Description

A focused course, tailored for you

Web Security Controls for Financial Services Engineers

Map your WAF findings, pen-test outputs, and ICT risk gaps to auditor-ready evidence for PCI DSS, DORA, and SWIFT CSP.

Every web security engineer in a regulated bank knows the finding: a WAF bypass, an unauthenticated API endpoint, a stale TLS cert on a payment flow. The hard part is not fixing it. The hard part is closing it for the auditor with the right evidence artefact, in the right format, signed off by the right reviewer.

$199 one-time

Tailored to your situation. Access within 24 hours. 30-day money-back.

Includes a hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access, generated for your specific situation.

Why this course

Web security work produces technical outputs: scan reports, WAF rule sets, pen-test findings, API inventories. Audit and compliance work produces a different set of artefacts: control matrices, evidence packages, remediation closure notes, ICT risk registers. Most web security engineers are expert at the first category and underequipped for the second. When the PCI DSS 4.0 audit, DORA ICT risk assessment, or SWIFT CSP review arrives, the gap between 'we fixed it' and 'we can prove it in the format the assessor requires' is where findings stay open for months.

What you walk away with

Build a WAF change log that satisfies PCI DSS 4.0 requirement 6.4 evidence standards.
Reconcile your API endpoint inventory against a DORA ICT asset register without manual re-entry.
Write a remediation closure note that an external assessor accepts on first submission.
Map pen-test findings to SWIFT CSP control identifiers with the correct evidence field populated.
Produce an ICT vulnerability management report that satisfies DORA Article 9 documentation obligations.
Design a repeatable evidence packaging workflow that works across PCI DSS, DORA, and SWIFT CSP assessments.

The 12 modules

Module 1. The Evidence Gap: From Technical Finding to Auditor Artefact

Why CVSS scores and scan exports are not audit evidence. This module maps the translation layer between what web security tools produce and what PCI DSS 4.0, DORA, and SWIFT CSP assessors require. You will leave with a single-page evidence-type taxonomy showing which artefact satisfies which regulatory control identifier, and where each artefact lives in your toolchain.

Module 2. PCI DSS 4.0 Web-Layer Requirements: What Changed and What It Means for Your WAF

Requirement 6.4 introduced targeted risk analysis for customised implementation. This module covers what that means for WAF rule management, change-control documentation, and the evidence a QSA expects to see for each web-layer control. Worked examples show the difference between a WAF rule change that closes a finding and one that reopens it during the validation interview.

Module 3. Building a WAF Change Log That Closes Findings

A WAF rule update is not evidence on its own. This module builds the change-log template that satisfies PCI DSS requirement 6.4.2 and DORA ICT change management documentation: the rule identifier, the threat mapped, the change-record reference, the pre- and post-change test result, and the named approver. Downloadable template included with field-level annotation.

Module 4. API Endpoint Inventory: The DORA ICT Asset Register Connection

DORA Article 8 requires financial entities to maintain a comprehensive ICT asset register including customer-facing application endpoints. This module shows how to extract an API endpoint inventory from your gateway or WAF, reconcile it against the ICT asset register format, and flag endpoints outside change-management scope. Reconciliation template provided as a downloadable artefact.

Module 5. Pen-Test Finding Management: From Report to Closed Control

A pen-test report landing in the risk tracker is the start of an evidence chain, not the end of one. This module covers the lifecycle from finding classification through remediation to closure note. You will build a closure note template that maps each finding to the relevant DORA ICT vulnerability obligation and PCI DSS requirement, with the fields an external assessor checks during validation.

Module 6. SWIFT CSP Control Mapping for Customer-Facing Web Surfaces

SWIFT CSP mandatory controls 2.1, 2.5A, and 6.1 touch the web and API layer directly. This module maps each control identifier to the technical evidence artefact required and the assessment method a SWIFT-authorised assessor will use. For engineers maintaining customer-facing SWIFT-connected portals, the module builds a control-evidence table ready for submission to the annual independent assessment.

Module 7. Secure SDLC Evidence: What the Assessor Wants from Your Pipeline

PCI DSS 4.0 requirement 6.3 and DORA Article 9 both require documented secure development practices. This module translates SAST and DAST scan outputs, code-review records, and dependency-check results into the evidence format these requirements specify. You will build a pipeline evidence log template capturing the artefact, the scan date, the finding count by severity, and the remediation status at the release gate.

Module 8. TLS and Certificate Management Evidence for Payment Flows

An expired or misconfigured TLS certificate on a payment endpoint is both a technical risk and a PCI DSS finding. This module covers the certificate inventory format, the renewal workflow documentation satisfying requirement 4.2.1, and the evidence package needed to demonstrate continuous compliance between assessments. Includes a certificate-to-control mapping table for the payment surface.

Module 9. ICT Vulnerability Management Reporting Under DORA Article 9

DORA Article 9 requires financial entities to identify, classify, and document ICT vulnerabilities with defined remediation timelines. This module builds the vulnerability management report format satisfying those obligations, covering the classification criteria, the SLA-to-timeline mapping, and the escalation documentation for findings that breach the agreed remediation window. Template aligned to EBA Technical Standards.

Module 10. Incident Evidence Packaging: What Goes in the DORA ICT Incident Report

When a web security incident triggers DORA reporting obligations, the ICT incident report must include incident classification, timeline of detection and containment, affected ICT assets, and root-cause categorisation. This module walks through the evidence gathered during a web-layer incident, maps each artefact to the DORA report field, and builds the first-draft report from the post-incident record.

Module 11. Evidence Packaging for Multi-Framework Assessments

Banks operating across PCI DSS, DORA, and SWIFT CSP assessments in the same cycle need a single evidence repository that satisfies all three without producing separate packages. This module designs that repository: a shared artefact library with control cross-references, a version-control convention, and a submission checklist per framework. The goal is one remediation producing three closed findings.

Module 12. Repeatable Evidence Workflow: From Next Deployment to Next Assessment

The implementation playbook for this course is scoped to your specific combination of frameworks and toolchain. This final module codifies the workflow as a repeatable process: the trigger, the artefact chain, the evidence fields required per framework, and the sign-off path. The output is a process document you can hand to a new team member on day one and use unchanged at the next assessment.

How this addresses your situation

Specific modules that map to what you said you are dealing with.

Pen-test finding arrives in the risk tracker: Modules 5 and 9 give you the closure note and vulnerability report format.

PCI DSS 4.0 assessment scheduled next quarter: Modules 2, 3, 7, and 8 cover the WAF, SDLC, and TLS evidence requirements.

DORA ICT risk assessment in scope: Modules 4, 9, and 10 cover the asset register, vulnerability management, and incident reporting obligations.

SWIFT CSP annual assessment due: Module 6 maps your web-layer artefacts to the mandatory control identifiers.

What you get with this course

12 written modules, each with a downloadable template or worked example.
WAF change-log template aligned to PCI DSS 4.0 requirement 6.4.2.
API endpoint inventory reconciliation template for DORA ICT asset register.
Pen-test finding closure note template with per-framework evidence field mapping.
SWIFT CSP control-evidence table for customer-facing web surfaces.
ICT vulnerability management report template aligned to EBA Technical Standards.
Evidence repository design with cross-framework control references.
Hand-built implementation playbook scoped to the web security engineer role in a regulated financial institution.

What you will have in hand by Day 1, Week 1, Month 1

Within 24 hours your account in the learning environment is provisioned and the tailored implementation playbook is delivered alongside it.

Before and after

Before

Pen-test findings closed technically but reopened by assessors because the evidence artefact is in the wrong format, missing a required field, or not linked to the correct control identifier.

After

Each remediation produces a complete evidence chain on first submission: the right artefact, the right fields, signed off by the right reviewer, mapped to the correct PCI DSS, DORA, or SWIFT CSP control.

What happens if you do not address this

Each assessment cycle that produces reopened findings adds remediation overhead, delays audit closure, and increases the probability that a finding escalates to a material control weakness. For engineers in regulated financial institutions, repeated evidence gaps create personal accountability exposure in ICT risk governance documentation.

Who it is for

Web security engineers, application security leads, and DevSecOps practitioners in financial services institutions who are accountable for securing customer-facing web surfaces and are now expected to produce auditor-ready evidence for regulatory assessments, not just technical remediation reports.

Who this is NOT for. Security architects building zero-trust network segmentation strategy, or GRC analysts who do not own the technical remediation work. This course is for the engineer who writes the WAF rules and is now also expected to close the finding in the audit tracker.

How it arrives

Text-based course in the Art of Service learning environment, plus downloadable templates and worked examples for every module, plus the hand-built implementation playbook delivered alongside course access.

Time investment. Each module is designed to be completed in one focused session. Most engineers work through the relevant modules in a concentrated block before an assessment cycle rather than sequentially.

Why $199 is the right number

Regulatory frameworks publish the control requirements but not the evidence formats. External assessors know what they want to see but do not coach you on how to produce it before the assessment. This course closes that gap with the specific templates and worked examples that satisfy each framework's evidence standard.

FAQ

Does this course cover the DORA RTS on ICT risk management in detail?

Yes. Modules 4, 9, and 10 are built directly from the EBA Technical Standards under DORA Article 9 and cover the specific documentation obligations for ICT asset management, vulnerability management, and incident reporting.

Is this relevant if we are in scope for PCI DSS 4.0 but not yet under DORA?

Yes. Modules 2, 3, 7, and 8 cover the PCI DSS 4.0 web-layer requirements independently. Module 11 shows how to design an evidence repository that accommodates additional frameworks when they come into scope.

How does the implementation playbook work?

After you enrol, the playbook is built for your specific role, toolchain, and regulatory scope and delivered alongside your course access within 24 hours. It is a working document, not a generic checklist.

30-day money-back guarantee. If after a week of working through the materials this is not what you needed, reply to the receipt email and a full refund is processed. No questions, no forms.

Within 24 hours your account in the learning environment is provisioned and the tailored implementation playbook is delivered alongside it.