Keynote - Challenges for the Challengers – supervisory practices and neos
summary
Claims that German neobanks face eight-month Section 44 audits that can impose a legal “zero growth” restriction and block new product launches; DORA will mandate triannual risk‑oriented pen tests and push firms to certify ISO 27001 and build an ISMS. Audit findings (F1–F4) lack standardized meanings, auditors distrust hyperscaler contracts, and outages vary (DKB shows six incidents over 2019–21, N26 reported none). Proposed fixes: hyperscaler/non‑US backup plans and automated auditor APIs combining tools like OneTrust/Okta into a benchmarking engine.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (9)
- 0:00Supervisory challenges for neobanks
- 2:48Core’s role in finance & data protection
- 5:39Data protection and DORA regulation
- 9:10Section 44 audits impact on growth
- 13:08Trust gaps in supervisory audits
- 16:38Decoding F1 to F4 audit findings
- 18:22Audit findings and consequences
- 19:47Automation for regulatory compliance
- 21:32Summary
related talks
37mPanel | Finding DORA
11mKeynote: Automating RBI Compliance With Unified Policy-as-Code
27mSmall Company, Big Threats: Cybersecurity for the Rest of Us
41mPerspectives on the transition to PQC in the financial sector
24mThe Future of Open Banking: Key Trends & Challenges
40mSovereignty Spotlight: EU Regulations and the...
36mPrivacy, Consent and Security Within Modern Applications
13mKeynote: Setting the Standard - Safely Operationalizing OSS Contributions