Insights
Written by the INLD security team for practitioners in regulated environments. No vendor commentary, no incident speculation — methodology, findings patterns and what regulators actually ask for.
Latest
A structured way to reason about who attacks a custody platform, where they enter, and which controls actually stand between them and an irreversible transfer.
Each of the ten categories, restated in terms of what actually breaks in a payments API and how it is tested.
Identity and screening pipelines fail in ways that produce a regulatory problem rather than an outage, which is why they are rarely caught by ordinary monitoring.
The 4.0 revision fixed the two complaints that mattered most: base scores that ignored the environment, and a threat dimension nobody could express.
Scoping, key and wallet handling, trading engine logic, and the internal tooling that usually has the most capability and the least testing.
The security controls that also happen to be the controls an AML supervisor asks about, and how to implement them so one piece of evidence answers both questions.
What technical reviewers actually ask for, what they do with the answer, and the eight documents that shorten the process by weeks.
What the model actually requires, which parts a payment processor can implement incrementally, and where the vendor pitch and the standard part company.
These articles describe patterns. If you want to know how one applies to your platform, a scoping conversation is the faster route.
