Case study — KryptoKnight × TetraMatrix

DORA readiness for KryptoKnight — delivered and proven.

KryptoKnight, a CySEC-regulated crypto-asset service provider, needed to comply with DORA — Regulation (EU) 2022/2554 — and to prove its security posture to the regulator. TetraMatrix delivered the full compliance programme, then validated it with an authorised, nine-domain penetration test of the production platform.

6/6
DORA chapters addressed
9
penetration-test domains
43
API endpoints tested
6/6
findings remediated
The client

KryptoKnight — a regulated crypto platform with no room for error

KryptoKnight Ltd operates a production crypto-asset platform — custodial wallets, fiat on/off-ramps, KYC/AML onboarding — under the supervision of the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC).

As a microenterprise (Art. 2, Recommendation 2003/361/EC), KryptoKnight qualifies for DORA's Article 16 simplified ICT risk-management framework — but "simplified" still means a documented risk framework, incident reporting to CySEC within regulatory deadlines, resilience testing, and full third-party risk governance, all with evidence the regulator can inspect.

At a glance

Client
KryptoKnight Ltd
Sector
Crypto-asset services (CASP)
Regulator
CySEC (Cyprus)
Regulation
DORA — (EU) 2022/2554
Classification
Microenterprise — Art. 16
Engagement
Compliance + offensive security
The challenge

Comply, submit, and stand up to scrutiny

DORA applies to KryptoKnight directly — no transition period, no exemptions for being small. Three problems had to be solved at once:

01 — SCOPE

Right-size the framework

Article 16 removes the internal-audit mandate, the three-lines-of-defence model and TLPT — but every other obligation stays. The programme had to be lean without leaving gaps a CySEC review could expose.

02 — EVIDENCE

Turn controls into artefacts

A working control isn't compliance — a documented, inspectable one is. Every requirement needed to map to a named implementation on the live platform and a formal deliverable ready for submission.

03 — PROOF

Verify the security claims

The DORA package asserts a hardened platform. Those claims needed independent validation: an authorised penetration test of the real production environment — frontend, API, infrastructure and third-party integrations.

The approach — Workstream 01

DORA compliance programme, chapter by chapter

Every applicable DORA requirement was mapped to a concrete technical implementation running on KryptoKnight's platform — with named evidence for each:

CHAPTER II

ICT Risk Management Framework

Art. 5–16
  • RBAC with revocable server-side sessions, strict admin/user separation, per-key API permissions
  • Strong authentication — 2FA/TOTP, bcrypt hashing, verified reset flows
  • Fireblocks MPC custody — no single private-key exposure; HSTS, RSA-SHA512 and HMAC-SHA256 webhook signatures
  • Real-time anomaly detection — strict rate limiting with critical security alerting
  • Formal ICT asset inventory — 26 assets across 6 categories
  • BCP/DRP with defined RTO/RPO, backup policy, crisis communication plan
  • Full audit trail on all sensitive and administrative actions
CHAPTER III

Incident Management, Classification & Reporting

Art. 17–23
  • Complete technical event audit trail — every webhook-sourced incident captured (deposits, withdrawals, failures, blocked transactions)
  • 13 event types processed with a 0% error rate
  • Major-incident classification criteria per Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) 2024/1772
  • 3-stage CySEC reporting timeline: 4h initial · 72h intermediate · 1 month final
  • Client notification procedure defined
CHAPTER IV

Digital Operational Resilience Testing

Art. 24–25 · TLPT not applicable
  • Simplified testing programme adopted under Art. 25
  • Quarterly ASV scans running against all production endpoints
  • Independent penetration test executed (Workstream 02)
  • Backup / recovery restoration testing framework defined
CHAPTER V

ICT Third-Party Risk Management

Art. 28–44
  • Third-party provider register — 9 providers (Fireblocks, BitGo, Kraken, Sumsub and others) with certifications logged
  • Art. 30-compliant contractual addendum incorporated into the MSA
  • CTPP designation check — no provider on the ESA critical list
  • Concentration-risk mitigation — dual custody providers, no single-point dependency
  • ~95% API-level integration coverage across custody, policy engine, AML screening and Travel Rule
01

ICT Risk Register

20 risks on a 5×5 matrix, with treatment plans for every High and Very High exposure.

02

Third-Party Provider Register

9 providers assessed against the Art. 30 contractual checklist.

03

ICT Asset Inventory

26 assets classified across hardware, software/SaaS, cloud, data and network.

04

Resilience Strategy

Standalone, board-approved Digital Operational Resilience Strategy — 10 sections.

05

Compliance Assessment Report

Full DORA gap assessment — prepared and submitted to CySEC.

06

CySEC Self-Assessment

Regulator's DORA self-assessment questionnaire completed and filed.

The approach — Workstream 02

Then we attacked the platform

An authorised, grey-box security assessment of KryptoKnight's production platform — the same environment the DORA package describes — across nine domains:

5.1

Network & Infrastructure

DNS enumeration incl. zone-transfer attempt and SPF/DKIM/DMARC, full TCP port scanning of both production IPs, TLS/cipher configuration, Traefik reverse-proxy review.

nmapAXFRTLS
5.2

HTTP Response Headers

Full security-header enumeration — CSP, HSTS, X-Frame-Options, COEP/COOP/CORP — plus version-disclosure and cookie-attribute review.

CSPHSTSSameSite
5.3

API Security

43 endpoints enumerated and tested: auth bypass, JWT algorithm-confusion, IDOR and privilege escalation, rate-limit bypass, SQL/NoSQL/OS/LDAP injection, mass assignment, fuzzing.

jwt_toolffufIDOR
5.4

Authentication & Sessions

Registration and login flows, username enumeration (direct and timing-based), 2FA/TOTP brute-force and replay, password-reset token security, per-device session revocation.

TOTPenumeration
5.5

Frontend / Client-Side

Reflected, stored and DOM-based XSS across all user-controllable inputs; clickjacking; CSP bypass via script gadgets and JSONP; client-side sensitive-data exposure.

XSSCSP bypass
5.6

Webhooks & Integrations

Fireblocks webhook RSA-SHA512 signature bypass, replay and body-manipulation attempts; SumSub HMAC-SHA256 forgery attempts; API-key entropy and scoping.

RSA-SHA512HMAC
5.7

Dependency / Supply Chain

Backend and frontend dependency audits against NVD, GitHub Advisory DB and OSV; container base-image CVE assessment.

npm auditOSV
5.8

DAST

Full OWASP ZAP spider and active scan in authenticated mode — 38 pages crawled, 147 attack patterns across the OWASP Top 10.

OWASP ZAP 2.17
5.9

Performance / Resilience

k6 load testing against frontend assets and authentication endpoints — ramp to 10 VUs, spike to 25 VUs, controlled ramp-down.

k6

Findings & remediation

Six findings — all low-risk, all remediated and verified. Zero critical or high-severity issues.

IDFindingRiskStatus
F-01Insufficient HTTP response security headersLowFixed
F-02Missing Content-Security-Policy headerLowFixed
F-03HSTS max-age below regulatory minimumLowFixed
F-04Web server version disclosureLowFixed
F-05CORS policy accepting wildcard originLowFixed
F-06Dependency security advisory (ORM)LowFixed
The results

Compliance you can put in front of a regulator

0
critical or high-severity findings
6/6
findings remediated and verified
147
attack patterns executed (DAST)
0%
error rate across 13 incident event types

"KryptoKnight's DORA submission package is complete, internally consistent, and backed by an independent penetration test of the production platform — compliance that survives scrutiny, not just paperwork."

— Engagement outcome, KryptoKnight × TetraMatrix

DORA applies to you. Ready?

TetraMatrix delivers end-to-end DORA compliance programmes and independent security assessments for EU-regulated financial entities — scoped to your size, evidenced for your regulator.

Start the conversation