Why India can’t afford a shortcut in telecom security- but can’t afford delays either
At the center of this discussion is ITSAR, administered through NCCS. Under this framework, telecom equipment such as routers, switches, core network elements, and access devices must undergo structured security evaluation before deployment.
Why this matters: Lessons from recent breaches
Examples include Operation Sindoor, BSNL breaches, the AIIMS ransomware attack, and the BSNL broadband malware incident. These incidents illustrate how vulnerabilities in telecom and network infrastructure can result in significant operational and national-security consequences.
What these incidents reveal
Many attacks exploit weak authentication, poor access management, insecure default settings, weak firmware controls, and inadequate vulnerability assessment. These are precisely the weaknesses that rigorous telecom security testing seeks to identify.
Global direction: Tightening, not loosening
Across the world, telecom security regulations are moving toward stronger oversight and deeper scrutiny. On 23 March 2026, the U.S. FCC expanded its Covered List framework to include routers produced in foreign countries, highlighting growing concerns around communications security and critical infrastructure protection.
In this landscape, India’s approach stands out. The mandatory telecom security certification framework created by NCCS under ITSAR is among the first and most structured of its kind globally. Countries such as the UK, Germany, and Australia have shown interest in understanding India’s telecom security assurance framework.
The emerging concern: Security without timely outcomes
Industry stakeholders increasingly point to the absence of timely regulatory outcomes. Applications should ideally culminate in approval, rejection, conditional approval, or documented remediation requirements.
The often-overlooked impact on India’s laboratory ecosystem
India has invested significantly in specialised telecom security laboratories and cyber-security expertise dedicated to ITSAR compliance. Prolonged certification delays can affect capacity utilisation, investment recovery, planning, and talent retention.
The pragmatic Indian compromise
India can pursue a balanced path that respects both commercial timelines and national security imperatives. A graded, time-bound certification model could provide provisional approvals where appropriate, maintain transparent gap registers, and enforce remediation timelines.
A call to action for policymakers
First, establish clearly defined review timelines. Second, introduce greater transparency through publication of aggregate certification metrics. Third, adopt risk-based certification models supported by conditional approvals and remediation timelines.
Conclusion: The next stage of maturity
India’s telecom security debate should not be framed as security versus growth. The country needs both. Strong standards, capable laboratories, transparent processes, and time-bound decisions are complementary objectives.
If India can combine uncompromising security standards with predictable and efficient execution, ITSAR will not merely protect India’s networks-it could become a global benchmark for telecom security assurance.
