for safeguarding consumer data. This approach gives eSIM platforms a degree of flexibility, but it also demands that they take responsibility for their security measures and outcomes. Beyond encryption, effective key management practices are essential to ensure comprehensive security.

Encryption Requirements

Unlike GDPR, the CCPA doesn’t specify encryption algorithms or technical standards. Instead, it requires organisations to implement security measures that align with the sensitivity of the data they manage. This flexibility, however, comes with a responsibility to justify security choices and ensure they meet industry standards and international best practices.

For eSIM cloud platforms, this typically means using AES-256 encryption for data at rest and TLS 1.3 for data in transit. While the CCPA doesn’t prescribe specific algorithms, compliance best practices often align with standards like the Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard (PCI DSS) 4.0, which became effective in March 2025. These standards require encryption of sensitive data with specific technical measures.

In the broader U.S. regulatory landscape, encryption is becoming a more defined obligation. For example, the proposed 2025 update to the HIPAA Security Rule would make encryption mandatory for electronic protected health information, shifting it from a recommended to a required practice. This trend points to a growing emphasis on encryption across sectors, including telecommunications.

For eSIM platforms, encryption must cover subscriber credentials, device identifiers, and profile management data throughout their lifecycle. This includes securing communications between devices, SM-DP+ servers, and carrier systems. Embedded eSIM (eUICC) technology adds an extra layer of security by providing hardware-based trust anchors, which protect device identifiers and prevent cloning or unauthorised use. However, even the strongest encryption is only as effective as the key management practices supporting it.

Key Management Policies

Although the CCPA doesn’t specify key management requirements, implementing strong controls over encryption keys is a critical aspect of "reasonable security." For eSIM cloud platforms, this involves having clear, documented procedures for key generation, storage, rotation, and destruction.

Encryption keys should always be stored separately from the data they protect, ideally within hardware security modules (HSMs) or similar systems. Access to these keys must be restricted to authorised personnel, secured with multi-factor authentication. Regular key rotation schedules and secure backup procedures help maintain both security and operational continuity.

Cloud-based key management services can simplify these processes by automating key rotation and access controls while adhering to high security standards. Modern SaaS-based eSIM management solutions enable centralised provisioning, ensuring encryption keys remain under the organisation’s control. This approach reduces complexity while maintaining compliance with stringent security requirements.

Comprehensive documentation is vital for demonstrating compliance with the CCPA. Organisations should maintain detailed records of key management practices, including access control policies, rotation schedules, and incident response plans. These records provide evidence of due diligence and can be critical in the event of a security incident.

Data Residency and Sovereignty

The CCPA takes a more flexible stance on data residency compared to GDPR’s strict localisation rules. It does not require California consumer data to remain within state or national borders. However, it does grant consumers the right to know where their personal information is stored and how it is used.

For eSIM cloud platforms, this means being transparent about data storage locations and ensuring that any third-party cloud providers adhere to equivalent security standards, regardless of their geographic location. To comply with the CCPA, organisations must document their data handling practices and be prepared to disclose this information to consumers upon request.

This flexibility allows eSIM providers to utilise global cloud infrastructure while remaining compliant, as long as they implement appropriate security measures. Providers should clearly document where subscriber data is stored, which third parties have access to it, and the security standards those parties follow. This transparency, combined with strong encryption and effective key management, strengthens compliance under the CCPA.

Breach notification rules under the CCPA further underscore the importance of encryption. Organisations are required to notify California consumers of data breaches without undue delay. However, if encrypted data is compromised but the encryption keys remain secure, notification may not be necessary, as the data is still protected. This creates a strong incentive for robust encryption and key management practices that go beyond basic compliance.

sbb-itb-273ea09

3. APAC Regional Standards

The Asia-Pacific region presents a uniquely complex regulatory environment for eSIM cloud platforms. Unlike the unified frameworks of GDPR or the principles-based approach of the CCPA, APAC lacks a single, cohesive standard. Instead, organisations must navigate a patchwork of regulations, with requirements differing significantly from one country to another. Governments across the region are cracking down on unlicensed eSIM providers and signalling intentions for stricter oversight. This regulatory diversity brings specific challenges, particularly around encryption mandates and key management policies.

Encryption Requirements

In recent years, APAC regulators have become increasingly specific about encryption standards, pushing for stronger cryptographic measures. Many jurisdictions now require minimum encryption levels for eSIM communications, focusing heavily on secure key management and robust authentication protocols for IoT devices.

For eSIM cloud platforms, GSMA certification provides a security baseline that applies to all eSIM entities, including embedded Universal Integrated Circuit Cards (eUICC), Subscription Manager Data Preparation Plus (SM-DP+) servers, and carrier provisioning systems. This certification helps align platforms with regulations like GDPR and telecommunications security laws. However, it doesn’t always address the nuanced runtime behaviours of system components, leaving potential gaps in compliance.

Hardware-based trust anchors are becoming a cornerstone of compliance efforts, especially for IoT and critical infrastructure. Technologies like embedded eSIM (eUICC) and Secure Element (eSE) safeguard device identifiers and ensure the integrity of firmware updates. By 2025, eSIM is expected to offer a reliable, hardware-level security framework that addresses many regulatory concerns. The principles of the NIS2 Directive – emphasising continuous risk management, vulnerability disclosure, and secure-by-design practices – are beginning to influence APAC regulatory policies, with several countries exploring similar frameworks.

Key Management Policies

Key management is a critical focus in APAC’s cybersecurity landscape, with regulators enforcing stringent standards, particularly for IoT devices. However, the region lacks a unified approach. While some countries adhere to international best practices, others are developing localised requirements, such as mandating the use of hardware security modules (HSMs) or sovereign key management infrastructures. This fragmented approach means organisations must tightly control cryptographic keys to prevent unauthorised access, even from cloud administrators.

To address these challenges, leading eSIM providers are adopting sovereign HSM architectures that create secure, isolated environments to protect keys from tampering. Alongside these measures, tokenisation and multifactor authentication are increasingly used, though they come with risks. For example, if a cloud identity system is compromised, attackers could potentially hijack user sessions. To meet jurisdictional requirements while leveraging global services, organisations are turning to solutions like homomorphic encryption and geographically distributed key management systems. Continuous runtime monitoring is also becoming essential, moving beyond static certification to maintain ongoing compliance.

While these advanced measures require significant investment, they enable providers to meet the region’s diverse regulatory demands. Multifactor authentication (MFA) is becoming a standard requirement for administrative access and sensitive operations. Additionally, the upcoming Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) is poised to mandate vulnerability management at both firmware and software levels, including eSIM middleware and applets, further shaping compliance strategies.

Data Residency and Sovereignty

Data residency rules add another layer of complexity to encryption and key management strategies. In several APAC countries, regulations require citizen data to remain within national borders, forcing eSIM providers to establish localised data handling agreements. This has led to the need for geographically distributed key management systems that comply with local data sovereignty requirements.

The regulatory trend is shifting towards continuous risk management, vulnerability disclosure, and secure-by-design principles. APAC regulators are working to create frameworks that allow international eSIM providers to operate while maintaining sovereign control over critical infrastructure. Achieving this balance involves clear guidelines on cloud architectures, key escrow arrangements, and runtime attestation mechanisms. Inspired by the NIS2 Directive, which classifies telecom as a key sector, APAC may soon require incident notification and risk mitigation measures. However, many mobile network operators remain unaware of eSIM runtime behaviours due to opaque OEM integrations.

This shift from static certification to dynamic, continuous monitoring represents a significant change. Organisations must now implement post-deployment security checks, runtime attestation capabilities, and mechanisms to revoke compromised components. While this approach adds complexity and costs, it is essential for creating sovereign oversight mechanisms that can detect and address vulnerabilities in real time. By deploying localised key management infrastructure with HSMs, providers can better meet data sovereignty requirements while maintaining efficiency through distributed security controls. These operational challenges highlight the importance of developing compliance strategies that balance global standards with local requirements.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Each regional compliance framework offers its own set of strengths and weaknesses when it comes to eSIM cloud encryption and key management. To navigate the global regulatory landscape effectively, providers must weigh these trade-offs carefully.

Under GDPR, the prescriptive approach lays out clear security requirements, such as mandatory use of strong encryption (AES-256) and robust key management protocols. While this clarity ensures high security standards, it also adds significant operational complexity. Providers often need to create separate encryption and key management systems for different jurisdictions, which drives up costs and complicates operations. Enforcement under GDPR is particularly strict, with Data Protection Authorities conducting proactive audits and imposing steep fines – up to €20 million or 4% of global turnover, whichever is higher. Additionally, NIS2 introduces personal liability for managers, making compliance even more critical.

In contrast, CCPA takes a principles-based approach, offering more flexibility by not mandating specific encryption algorithms. Instead, it requires organisations to implement "reasonable security procedures and practices appropriate to the nature of personal information". This allows providers greater freedom in designing their security measures. However, the lack of detailed standards can lead to uncertainty about what qualifies as "reasonable", resulting in inconsistent implementations. Unlike GDPR, CCPA enforcement is more reactive, relying on complaints and investigations by the California Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission.

The APAC region presents a different kind of challenge due to its fragmented regulatory environment. Countries in the region have varying requirements, ranging from Singapore’s GDPR-like Personal Data Protection Act to jurisdictions with less stringent standards. Some nations enforce strict data residency rules, while others focus on key localisation. This lack of uniformity forces providers to maintain multiple infrastructures, significantly increasing complexity and costs. Enforcement also varies widely across the region. Moreover, countries like Australia, Brazil, China, and the UAE are tightening their licensing and security requirements, adding further layers of complexity.

A growing tension exists between GSMA certification and newer regulatory frameworks. The GSMA TS.48 standard provides a consistent security baseline for eUICC across networks and regions. However, while GSMA certification assumes systems remain unaltered post-certification, frameworks like NIS2 and the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) demand continuous monitoring, vulnerability disclosure, and secure-by-design principles. For instance, the Kigen eUICC exploit revealed vulnerabilities in GSMA-certified platforms, highlighting the need for runtime verification mechanisms. With the CRA set to enforce mandatory vulnerability management at firmware and software levels by 2026 or 2027, providers must adapt their systems to include ongoing security checks, adding to operational demands.

Data localisation requirements also play a complex role. GDPR does not explicitly mandate data localisation but requires that data transfers outside the EU meet adequacy standards or include safeguards. This often leads organisations to invest in regional hardware security modules to ensure key localisation and prevent unauthorised access by non-EU entities. In APAC, data localisation rules vary significantly, with some jurisdictions enforcing strict residency requirements and others focusing on key management. While these measures enhance data sovereignty and reduce exposure to foreign government access, they limit flexibility in disaster recovery and global load balancing. Maintaining separate key management systems across regions increases the attack surface and complicates compliance, highlighting the need for a unified global strategy.

The shift towards mandatory encryption is reshaping compliance frameworks globally. Changes in HIPAA and PCI DSS now require encryption, eliminating ambiguity but increasing compliance costs, particularly for smaller providers. Similarly, multifactor authentication has transitioned from a recommendation to a requirement under NIS2, which mandates its use to secure sensitive systems. While this enhances security, it also necessitates greater investment in identity and access management systems.

Another emerging requirement is continuous runtime monitoring, which extends obligations beyond initial certification. Providers now need to implement post-deployment security checks, runtime attestation, and mechanisms to revoke compromised components. This aligns with the secure-by-design principles of NIS2 and the CRA but adds complexity and cost. Many mobile network operators lack visibility into eSIM runtime behaviour due to opaque integrations with original equipment manufacturers, creating compliance gaps that demand improved transparency and monitoring.

For global eSIM providers, adopting privacy by design is becoming essential. By embedding strong encryption and key management into systems from the start, organisations can avoid costly retrofits and ensure scalability as data sensitivity increases. Hardware-based trust anchors, such as embedded eSIM and Secure Element technologies, further support this approach. However, the upfront investment is substantial and may reduce flexibility for future adaptations.

As of early 2025, 144 countries have enacted data protection or consumer privacy laws, covering roughly 79–82% of the global population. This growing regulatory landscape is driving convergence towards stricter requirements for encryption, monitoring, and data sovereignty. Additionally, the EU AI Act – expected to be fully enforced by 2026 or 2027 – is poised to influence global regulations much like GDPR did. Providers that prioritise adaptable, sovereignty-focused architectures will be better equipped to meet these evolving standards.

Conclusion

The global approach to eSIM cloud encryption compliance highlights a clear split between rigid and adaptable regulatory frameworks. Europe leads with some of the strictest measures through GDPR and NIS2, which enforce specific encryption protocols like AES-256 and TLS 1.3, along with stringent data residency requirements and multifactor authentication for sensitive systems. The United States is not far behind, with the upcoming 2025 HIPAA Security Rule update set to make encryption a mandatory standard rather than an optional guideline. Meanwhile, the APAC region, once known for its flexibility, is tightening its policies. Countries such as Australia, Brazil, China, and the UAE are now imposing stricter licensing and security controls, signalling a shift toward more rigorous oversight. Regulators increasingly view eSIMs as telecom services requiring licensing and accountability, rather than as simple software applications.

Given these diverse regulatory landscapes, businesses must take proactive steps to stay ahead. Adopting the most demanding frameworks, like GDPR and NIS2, as a baseline can help organisations avoid costly adjustments down the line. This approach creates a robust compliance foundation that can be tailored to meet the requirements of less strict regions. Cloud-based SaaS solutions play a crucial role here, enabling consistent compliance management across multiple jurisdictions while minimising provisioning errors and maintaining control.

Technologies like Embedded eSIM (eUICC) and Secure Element (eSE) are pivotal for securing device identities, preventing cloning, and ensuring firmware integrity. By integrating these security features during the initial stages of device development, organisations can speed up the rollout of compliant products and simplify the complexities of global deployment.

Providers such as ZIM Connections, operating in over 200 destinations worldwide, must navigate this intricate regulatory environment by adhering to the highest regional standards. This includes securing GSMA certification, adopting advanced encryption methods like AES-256 and TLS 1.3, implementing multifactor authentication for administrative access, and establishing localised data handling agreements where necessary.

These measures, however, come with significant financial demands. Organisations must invest in secure key storage solutions, such as hardware security modules (HSMs), to meet localised key management requirements, especially under GDPR and NIS2. Notably, 42% of organisations have identified strong encryption and key management as critical to achieving digital sovereignty by 2025, viewing these investments as essential rather than optional. Additionally, independent audits are increasingly required to ensure that routing and logging practices align with published policies.

The trend towards stricter regulations shows no signs of slowing. The upcoming EU AI Act, expected to be fully enforced by 2026 or 2027, is likely to influence global standards, much like GDPR did. Companies that prioritise flexible, sovereignty-focused architectures and embed robust security measures from the start will be better positioned to meet these evolving demands. The shift from optional to mandatory encryption across major regulatory frameworks marks a significant change in compliance expectations. Organisations that act now will be better prepared to avoid penalties and operational setbacks, ensuring smoother transitions as regulations continue to evolve.

FAQs

What challenges do eSIM providers face in meeting regional encryption and compliance requirements?

eSIM providers encounter a maze of challenges when dealing with regional encryption and compliance rules. Each country has its own set of regulations governing data encryption, storage, and key management, and these can differ widely. For example, some nations demand that data be stored within their borders or insist on specific encryption protocols, adding layers of complexity for global providers.

Balancing these requirements while delivering secure and uninterrupted connectivity worldwide is no small feat. It often demands significant resources, as providers must also keep pace with changing laws. This means constant monitoring and fine-tuning of their platforms to ensure they remain compliant.

How do the CCPA and GDPR differ in their encryption requirements, and what does this mean for eSIM providers?

The CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act) and GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) take different stances on encryption, shaped by their specific regulatory goals. Both stress the importance of data security, but the GDPR demands stricter encryption protocols and key management, urging organisations to adopt ‘state-of-the-art’ measures for safeguarding personal data. Meanwhile, the CCPA leans more towards transparency and consumer rights, using encryption as a way to limit liability in the event of a data breach.

For eSIM providers, this means compliance efforts need to align with the requirements of each jurisdiction. Under the GDPR, providers must implement strong encryption measures, particularly for cross-border data transfers, to ensure data remains secure. In contrast, the CCPA requires clear communication about encryption practices and adherence to breach notification rules. Companies like ZIM Connections, which offer global eSIM services, should focus on flexible encryption and key management systems capable of meeting both regional and international regulations.

Why is key management vital for compliance in eSIM platforms, and what best practices should organisations adopt?

Key management plays a crucial role in ensuring compliance for eSIM platforms. It involves the secure handling, storage, and usage of encryption keys, which are essential for protecting sensitive user data. In regions like Europe, regulatory frameworks such as GDPR require strong encryption and key management to safeguard privacy and prevent unauthorised access.

To align with compliance requirements, organisations should consider the following practices:

• Centralised Key Management: Implement a unified system to manage encryption keys, reducing the chances of errors or mismanagement.
• Regular Key Rotation: Update encryption keys periodically to minimise potential vulnerabilities and enhance security.
• Access Control: Limit access to encryption keys based on specific roles and responsibilities to prevent misuse.
• Audit and Monitoring: Keep detailed logs and perform regular audits to ensure adherence to regional regulations.

Following these steps not only strengthens security but also helps organisations build trust and maintain compliance in various markets.

Related Blog Posts

• Checklist for eSIM API Validation
• Role-Based Access Control for eSIM Platforms
• Checklist for Scaling Business Telecom with eSIM
• Cross-Border Data Transfers: Regional Plan Tips