Venedy
Three regulatory frameworks interlock. They differ in scope but share the same principle: technical measures that are appropriate to the risk and demonstrable.
Appropriate technical measures to protect personal data, including regular review of their effectiveness.
Risk management, reporting obligations, and management-level accountability for essential and important entities.
Digital operational resilience, including regular testing of ICT systems, of which APIs are a central part.
From the inside out: GDPR applies to every organization handling personal data, NIS2 additionally to 18 critical sectors, DORA to the financial sector.
What this means concretely for APIs
You must be able to show that relevant endpoints were tested, what was found in the process, and how it is being handled. A score without evidence is not enough in an audit. An API leak is also a notifiable incident, with deadlines and consequences.
What is at stake
GDPR sanctions violations of the security of processing (Art. 32) under the lower fine tier with up to 10 million euros or 2% of worldwide annual turnover, whichever amount is higher. More severe violations reach up to 20 million euros or 4%.
Auditors don't want a score, they want proof: which endpoint, which test, which result, how it was handled.
From finding to evidence
This is exactly where a traceable finding comes in: every Venedy finding brings its own record of who decided what and why. That same record becomes the compliance evidence, classified per finding under DORA and NIS2. The evidence falls out as a byproduct of the assessment, not as a separate chore.
Sources
- NIS2 Directive European Commission, 2024
- Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) EIOPA, 2025
- Art. 32 GDPR: Security of processing gdpr-info.eu, 2016
- Art. 83 GDPR: Fines gdpr-info.eu, 2016
- NIS-2-regulated companies BSI, 2026