When Software Changes, Should Your Escrow Arrangement Change Too?
SAP’s latest support announcement highlights why organisations should reassess the technical and contractual dependencies behind critical software.
Software changes over time. Applications are upgraded, infrastructure is replaced, integrations evolve and support arrangements change. Yet the software escrow arrangements established to protect important business applications may not always be reviewed alongside those developments.
For organisations that depend on third party software, this creates a practical continuity question: does the existing escrow arrangement still reflect the application and the dependency it was originally intended to protect?
A recent announcement from SAP provides a timely example of why this matters.
What SAP’s October 2026 Announcement Tells Us About Software Dependencies
On 7 October 2026, SAP published further clarification about the support arrangements affecting certain SAP Business Suite 7 and SAP NetWeaver environments after 2030.
SAP confirmed that mainstream maintenance for Business Suite 7 remains available until 31 December 2027, with optional extended maintenance continuing until 31 December 2030.
However, the announcement also clarified that several third party support arrangements will expire at the end of 2030, including existing arrangements relating to certain third party databases and Java technologies used in legacy SAP environments.
According to SAP, the expiry of these arrangements will limit the database-specific and Java-related support it can provide to affected customers, including under customer-specific maintenance.
For organisations operating affected systems, the announcement raises important questions about their technical dependencies, migration planning and long-term support options.
SAP has outlined transition paths and encourages affected customers to assess their systems and plan accordingly.
The wider lesson extends beyond SAP.
An application’s continuity requirements can change even when the application itself remains operational.
A system may continue performing its intended business function while the technologies, support arrangements or specialist capabilities required to maintain it are changing.
That distinction matters when assessing software continuity risk.
Why an Existing Software Escrow Arrangement May Need Reviewing
Software escrow arrangements are generally established around a defined software dependency and an agreed continuity purpose.
Depending on the arrangement, this may include depositing source code, technical documentation and other specified materials with an independent escrow provider. Contractual provisions determine the applicable obligations, release conditions and permitted use.
However, the technical requirements associated with the protected application may change over time.
Consider an organisation that established a software escrow arrangement several years ago.
Since then, the software provider may have introduced a new application version, changed its development environment, added third party components or migrated parts of the application to different infrastructure.
The original escrow agreement may remain in effect, while the materials deposited or the technical assumptions underlying the arrangement require reassessment.
The question is whether the existing control remains appropriate for the software as it operates today.
As discussed in our earlier article, Software Escrow Review: What Should a Continuity Control Review Actually Test?, reviewing an arrangement requires more than confirming that an escrow deposit exists.
Five Areas to Examine During a Software Escrow Review
1. Has the application or its architecture changed?
Application upgrades can introduce new components, development frameworks, dependencies and deployment requirements.
Organisations should establish whether material changes have occurred since the escrow arrangement was implemented or last reviewed.
For example, does the deposited source code correspond to the relevant application version? Have new technical components been introduced? Has the application moved from an internally hosted environment to a cloud-based service?
These changes may affect the materials and technical information required for the intended continuity purpose.
Where an application has moved to a hosted model, the organisation may also need to review whether its existing arrangements appropriately address the dependencies associated with SaaS escrow.
2. Are the deposited materials still appropriate?
An escrow arrangement can only be assessed meaningfully against what it is intended to support.
The review should consider the materials required under the agreement, the deposit records available and any relevant updates or changes.
This may include examining whether the specified source code, technical documentation, configuration information or other agreed materials reflect the current application requirements.
The existence of a deposit does not, by itself, establish that the materials are complete, technically usable or suitable for a particular recovery objective.
Those are separate questions requiring appropriate evidence.
For traditional source code escrow, it is useful to establish which software version and supporting materials are covered by the existing deposit.
3. Have critical third party dependencies changed?
Modern applications may rely on external databases, libraries, infrastructure services, integrations and specialist technical knowledge.
Changes to these dependencies can affect the ability to maintain, support or operate an application independently of its original provider.
The SAP announcement demonstrates why understanding such dependencies matters.
In the affected SAP environments, certain future support limitations arise from changes to arrangements involving third party technologies.
For organisations reviewing an escrow arrangement, the relevant questions include which external components are required, who is responsible for supporting them, and whether access or use rights would be available under the circumstances being considered.
Access to source code should not be assumed to resolve every external technical or contractual dependency.
This is an important part of assessing third party vendor risk, particularly when essential operational capability depends on several independent providers.
4. Does the Technical Verification scope remain relevant?
Where Technical Verification forms part of an escrow arrangement, the organisation should understand what procedures were performed, what materials were assessed and what the results establish.
A verification process conducted against an earlier application version may no longer answer every relevant technical question following a material change.
The review should therefore consider whether the verification scope remains aligned with the application and its intended continuity purpose.
Verification may provide evidence about defined aspects of deposited material, depending on the procedures performed.
It should not automatically be interpreted as proof that the application can be rebuilt, restored or operated independently under every possible failure scenario.
5. Do the contractual provisions still support the intended response?
Technical changes should also prompt consideration of the applicable agreement.
Software escrow agreements can contain defined deposit obligations, update requirements, release conditions and permitted use rights.
These provisions should be examined against the organisation’s current software dependency and the circumstances the arrangement is intended to address.
For example, have the responsible parties changed? Are the deposit and update obligations still appropriate? Do the agreed release conditions address the relevant failure scenarios?
The answers depend on the actual agreement.
A contractual review should consider both the rights available to the beneficiary and the practical technical requirements associated with exercising those rights.
When Should an Escrow Review Take Place?
An annual or periodic review can provide a useful opportunity to assess an existing arrangement. However, significant changes to an application or provider relationship may justify an earlier review.
Relevant triggers can include a major software upgrade, changes to hosting or deployment architecture, introduction of critical third party components, migration to SaaS, changes in provider ownership or support arrangements, and material changes to the business processes supported by the application.
Not every change will require an amendment to the escrow agreement or a new deposit.
The decision should reflect the nature of the change, the criticality of the software and the adequacy of the existing arrangements.
In some circumstances, reviewing the deposit or updating the agreed materials may be sufficient. In others, the organisation may need to reconsider the verification scope, contractual provisions or wider continuity approach.
The same principle applies to broader business continuity planning: arrangements should be reassessed when material changes affect the dependencies they are intended to address.
What Should Organisations Take From SAP’s Announcement?
SAP’s announcement concerns specific legacy technology environments and their future support arrangements. It does not establish a requirement for those customers to implement software escrow.
For affected SAP customers, the immediate priority is to understand the implications for their particular systems and evaluate the transition options available through SAP and its partners.
For organisations managing other critical software dependencies, the announcement provides a useful reminder of how technology and support arrangements can evolve.
A continuity decision made when a software application was first procured may need to be revisited as its technical and operational circumstances change.
That includes any existing software escrow arrangement.
Keeping Software Escrow Aligned With the Dependency
At ESCROWSURE, our approach to software escrow is informed by the criticality of the software, the potential consequences of losing provider support and the relevance of the control to the identified risk.
An existing escrow arrangement should be reviewed in that context.
The agreement, deposited materials, applicable Technical Verification and wider continuity arrangements should be considered according to their defined scope and intended purpose.
For organisations relying on important third party software, a practical starting point is to establish what has changed since the arrangement was implemented and whether those changes affect the protection originally intended.
An escrow arrangement should remain aligned with the software dependency it was established to address.
Where the dependency changes materially, the control deserves another look.
If your organisation has an existing software escrow arrangement, contact ESCROWSURE to discuss whether a review of its current scope may be appropriate.
Source: SAP News Center, 7 October 2026. Planning Beyond 2030: What SAP Business Suite 7 and SAP NetWeaver Customers Using Third-Party Databases or Java Need to Know.
SAP’s announcement is referenced as an example of changing software support dependencies. The discussion of software escrow review considerations represents ESCRWOSURE’s risk-based perspective and does not imply that SAP recommends or requires software escrow.
