Ban on 1C Software in Ukraine: What It Means for Public Accounting
The decision to include 1C software products and related systems in the official list of prohibited software became, for many accountants and managers, not just news but a point of no return. The state has finally closed the door on programs that for years were the “workhorse” of accounting, especially in the public sector. And this decision goes much deeper than a simple ban on specific software. It is important to immediately fix the main point. This is not a recommendation and not a gradual “let’s see how it goes”, but a clear prohibition on the use of sanctioned software in systems that process state data, finances, personal information, and official records. That is, where accounting is not merely an internal matter but part of national security. For accountants, this decision feels particularly painful. 1C and BAS products shaped accounting culture in Ukraine for decades. They were used to build:
- accounting in budgetary institutions
- payroll and HR systems
- management accounting and document workflow
- financial reporting for government authorities
In effect, the ban means: everything we were used to as a standard is no longer acceptable. And here it is important to understand the logic of the state, so as not to perceive this decision as chaotic or purely political. The key reason is cybersecurity and control over data. Accounting programs do not simply calculate numbers. They store:
- financial flows
- personal data of employees
- information on budgets, procurement, salaries
- internal structures of organizations
In wartime conditions and after large-scale cyberattacks, it became obvious: dependence on sanctioned or Russian software is a direct risk. Even if the program “works autonomously” and has long been installed, its origin and architecture alone mean a potential vulnerability.
Time for Action analyzed all confirmed information and reached an important conclusion: this step is not about accountants and not about the difficulty of transition, but about a change in the philosophy of public accounting. For the first time, a single open register of prohibited software with legal force has been created. This means that arguments like “we have no alternative” or “we didn’t have time yet” no longer work. At the same time, the state clearly defined who exactly the ban applies to. It primarily concerns:
- state authorities
- local self-government bodies
- state-owned enterprises
- critical information infrastructure facilities
- systems with official or classified information
That is, private business is formally not the direct addressee of this decision, but in practice the signal is clear for it as well. If the state recognizes certain software as dangerous for its own finances and data, trust in such a tool in commercial accounting inevitably declines too. For the accounting community, this means several parallel processes that have already begun:
- a mass review of accounting systems
- a search for alternative software
- the need to migrate databases
- retraining of personnel
- revision of internal accounting regulations
This is difficult, expensive, and psychologically exhausting, especially for budgetary institutions with limited resources. But at the same time, it is a chance to finally move away from outdated solutions that for years kept accounting in a semi-manual mode.
An important nuance is that the register of prohibited software is open and dynamic. It is updated not once a year and not behind closed doors, but within a few days after sanctions or court decisions are introduced. This creates a new reality of responsibility, where an accountant, IT specialist, or manager can no longer say they “didn’t know”. In a broader sense, this decision fits into the reform of state cybersecurity and the fulfillment of international obligations. Alignment with European cybersecurity standards means not only beautiful words about a digital state, but also painful technical decisions that affect the daily work of thousands of people.
In conclusion, it should be said directly. The ban on 1C is not the end of accounting, but the end of the illusion that accounting can exist outside security. The state has made a choice in favor of control, responsibility, and long-term resilience. For accountants, this means a period of adaptation, mistakes, and learning. But at the same time, it is an opportunity to finally break free from technological dependence that for years seemed convenient but turned out to be dangerous.
And the faster accounting becomes not only accurate but also secure, the fewer surprises the system will face in the future.
About the Author
Related posts:
How the EU Plans to Restrict Russian Diplomats’ Movement and What It Means for European Security 
Ethical Hacking Without Owner Consent: How the State Is Changing Cybersecurity Rules 
Massive Phishing Attack Disguised as the State Tax Service: How Email Fraud Targets Ukrainians 
What the teacher salary increase in the 2026 state budget really means
