API trust. Payment integrity. Evidence.Atlant Security
Fintech/PentestBY ATLANT SECURITY

Requirements

Fintech pentests, DORA and PCI DSS: define the scope before the label

Separate legal-entity obligations, card-data scope and product-security objectives.

Discuss your requirements
An illustrative payments engineering workspace with test devices

For the engagement owner. Determine the entity, activity and data scope first. A fintech label does not settle DORA applicability, PCI DSS scope or the coverage of a penetration test.

Identify the regulated activity

A fintech label can describe a regulated payment institution, a software supplier or several different entities in one group. Determine which entity provides the service and which obligations apply to it. DORA applicability and selection for TLPT are related but distinct questions.

Three scoping questions. Entity: Who operates the regulated activity?; Data and service: Which systems support the obligation?; Assessment: What evidence must the test provide?
Working model 01Three scoping questionsIllustrative planning diagram. Adapt the decisions to your authorised scope.
Read diagram text
Entity
Who operates the regulated activity?
Data and service
Which systems support the obligation?
Assessment
What evidence must the test provide?

Map payment-card scope separately

PCI DSS concerns payment-card data and the systems within its defined scope. A financial application is not automatically identical to a cardholder-data environment. Work with the responsible compliance team or assessor to identify the relevant boundaries and evidence expectations before defining the test.

An illustrative business team reviewing documents together in a meeting room
Operational perspectiveAgree the control decisions with the people who own the service.Generated illustrative setting; not a client location.

Keep product risks visible

Tenant isolation, service-token authority and transaction-state handling may matter even where a particular regulatory framework does not apply. Describe these business objectives explicitly. A test designed only around a framework label can omit the product behaviour most important to customers.

Avoid broad assurance labels. Technical pentest: Evidence for the agreed technical scope; PCI DSS workstream: Determine applicable card-data scope; DORA TLPT workstream: Confirm the advanced-testing process
Working model 02Avoid broad assurance labelsIllustrative planning diagram. Adapt the decisions to your authorised scope.
Read diagram text
Technical pentest
Evidence for the agreed technical scope
PCI DSS workstream
Determine applicable card-data scope
DORA TLPT workstream
Confirm the advanced-testing process

Avoid overclaiming the result

A technical assessment reports observed findings and limitations. It does not award universal DORA, PCI or GDPR compliance. Align the report with the requested evidence, keep regulatory conclusions with the appropriate process and plan retests for the controls the engineering team changes.

Record the purpose of evidence. Decision owner: Who determines applicability and use; Coverage: Systems, roles and methods checked; Remaining work: Other assessments and unresolved gaps
Working model 03Record the purpose of evidenceIllustrative planning diagram. Adapt the decisions to your authorised scope.
Read diagram text
Decision owner
Who determines applicability and use
Coverage
Systems, roles and methods checked
Remaining work
Other assessments and unresolved gaps

Separate the entity from the product architecture

A fintech product may involve several legal entities, regulated activities and service providers. Identify which entity operates the relevant service and who owns the applicable obligations. Then map the systems that support the activity. Do not infer a legal classification from the use of payment APIs, a bank partnership or a marketing category. The technical team can supply architecture and data-flow evidence, while the responsible legal and compliance functions determine applicability.

A scoping note should record the decision owner and unresolved questions. That prevents a provider proposal from quietly becoming the organisation's legal interpretation merely because it contains the right regulatory acronyms.

Keep assurance claims proportionate to coverage

For a defined technical assessment, state the applications, identities, environments and methods actually covered. Explain whether cardholder-data systems, supporting services or third-party boundaries are included in the agreed work. A successful API assessment does not by itself establish PCI DSS compliance. Similarly, a report mentioning DORA is not evidence that a required advanced threat-led exercise was completed. Map each requested deliverable to its intended use instead of issuing one broad assurance label.

The bank pentest versus DORA TLPT guide explains the difference between routine technical testing and an authority-governed advanced exercise. For the underlying TLPT delivery model, see the TIBER-EU and DORA guide.

Use one coherent scope with explicit purpose

Teams can often reuse architecture, ownership and evidence preparation across assurance workstreams. Reuse should not erase differences in objectives, methods or acceptance criteria. Build a matrix connecting each business decision or requirement to the relevant test activity, evidence and owner. Mark where another assessment or specialist review is still required. This makes procurement more efficient without claiming that every obligation has been satisfied by the same test.

At closure, retain the tested version, scope limitations and outstanding decisions. If the product moves sensitive processing to another provider or adds a new service identity, revisit the relevant boundary rather than assuming an earlier report automatically covers the change. The useful outcome is a clear, supportable statement about what was tested and what the organisation still needs to establish.

Keep assurance work coherent. Map the obligations: Connect each to an accountable owner; Reuse preparation: Share accurate architecture and scope inputs; Preserve distinctions: State what each result establishes
Working model 04Keep assurance work coherentIllustrative planning diagram. Adapt the decisions to your authorised scope.
Read diagram text
Map the obligations
Connect each to an accountable owner
Reuse preparation
Share accurate architecture and scope inputs
Preserve distinctions
State what each result establishes

Put the guidance to work

Use the readiness checklist to document assumptions, or inspect the fictional Fintech AG report for evidence and treatment-plan examples. Contact Atlant Security with a non-sensitive description of your scope.

Primary sources

General information, not a compliance opinion. Confirm legal applicability and testing requirements for your entity and jurisdiction.

This guide and the related sector publications linked above are published by Atlant Security. Technical examples are planning examples, not claims about completed client tests.

LET’S START A CONVERSATION

Define the scope.
Take the next step.

Your systems, operating constraints and security objectives. A clear starting point for the test.

Discuss your pentest