—

The financial services industry operates on a foundation of trust, a delicate construct in an era where digital threats loom like storm clouds on the horizon. From global banking giants to nimble fintech startups, every institution is a node in the critical infrastructure that powers our economies. It’s a high-stakes environment, which is why the arrival of new regulations can often feel like another wave in a relentless regulatory tsunami. The latest, and arguably most transformative, is the EU’s Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA). Fully effective since early 2024, it was designed to be the digital armor for Europe’s financial system. Yet, months after the fanfare, a worrying reality is setting in.

Recent industry research paints a stark picture: a staggering 96% of financial organizations across Europe, the Middle East, and Africa feel they still fall short of the resilience standards DORA demands. This isn’t just a minor gap; it’s a chasm of unpreparedness. The legislation, with its stringent focus on everything from incident reporting and third-party risk to advanced resilience testing, was intended to build confidence. Instead, for many, it has exposed a deep-seated fragility. The question is no longer just “Are we compliant?” but a more existential one: “Are we truly resilient?” The struggle to answer this question reveals complex challenges, not only in technology and process but in the very culture of risk management itself.

The DORA Disconnect: Why Compliance Doesn’t Equal Confidence

For many Chief Information Security Officers (CISOs) and their teams, the run-up to the DORA deadline felt like a frantic sprint. Now, they find themselves in a grueling marathon with no finish line in sight. The legislation’s impact has rippled far beyond the server room, placing unprecedented strain on the human element of cybersecurity. The same research highlights that 41% of organizations point to the immense pressure on their IT and security teams as a primary obstacle to achieving DORA compliance. This is more than just a logistical challenge; it’s a burnout crisis in the making.

The Human Cost of Compliance

Cybersecurity has always been a high-pressure field, a relentless cat-and-mouse game with threat actors. But layering complex, sprawling regulations like DORA onto already overburdened teams can be the breaking point. “We’re seeing a ‘compliance paradox’,” notes one senior risk analyst at a London-based consultancy. “The very regulation designed to make the system safer is inadvertently burning out the people who are its first line of defense. They’re being asked to refactor vendor contracts, run complex new tests, and overhaul incident reporting, all while fending off daily phishing attempts and monitoring for active threats.” This pressure cooker environment leads to fatigue, mistakes, and, ultimately, a weaker security posture—the very opposite of DORA’s intent.

The trap many organizations fall into is treating DORA as just another project to be added to the pile. It becomes a separate, siloed workstream, a checklist to be completed and filed away. This piecemeal approach is not only inefficient but also fundamentally misunderstands the spirit of the regulation. DORA isn’t a one-time fix; it’s a call for a permanent, cultural shift towards holistic resilience.

From Siloed Tasks to a Unified Strategy

The antidote to this compliance-driven burnout is to reframe the entire endeavor. Instead of viewing DORA as an isolated mandate, leading firms are integrating its requirements into a broader, more strategic framework using tools like a Data Resilience Maturity Model (DRMM). This model provides a structured path to assess, measure, and improve resilience across the entire organization. It transforms DORA from a source of stress into a valuable blueprint.

By adopting this holistic view, IT and security teams are no longer just jumping between disconnected tasks—patching a server, then reviewing a DORA clause, then responding to an alert. Instead, their day-to-day activities are aligned with a single, unified goal: improving the organization’s overall resilience maturity. This approach doesn’t just reduce the immediate pressure; it builds a more robust and sustainable defense over the long term. It allows leaders to strategically allocate resources, prioritize initiatives based on actual risk, and demonstrate tangible progress to the board and regulators alike. It shifts the conversation from “Have we met Article 11?” to “How have our testing results improved our recovery time objective this quarter?”

The Unseen Battlefield: Navigating the Third-Party Minefield

If there is one area where DORA has truly thrown organizations for a loop, it is in the vast, interconnected web of third-party risk. A full third (34%) of financial institutions cited managing their external vendors as the single most challenging part of implementing the regulation. This isn’t surprising when you consider the modern enterprise. The average financial firm relies on an ecosystem of nearly 90 third-party partners for everything from cloud hosting and payment processing to customer relationship management and data analytics. Each of these connections is a potential vector for a cyberattack.

Exposing the “Black Box” Illusion

For years, many organizations operated with a “black box” mentality toward their vendors. They would sign a contract for a service, and as long as the service worked, they didn’t probe too deeply into the provider’s own security and resilience practices. The assumption was that resilience was “built-in.” DORA systematically dismantles this illusion. It forces firms to become intimately familiar with the operational resilience of their critical suppliers.

Imagine a mid-sized bank that uses a major cloud provider for its core infrastructure. That cloud provider, in turn, might rely on dozens of smaller, specialized firms for services like data encryption, identity verification, or network monitoring. A vulnerability or outage at one of these fourth or fifth-party vendors could cascade up the chain, potentially bringing the bank’s customer-facing services to a halt. Previously, the bank might have been completely blind to this dependency. DORA demands they turn on the lights. It requires them to map these intricate supply chains and understand the concentration risk—what would happen if a single, dominant provider like AWS or Microsoft Azure went down?

The New Vendor Vetting: Questions Every Financial Firm Must Ask

Under DORA, the due diligence process for vendors has evolved from a simple questionnaire into a forensic investigation. The questions are no longer just about certifications; they are about demonstrable capabilities.

• Exit Strategies: Can we seamlessly migrate our data and operations to an alternative provider or bring them in-house if your service fails or the contract is terminated? What is the practical, tested plan for this?
• Resilience Testing: Can you provide the full, unredacted results of your own operational resilience tests? Will you participate in our firm-wide, scenario-based testing exercises?
• Sub-contractor Transparency: Who are your critical sub-contractors? What are their resilience postures, and what visibility can you provide into their security controls?
• Incident Reporting: How will you notify us of a security incident or operational disruption on your end, and how quickly? Do your reporting timelines align with our stringent DORA obligations?

Redefining Partnerships with Shared Responsibility

This new level of scrutiny necessitates a fundamental renegotiation of relationships. The days of generic Service Level Agreements (SLAs) focused solely on uptime are over. DORA pushes for comprehensive contracts that explicitly outline a Shared Responsibility Model. This document clearly delineates where the vendor’s security responsibilities end and the financial institution’s begin. It’s a complex, collaborative effort, requiring legal, risk, IT, and management teams to work in concert. While it’s no small task to renegotiate contracts across an entire vendor portfolio, it’s an essential step in moving from a state of assumed security to one of verified resilience.

Trial by Fire: The Imperative of Rigorous Resilience Testing

Perhaps the most practical, and for many, the most daunting, aspect of DORA is its uncompromising stance on testing. Data reveals a significant lag in this area: nearly a quarter of EMEA financial firms have not yet established regular data recovery and continuity testing, and a similar number have yet to conduct the kind of comprehensive digital operational resilience testing DORA mandates. In an age where breaches are not a matter of ‘if’ but ‘when,’ this is a gamble that organizations simply cannot afford to take.

Moving Beyond “Fear of Finding”: The Power of a Controlled Failure

There’s a deep-seated psychological barrier to rigorous testing: the fear of what you might find. It’s easier to maintain confidence in a disaster recovery plan that has never been activated than to run a full-scale simulation and watch it fail. But an untested plan is not a plan; it’s a prayer. DORA demands that firms move beyond this “fear of finding” and embrace testing as a powerful learning tool.

Think of it like a fire drill. You don’t run a fire drill hoping the building will burn down; you run it to find the blocked exits, the confusing signage, and the communication breakdowns in a controlled environment, so you can fix them before a real fire breaks out. Similarly, resilience testing is about creating a controlled failure to uncover hidden weaknesses. A successful test isn’t one where everything goes perfectly; it’s one that yields valuable insights that make the organization stronger.

What Does “Good” Testing Look Like Under DORA?

DORA raises the bar far beyond simple backup restoration tests. It calls for advanced, sophisticated testing methodologies, including, for the most critical institutions, Threat-Led Penetration Testing (TLPT). This is a highly realistic simulation where a team of ethical hackers mimics the tactics, techniques, and procedures of real-world threat actors to test the organization’s live production systems.

Beyond TLPT, robust DORA-aligned testing should involve:

• Scenario-Based Drills: Simulating plausible but severe disruption scenarios, such as a multi-day ransomware attack, the corruption of critical production data, or the sudden failure of a key third-party provider.
• Full-Stack Recovery: Testing the recovery not just of raw data, but of the entire application stack, including networks, dependencies, and configurations, to ensure services can be restored within defined business objectives.
• Cross-Functional Participation: Involving not just IT and security, but also business line owners, legal, communications, and executive leadership, to test the human response and decision-making processes under pressure.

These tests might knock organizational confidence in the short term, as they almost invariably uncover uncomfortable truths. But the long-term gain is immeasurable. It replaces fragile, untested assumptions with the hard-won confidence that comes from having faced a simulated crisis and emerged with a clear, actionable plan for improvement.

DORA is not the final destination on the path to resilience; it is the starting block. For financial institutions across the EU, the choice is clear. They can treat this regulation as another burdensome compliance exercise, increasing the pressure on their teams and achieving only a superficial level of security. Or, they can seize it as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ask the hard questions, challenge long-held assumptions, and fundamentally re-architect their approach to resilience. By embracing a holistic strategy, interrogating their entire third-party ecosystem, and committing to rigorous, realistic testing, they can build a foundation of operational resilience that not only satisfies the regulators but, more importantly, earns the unwavering trust of their customers and fortifies the financial system for the challenges of tomorrow.

—

Source: https://www.techradar.com