Cyber threats don’t wait, and neither should your security strategy. Organizations across Singapore are facing growing regulatory demands and increasingly sophisticated cyber risks. The best defense? A proactive approach that uncovers vulnerabilities before attackers do.

That’s why we’re excited to announce that HackerOne is now officially licensed to provide penetration testing services in Singapore. With this new certification from the Cybersecurity Services Regulation Office, we can now bring our modern, scalable Pentest as a Service (PTaaS) solution to businesses across the region—helping you strengthen security, meet compliance requirements, and stay ahead of cyber threats.

Unlike traditional pentesting providers, we don’t just hand you a static report and walk away. Our agile, expert-driven approach gives you real-time collaboration, faster results, and deeper insights—so you can turn security gaps into strengths before attackers exploit them.

Ready to rethink penetration testing? Here’s what this means for you.

Why This Matters for Organizations in Singapore

Cybersecurity threats are increasing in complexity, and regulatory requirements are becoming stricter. Organizations in Singapore—particularly those handling sensitive data—should conduct penetration testing in line with laws, standards, and frameworks like:

• Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) TRM Guidelines
• Personal Data Protection Act (PDPA)
• PCI DSS
• NIST Cybersecurity Framework
• Cybersecurity Act of Singapore
• ISO 27001, SOC 2, and other international security standards

With our newly-approved penetration testing services, businesses can now proactively identify vulnerabilities, strengthen security postures, and align with local and global regulations.

Modern, Scalable Pentesting for APAC

HackerOne’s Pentest as a Service (PTaaS) model modernizes the traditional penetration testing process, offering a faster, more flexible, and outcome-driven approach. Instead of rigid, slow-moving engagements, our platform allows you to:

• Launch pentests in days, not weeks
• Access a vetted global community of security experts with deep industry knowledge
• Collaborate in real-time to address findings and strengthen security
• Meet compliance mandates while focusing on meaningful risk reduction

Unlike traditional consultancy-based pentests, HackerOne PTaaS integrates seamlessly into your security workflow, ensuring continuous security improvement rather than a one-time report.

What Sets HackerOne’s Pentesting Apart?

HackerOne delivers elite penetration testing services backed by industry-leading expertise and technology. Our approach is designed for speed, accuracy, and business-aligned security outcomes.

• Speed: Start your pentest in 4-7 business days
• Vetted Experts: 75% of our testers have 5+ years of experience
• High-Impact Results: 19% of findings are critical or high severity, twice the industry average
• AI-Powered Insights: Our AI Copilot (Hai) helps interpret complex reports and suggests remediation steps
• Seamless Integrations: Works with Jira, GitHub, ServiceNow, Slack, and more for streamlined remediation

With a licensed and highly specialized security testing team, HackerOne ensures that your organization stays ahead of attackers, meets compliance requirements, and builds a more resilient security posture.

Next Steps: How to Get Started

Now that HackerOne is a licensed penetration testing provider in Singapore, organizations in the region can start securing their systems with our expert-led pentesting services.

Interested in pentesting? Contact us today to discuss your security needs.
Want to learn more? Explore our Pentest Solution Brief for detailed insights into our methodology and coverage areas. 

The Code establishes baseline cybersecurity requirements across the AI lifecycle and is expected to inform changes to international standards through the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). To assist organizations in applying its principles, the government has also released an Implementation Guide, which expands on specific security measures. 

HackerOne offered input during the development of this Code, emphasizing the importance of independent security testing, AI red teaming, and vulnerability disclosure programs (VDPs).  HackerOne’s recommendations, submitted during DSIT’s Call for Views on AI Cybersecurity, highlighted the need for external validation, proactive security testing, and structured vulnerability reporting mechanisms to improve AI security.  

Who is the Code for?

The Code applies to developers, system operators, and data custodians involved in the creation, deployment, and management of AI systems. It sets out security measures covering five key phases: secure design, secure development, secure deployment, secure maintenance, and secure end of life. AI vendors who solely sell models or components without direct involvement in their implementation are not directly in scope but remain subject to other relevant cybersecurity standards.  

How can organizations align with the Code?

The Code introduces 13 principles to safeguard AI from cyber threats, including data poisoning, adversarial attacks, and model exploitation. Organizations that choose to follow the Code need to integrate AI security into system design, assess risks throughout the AI lifecycle, and maintain transparency with end-users. Key provisions include: 

• Ensuring AI security awareness among employees and stakeholders.
• Implementing supply chain security measures to prevent vulnerabilities in AI models.
• Conducting adversarial testing to proactively detect security weaknesses.
• Providing timely security updates and clear communication to end-users. 

How does the Code address Independent Security Testing and Disclosure for AI?

A key focus of the Code is the requirement for independent security validation systems. Developers must ensure AI models undergo security testing before deployment, and the Code stresses the importance of involving independent security testers with expertise in AI-specific risks.

Additionally, the Code mandates the creation and maintenance of a Vulnerability Disclosure Program (VDP) for AI systems. This program is vital for enhancing transparency, allowing security flaws to be responsibly reported and mitigated. 

The Implementation Guide further clarifies these expectations, emphasizing proactive security practices such as red teaming and adversarial testing. These techniques are essential for detecting vulnerabilities before they can be exploited, and the Guide offers practical steps to integrate these evaluations into the AI lifecycle. By following both the Code and the Implementation Guide, organizations can ensure a comprehensive, proactive approach to AI security – focusing on external validation, transparency, and ongoing testing to safeguard systems at every stage. 

What’s the likely impact?

The Code signals a shift toward stronger regulatory expectations for AI security. As cyber threats targeting AI continue to evolve, organizations that adopt these security principles will be better positioned to comply with future standards and regulations, protect their users, and build trust in AI technologies. 

The UK government has stated its intention for this Code to serve as the foundation for future ETSI standards, ensuring a unified and internationally recognized approach to AI cybersecurity. The government also plans to update the Code and the Guide to mirror the future ETSI global standard, reinforcing the alignment with international best practices. 

How HackerOne can help:

Organizations navigating AI security challenges need robust testing and vulnerability management solutions. HackerOne helps organizations align with the Code’s security requirements through: 

• Independent AI security assessments that align with Principles 9.1 and 9.2.1.
• Vulnerability Disclosure Programs (VDPs) to help meet Principle 6.4.
• Red teaming and adversarial testing to identify weaknesses before they can be exploited as mentioned in the Implementation Guide, sections 9.2, 9.2.1, and 11.2. 

Contact HackerOne to learn more about securing your AI systems. 

On January 31, 2025, the UK government published its AI Cyber Security Code of Practice, a voluntary framework aimed at mitigating security risks in AI systems. 

What Does DORA Regulate?

DORA applies to a wide range of financial entities operating in the EU, including banks, insurers, investment firms, and payment institutions, along with critical third-party service providers such as cloud and data providers. Essentially, any organization that provides key infrastructure for financial services will be required to comply with some or all of DORA’s operational resilience standards.

What Does DORA Aim to Achieve?

DORA’s primary goal is to enhance the digital resilience of the EU’s financial sector by ensuring that firms are well-prepared to handle and recover from Information and Communication Technology (ICT) disruptions. The regulation establishes a framework for cybersecurity and operational risk management across financial institutions, focusing on reducing the potential impact of cyber threats and system failures.

What Are DORA’s Security Requirements?

DORA mandates several key cybersecurity and operational resilience requirements for financial entities:

1. Risk Management Framework: Firms must implement comprehensive risk management practices to identify, assess, and mitigate ICT risks.
2. Third-Party Risk Management: Financial entities must ensure third-party service providers adhere to DORA’s security standards, including implementing particular contractual terms and conducting ongoing monitoring and due diligence.
3. Digital Resilience Testing: Firms are required to perform stress tests and regular pentests, in addition to threat-led penetration tests (TLPT) at least every 3 years, based on Regulatory Technical Standards (RTS) for TLPT expected to be adopted by the European Commission in early 2025.
4. Incident Reporting: DORA mandates a clear process for reporting major ICT-related incidents to regulators within specified timeframes.
5. Information Sharing: The regulation does not require but encourages entities to share cyber threat intelligence to bolster collective cyber security efforts across the financial sector.

How Does a Covered Financial Entity Demonstrate Compliance– and What Happens if it Doesn’t Comply?

Covered entities must ensure they meet DORA’s security standards by implementing appropriate risk management practices, third party oversight, and resilience testing. While fines or criminal sanctions are not included in the DORA regulation, individual EU Member States can institute penalties and criminal sanctions in their national laws. These may include fines of up to 2% of an entity’s total annual worldwide revenues or up to 1 million euros and even steeper penalties of up to 5 million for critical third-party ICT providers. Entities must also submit detailed reports outlining their efforts to manage ICT risks, test their resilience, and respond to cyber incidents.

When Do These Requirements Take Effect?

DORA entered into force on January 16, 2023, and the full compliance deadline was January 17, 2025.

What's the Likely Impact of These New Requirements?

DORA’s implementation will likely enhance the overall security posture of the EU financial sector by requiring financial entities to adopt stronger risk management frameworks and resilience practices. The regulation will also increase transparency, as firms must disclose to competent authorities information about their cybersecurity measures and third-party relationships. Overall, DORA aims to ensure that financial institutions are better prepared to handle emerging cyber threats, ultimately protecting consumers and the financial system as a whole.

We Might Be Subject to These New Requirements—What Should We Do?

With the January 17, 2025 deadline already passed, financial entities should review their existing cyber security policies and practices to ensure they meet DORA’s requirements.

HackerOne offers a comprehensive suite of security solutions designed to help financial services organizations meet DORA compliance requirements. Our portfolio includes CREST-accredited Pentest as a Service (PTaaS), Code Security Audits, Bug Bounty programs, and Spot Checks. This integrated approach aligns with DORA's mandates for regular and comprehensive ICT risk assessment and management, as outlined in Articles 24 and 25.

Contact HackerOne to learn more.

The Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), which came into force in the European Union on January 17, 2025, establishes comprehensive requirements for the financial sector to strengthen its resilience to ICT-related disruptions, including cyberattacks and technical failures.

Much attention has been paid to the incoming administration’s stated intentions to roll back regulations, as well as their criticism of certain cybersecurity and artificial intelligence (AI) policies adopted by the Biden administration. A more comprehensive review of policy statements and past actions suggests that the Trump administration will support strong cybersecurity defenses and best practices as well as practices that encourage the responsible and trustworthy development and adoption of AI.

The First Months

The new administration immediately put a hold on pending regulations, as is typical. In the first Trump administration and the Biden administration, the new White House Chief of Staff issued on Inauguration Day a memo to the heads of executive departments and agencies to immediately freeze any new or pending regulations to allow review by the new administration. The Trump administration also released a large number of executive orders on his first day of office, though only one addressed AI or cybersecurity in a material way (see below).

We expect that many members of Congress will reintroduce cybersecurity and AI legislation from the previous session, and new legislation on these hot issues will be introduced for the first time. 

Based on precedent, it is possible that Congress will use the Congressional Review Act to reject regulations that have already been enacted by federal agencies. The law, enacted in 1996, has only been used to overturn a total of 20 rules, with 16 of those actions taking place early in the first Trump administration with a Republican majority in both chambers of Congress. To take effect, the Congressional Review Act requires Congress to introduce a joint resolution within 60 Congressional session days of its receipt of the regulation, so only relatively recent regulations are subject to the law.

Cybersecurity Policy and Regulations

CISA

Republican lawmakers and incoming administration officials have criticized the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). However, these criticisms against CISA are largely not related to cybersecurity, but rather for perceived expansion beyond its core mission of protecting federal and critical infrastructure to address issues such as disinformation. The Republican Party Platform emphasized a commitment to “use all tools of National Power to protect our Nation's Critical Infrastructure and Industrial Base from malicious cyber actors. This will be a National Priority, and we will both raise the Security Standards for our Critical Systems and Networks and defend them against bad actors.” We expect the new administration to refocus CISA on cyber protection and scale back or defund disinformation initiatives, but not to dismantle CISA.

CIRCIA 

CISA is finalizing regulations to implement the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act (CIRCIA), enacted in 2022. The proposed rule requires a wide range of businesses in critical infrastructure sectors to report covered cyber incidents and ransomware payments to CISA. Many of the public comments, including those submitted by members of Congress that had sponsored the original legislation, argued that the draft regulations went beyond the intention of Congress by applying the rule to too many entities, requiring too many cyber incidents to be reported, and not providing enough reciprocity with similar cyber incident reporting regulations. Expect members of Congress to closely review and scrutinize the nature and scope of the final regulations.

Cybersecurity Executive Orders

The Biden administration released its second executive order on cybersecurity in his final week in office. The order focused on improving the United States’ defenses against the escalating threats from foreign adversaries, particularly the People’s Republic of China (PRC). 

The new administration will certainly review all executive orders issued by the prior administration and consider whether to repeal them entirely, repeal them and replace them with their own executive order, or take no action. Given the scope of the order and the new administration’s focus on cyber defense and countering the malicious activities of national adversaries, particularly China, a full repeal without replacement in the short term may be unlikely. It is worth recalling the Trump administration issued its own executive order on cybersecurity in its last day in office, which the Biden administration did not repeal.

Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure Practices

Coordinated vulnerability disclosure practices, including the implementation of Vulnerability Disclosure Policies and the use of bug bounties by federal agencies have been supported by both the Trump and Biden administrations, are well established in federal agencies, and are unlikely to be rolled back. Russell Vought, who has been nominated to return to his prior role as Director of the Office of Management and Budget, directed federal agencies to implement such programs in a 2020 memo. These practices also enjoy bipartisan support in Congress, which is actively working to pass legislation to require the adoption of Vulnerability Disclosure Policies by federal contractors.

Artificial Intelligence

Both President Trump and President Biden issued executive orders related to AI. President Biden’s order directed over 50 federal entities to take more than 100 specific actions to implement its guidance in areas including safety and security, consumer protection, worker support, and consideration of AI bias and civil rights. Proposed rules resulting from the order include those proposed by the Department of Commerce that would require mandatory reporting to the federal government by leading AI developers and cloud providers. Republicans raised concerns about the order’s reliance on the 1950 Defense Production Act for its authority to require such disclosures, as well as the order’s impact on free speech, innovation, and focus on addressing bias and discrimination. The Trump administration repealed President Biden’s executive order on AI on its first day in office, honoring a commitment made during the campaign. In doing so, he issued his own order to remove barriers to American innovation and “to sustain and enhance America’s dominance in AI to promote human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security.” 

While the Trump administration is expected to take a lighter regulatory approach to AI, its past approach through executive order has recognized the importance of regulatory guidance, technical standards, and transparency and trustworthiness to realizing the benefits of AI innovation. As OMB Director, Vought issued guidance to federal agencies for regulation of AI applications, writing that “agencies should continue to promote advancements in technology and innovation, while protecting American technology, economic and national security, privacy, civil liberties, and other American values, including the principles of freedom, human rights, the rule of law, and respect for intellectual property.” The memo emphasized the importance of public trust in AI and the validation of AI systems while encouraging agencies to “be mindful of any potential safety and security risks and vulnerabilities. 

Congressional action on artificial intelligence has been limited to date with the executive branch stepping in to shape government policy and practices related to AI use and regulation. However, Congress and the states show willingness to take this issue up in the coming legislative term. 

Focus Areas for HackerOne and Our Partners

HackerOne’s policy team continues to advocate for the enactment of legislation and regulation that enhances cybersecurity defenses and promotes the responsible adoption and use of AI. This advocacy will continue across administrations and Congresses. Regardless of how the regulatory environment evolves, companies should continue to proactively identify and manage vulnerabilities in their own systems and AI models to protect their assets and maintain the trust of the public, their customers, and investors.

The transition to a new presidential administration and a change in control of the Senate raise questions about how cybersecurity and artificial intelligence (AI) policy and regulation will change and whether such change will be dramatic or more measured. 

HackerOne has partnered with security and AI communities to advocate for stronger legal protections for independent researchers. Most recently, HackerOne participated in a workshop hosted by leading institutions to discuss the need for legal safeguards for third-party AI evaluators and address the gaps in current legal frameworks. Despite the strong push for change, the Librarian’s ruling provided some clarity, but ultimately fell short of granting the full legal protection requested for AI safety research.

What is the DMCA and Why Does it Matter? 

DMCA Section 1201 makes it illegal to circumvent technological protection measures (TPMs) used to protect copyrighted works. Essentially, if software has security features, it’s against the law to break or otherwise bypass them—even for research purposes. 

Every three years the U.S. Copyright Office considers petitions for exceptions to this restriction. In 2015, the security community advocated for and received an exception for good faith security research. This year, HackerOne advocated for broadening this exception. 

While security research has legal protections under the law, it is not clear that the same protections extend to AI researchers. AI research, or red teaming, evaluates AI systems for more than just security - including safety, accuracy, discrimination, infringement, and other potentially harmful outputs. The absence of clear legal protections creates a chilling effect that may deter independent AI testing, which is crucial for the long-term resilience of the digital ecosystem—much like independent security research safeguards organizations by identifying vulnerabilities before they can cause harm.

AI platforms, in an effort to safeguard their systems, may block or ban researchers who attempt to find vulnerabilities or algorithmic flaws. In order to continue their work, researchers are sometimes forced to create new accounts or use proxy servers to bypass these access restrictions. While this circumvention is often necessary for identifying unintended behaviors and improving AI systems, in the absence of clarity around the DMCA 1201 exceptions, it comes with potential legal risk. 

HackerOne joined the effort to request the Copyright Office to grant clear liability protection for good faith AI research under DMCA Sec. 1201. The process took several months and multiple rounds of comments before the Librarian of Congress issued its decision on October 28, 2024.

What Was the Ruling?

The U.S. Copyright Office considered a proposed exemption to the DMCA that would allow researchers to circumvent TPMs in order to test and improve the trustworthiness of AI systems. This exemption would have enabled independent researchers to probe AI models for biases, harmful outputs, and other issues related to fairness and accountability, without the threat of legal action.

However, the Librarian of Congress ultimately declined to grant this proposed exemption. The decision was based on two determinations:

1. Insufficient Evidence: There was not enough evidence to prove that Section 1201 significantly deterred researchers from conducting the necessary red teaming and testing activities on AI models. While many researchers have raised concerns about the legal risks of conducting this type of research, the Copyright Office found that the existing framework of TPM circumvention protections did not present a significant barrier to their work.
2. Non-Circumvention of TPMs: Many of the techniques employed by researchers do not actually involve circumventing TPMs in the way Section 1201 was intended to prohibit. According to the ruling, most of the research methods in question do not technically involve bypassing access controls or security measures, which means they do not fall under the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions.

The Implications for AI Research

While the rejection of the full exemption for AI trustworthiness research is a setback, it does provide some clarity in certain areas. The decision clearly states that many common testing methods, such as post-ban account creation, rate limiting, jailbreak prompts, and prompt injection, do not violate Section 1201. This clarification is a win for researchers, as it helps to reduce the uncertainty around these techniques and provides more legal confidence to pursue this critical AI research.

However, the ruling ultimately leaves AI researchers operating at times in a legal gray area which may result in an inability or unwillingness to fully test AI systems independently, especially in cases where flaws are deeply embedded in the technology.

As AI continues to evolve and impact all aspects of society, legal frameworks must evolve alongside these technological advancements. The additional clarity provided is welcome, but there is still much to be done to secure stronger, more comprehensive legal protections for good faith AI researchers.

Artificial intelligence is advancing faster than ever, but the legal system is struggling to keep up. A key challenge lies in clarifying how independent AI testing and research intersect with copyright law, particularly under the U.S.’s Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). In October, in response to advocacy by HackerOne and the Hacking Policy Council, the Librarian of Congress issued a ruling that lessened legal risk for independent AI researchers under DMCA Sec. 1201.

This blog will break down the NIS2 Directive drawing information from the original directive briefing published by the European Parliament and explain how organizations can prepare for compliance, including the pivotal role of penetration testing (pentesting) and how HackerOne can assist with these efforts.

NIS2 Directive

The NIS2 Directive aims to enhance the security of network and information systems within the EU by requiring operators of essential and important services to implement adequate security measures and report cybersecurity incidents. It applies to organizations across a wide range of sectors, from critical infrastructure like energy and transport to key digital providers and public services.

Key updates in NIS2:

• Broader Scope: NIS2 expands the range of sectors under its purview, including digital infrastructure, healthcare, telecom, social media, and public administration, recognizing that these industries are increasingly susceptible to cyber threats.
• Risk Management Obligations: Organizations must now have comprehensive risk management and cybersecurity measures, including business continuity plans, incident response procedures, and supply chain security). The proposal includes a list of key elements that all companies must address or implement as part of the measures they take, including incident response, supply chain security, encryption, and vulnerability disclosure programs (VDPs).
• Enhanced Incident Reporting: Under NIS2, incident reporting requirements have become stricter. Entities must notify authorities within 24 hours of becoming aware of an incident​.

NIS2 introduces more stringent oversight for essential entities—those where a cyber event could cause significant disruption. These include sectors like energy, banking, health, and water. Important entities, such as digital service providers, are also held to high standards but face limited scrutiny unless they experience a cybersecurity incident.

NIS2 Obligations

Under NIS2, organizations must comply with strengthened cybersecurity requirements that include:

• Incident handling and crisis management
• Vulnerability handling and disclosure
• Risk assessment and management policies
• Business continuity and disaster recovery plans
• Incident response strategies
• Supply chain security protocols
• Encryption and cryptography measures
• Cybersecurity training and basic hygiene practices
• Human resource security, access control policies, and asset management

Regular testing and auditing of security systems are also critical to NIS2 compliance, highlighting the importance of penetration testing as a method for ensuring cybersecurity defenses are effective.

Difference Between NIS2 and DORA

Although both NIS2 and DORA (Digital Operational Resilience Act) are aimed at improving cybersecurity, they target slightly different areas and industries.

• NIS2 focuses on enhancing cybersecurity across a broad range of sectors, including critical infrastructure, healthcare, energy, and digital service providers. It emphasizes a risk-based approach, requiring organizations to develop and implement security measures, manage risks, and ensure business continuity.
• DORA, on the other hand, is specifically designed for the financial sector, ensuring the digital operational resilience of financial entities, including banks, insurers, and investment firms. It focuses more on financial stability in the face of cyber threats.

The key difference lies in the scope: while NIS2 covers a wide variety of sectors, DORA is tailored to the financial services industry and imposes stricter testing and security measures on financial institutions​.

Financial entities that fall under both directives must ensure compliance with both, meaning they will need to meet the specific obligations for each. For example, NIS2 is less demanding than DORA in terms of security testing, but companies in the financial sector still need to conduct stringent resilience testing under both.

Learn more about DORA Requirements and Pentesting.

Pentesting for NIS2 Compliance

NIS2 briefing emphasizes the necessity for testing and auditing cybersecurity measures to ensure their effectiveness in real-world scenarios. This is where pentesting becomes a vital tool. Pentesting simulates cyberattacks on an organization's systems to identify vulnerabilities and assess the robustness of current defenses.

By regularly conducting pentests, organizations can:

• Identify and mitigate vulnerabilities.
• Assess the effectiveness of incident response plans.
• Document improvements in security posture over time.
• Ensure ongoing compliance with NIS2’s risk management obligations.

Pentesting is particularly crucial for essential entities, which are subject to more rigorous testing and reporting requirements under the directive.

Achieve NIS2 Compliance with HackerOne’s Comprehensive Portfolio 

HackerOne provides a full suite of cybersecurity solutions to help organizations comply with the stringent requirements of the NIS2 Directive. Our portfolio includes Pentest as a Service (PTaaS) model, Vulnerability Disclosure Programs (VDP), and Bug Bounty programs. This integrated approach aligns seamlessly with NIS2’s mandates for continuous risk assessment, vulnerability management, and incident response, as outlined in the directive.

At the core, HackerOne Pentest delivers thorough, methodology-driven security testing conducted by vetted and highly skilled security researchers. In alignment with NIS2’s requirements for cybersecurity risk management and incident reporting, our pentest services help organizations establish, maintain, and test their cybersecurity measures as part of a comprehensive risk management framework. Each engagement provides detailed reports and audit-ready documentation to support compliance efforts, ensuring that your organization can demonstrate adherence to the NIS2 Directive’s requirements for cybersecurity resilience.

Our pentesting services are complemented by:

• VDPs: HackerOne Response aligns with NIS2’s incident reporting and also addresses the "vulnerability handling and disclosure" requirements, enabling organizations to continuously intake, manage, and respond to vulnerabilities reported by security researchers. These programs provide a structured approach for organizations to handle security incidents, as required by NIS2, ensuring timely identification and remediation of risks. HackerOne Essential VDP is a great place to get started, with a free self-serve VDP solution.
• Bug Bounty Programs: HackerOne Bounty offers continuous, human-powered security testing, allowing organizations to meet NIS2’s requirements for ongoing risk management. By inviting security researchers to identify vulnerabilities, Bug Bounty programs provide real-time insights into emerging threats. With HackerOne’s Managed Bug Bounty option, organizations can receive tailored support, including triaging vulnerabilities and providing detailed remediation recommendations. This ensures that critical systems and applications are constantly evaluated, addressing the needs for NIS2’s supply chain security and third-party risk management.

HackerOne’s human-powered, continuous approach ensures that organizations can meet NIS2’s demands for regular cybersecurity assessments and incident response procedures. By leveraging HackerOne's global network of security researchers, including EU-based security professionals, organizations can ensure that their cybersecurity defenses are thoroughly evaluated and aligned with the NIS2 Directive’s standards. Contact the HackerOne team to learn more.

The NIS2 Directive represents an essential evolution in the European Union's approach to cybersecurity, building upon the first NIS Directive. It responds to today’s more interconnected digital world and the growing sophistication of cyber threats. As cybercrime escalates, with global damage reaching $8.5 trillion in 2023, the need for robust, adaptable cybersecurity policies has never been more critical.

Let’s first define what we’re talking about when we refer to these NIST controls. NIST 800-53 is a popular framework for security programs globally and also acts as the baseline control set for the U.S. Federal Government’s FedRAMP program. In 2020, The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released its latest revision 5 (rev 5) to the 800-53 standard. This repositioned the standard to emphasize risk-based outcomes of an overall security program versus rating the impact of individual controls. We’re talking about this again now because the FedRAMP Project Management Office (PMO) recently provided guidance around how rev 5 will be incorporated into the FedRAMP audit framework in 2024, so the clock is ticking for organizations to get their plan in place.

In rev 5, NIST introduces a brand new control, RA-5(11), which requires SaaS vendors to “Establish a public reporting channel for receiving reports of vulnerabilities in organizational systems and system components” 

The NIST guidance further recommends that:

“The reporting channel is publicly discoverable and contains clear language authorizing good-faith research and the disclosure of vulnerabilities to the organization. The organization does not condition its authorization on an expectation of indefinite non-disclosure to the public by the reporting entity but may request a specific time period to properly remediate the vulnerability.” 

Essentially, organizations must truly embrace the open nature of public vulnerability reporting. Ethical hackers who report vulnerabilities in good faith should be welcomed and organizations must be given a specific time frame in which to properly remediate those vulnerabilities. This latest revision moves us much closer to a true “see something, say something” mindset that is accepting of any vulnerability report from the public. 

What Is a Vulnerability Disclosure Policy?

In essence, the guidance is talking about a “Vulnerability Disclosure Policy,” which typically includes the following elements:

• Promise: Demonstrate a clear, good-faith commitment to customers and other stakeholders potentially impacted by security vulnerabilities;
• Scope: Indicate what properties, products, and vulnerability types are covered;
• Safe Harbor: Assures vulnerability finders that they will not be unduly penalized or prosecuted if they follow the policy;
• Process: Outlines the process that finders should use to report vulnerabilities; and,
• Preferences: A living document that sets expectations for preferences and priorities regarding how reports will be evaluated, including timeline expectations.

To see an example of what a live VDP looks like, you can view HackerOne’s own policy.

With NIST’s new VDP control, organizations need guidance on what makes a strong VDP and how to evaluate those strengths to prove a best-in-class program. During a recent rev5 guidance call with the FedRAMP PMO, we asked, “With RA-5(11) being a net new control across the impact levels, how will that control be assessed?”

The PMO responded by pointing to the White House’s memorandum on this topic posted in 2020 — M-20-32. This document does a good job of outlining some of what we call out above, but not necessarily the specifics around how to evaluate it.

So, here we are back to square one, and you are likely asking, “Yeah — so how do I do that?”

As mentioned above, HackerOne offers VDPs as part of its own broader product offerings and regularly advises customers on industry best practices and what makes a good policy. We also carry our own FedRAMP Authority to Operate (ATO) and have experience with the FedRAMP auditing process. 

In addition to HackerOne’s expertise on the new NIST control, we’ve also collaborated with FedRAMP Manager, Doug Stonier and Nick Rundhaug, FedRAMP Practice Leader with Schellman & Company, a leading provider of attestation and compliance services. They are a globally licensed PCI Qualified Security Assessor, an ISO Certification Body, HITRUST CSF Assessor, and a FedRAMP 3PAO.

Both the experts at HackerOne and Schellman & Company think everyone, including auditors, should be asking the following questions:

1. How Easy/Difficult Is the Policy to Find?  

Generally speaking, you should be able to use a search engine to search for “COMPANY_NAME Vulnerability Disclosure” and quickly locate said policy. In addition, a VDP should be easily discoverable via the website’s navigation, whether that be part of a security page, privacy page, or part of the main footer.  

The Schellman & Company Perspective:

"The key part of the control addressed here is that the reporting channel is 'public.' As an assessor, we will be seeking evidence showing a publicly accessible submission mechanism. This could be as easy as a URL that is publicly available such as through a search engine or public webpage."

2. How Consistently Is the Policy Followed and What Metrics Are Tied to it?

For example, if the policy sets out a timeframe to respond to an initial submission, is the company following it? Are they actioning on submissions, and how quickly? For those looking for additional reading, see HackerOne’s prescribed turnaround and resolution times.

The Schellman & Company Perspective:

"The RA-5(11) control is short, but along with the supplemental guidance, there are a number of items that will likely be covered in a related CSP (Cloud Service Provider) owned policy.  We will review the policies that the CSP owns that cover items such as applicability, timelines, etc., and ensure the policy covers the VDP including metrics such as timelines."

3. What Assets Are in Scope?

This is a big one. All of the company’s digital assets should be in scope. A greatly limited scope results in fewer vulnerabilities and detracts away from the “see something, say something” mindset. We recognize there may be exceptions to this rule, but these should be well thought-through and few and far between. If this is part of a FedRAMP audit, an auditor should be looking to see whether or not FedRAMP assets are included in scope. If they are out of scope, you should be asking why.

The Schellman & Company Perspective:

"The entire FedRAMP boundary (components) must be in scope at a minimum. It is likely that more than the FedRAMP boundary will be in scope, which is fine."

4. What Types of Findings Are in Scope?

This is an opportunity for the VDP to offer context around what vulnerability findings are considered most important to the organization and what type of testing is allowed under the policy. Ideally, any type of finding should be in scope, but we recognize that, at times, this may not always be possible. An example of a finding that may be deprioritized is findings related to third-party assets.

The Schellman & Company Perspective:

"This is another policy check. The policy should include the type of findings that are accepted and tracked. An organization will want to define ratings (possibly based on CVSS 3.0 scoring) and determine what is accepted, such as low-risk findings that are 'informational.'"

5. Is There a Promise of Safe Harbor for Reasonable Submissions?

Safe Harbor refers to the company’s willingness to absolve (read: not prosecute) any ethical hacker who follows industry standards and submits a discovered vulnerability. In May of 2022, the U.S. Department of Justice put out a revision stating that those who submit “good-faith security research should not be charged.”

A lack of a Safe Harbor provision essentially invalidates any VDP since nobody will want to submit vulnerabilities for fear of prosecution. Safe Harbour also provides the company legal protections around the allowance of ethical attacks.

As the leading expert in vulnerability disclosure, HackerOne has spent extensive time researching and consulting on this topic so that you do not have to. The HackerOne platform defines the Gold Standard Safe Harbor, which provides all parties the best protections afforded.

The Schellman & Company Perspective:

"The NIST supplemental guidance addresses the need for establishing related timelines for submission and disclosure. These items are likely addressed in the CSP policy covering the VDP."

6. Is the Preferred Method of Contact Easy to Follow?

Nobody wants to call a 1-800 number, submit their birth certificate, and sign a 90-page contract before being able to submit a vulnerability. The recommended methods of contact for a VDP are a group email address, a submission form on the website, or a submission form on a platform. You should design the form for this use case and include few requirements or legalese that would put off a possible report.

The Schellman & Company Perspective:

"While RA-5(11) does not have a specific requirement for the ease of submission (besides “public reporting channel”), the organization will want to consider this, and the resulting submission channel will be used as evidence by the 3PAO during a FedRAMP assessment."

Stay On Top of the NIST VDP Control

This conversation will continue to evolve over time as Federal Program Management Office and industry leaders continue to update the guidance. To stay ahead of NIST controls and other regulatory security requirements, HackerOne Response provides all the tools needed to launch a successful VDP from a single platform. Our out-of-the-box setup makes it easy to establish a compliant and policy-driven vulnerability disclosure workflow for continuous security. Choose the best option to fit your team’s security goals:

• Essential: Start with a free self-serve VDP solution to follow best practices and meet compliance mandates.
• Professional: Elevate vulnerability disclosure with advanced features and reporting for proactive security measures.
• Enterprise: Ensure enterprise-grade security and compliance with customizable solutions, dedicated support, and extensive integrations.

Contact us to discover which VDP plan is right for your organization and get your VDP started today.

You’re likely here because the answer to this question is “no.” Within this article, you will get advice on all Vulnerability Disclosure Policy (VDP) options to help you comply.

HIPAA regulatory standards outline the lawful use, disclosure, and safeguarding of protected health information (PHI). Any organization that collects or handles PHI must comply with HIPAA rules. The HIPAA legislation is based on five rules, the first three of which deal directly with protecting PHI:

• Privacy: Prevention of customer data being shared with any one or any organization without obtaining the required permissions.
• Security: Establishment of safeguards to protect data from being accessed inappropriately or inadvertently. Protections fall into three categories, and covered organizations must:
  • Administrative – have knowledgeable staff and effective processes in place.
  • Technical – have IT tools for control of data, including encryption and authentication.
  • Nontechnical – have facilities in place that deter physical theft.
• Breach Notification: Prompt reporting of any breach to the Department of Health and Human Services, and the inclusion of reporting requirements in all contracts with business associates such as billing agencies or other third-party entities performing work involving PHI.
• Transaction: Use of specific codes for sharing data that ensure the privacy and accuracy of medical records and PHI.
• Identifiers: The sharing of PHI only with other HIPAA-recognized organizations using unique identifying numbers.

The Importance of HIPAA and HITRUST Compliance

Without HIPAA, healthcare organizations are under no legal obligation to protect PHI or to share data with other organizations upon request from the patient. Through HIPAA, healthcare organizations must establish strict security controls to protect PHI and have staff trained in PHI protection and handling. They must also share patient data upon request with other HIPAA organizations. To achieve HIPAA compliance organizations must prove to an auditor that they have effective controls and policies in place.  With HIPAA, patients have assurance that medical organizations they deal with are taking steps to protect their PHI and will share that data upon request. 

While HIPAA specifies rules for protecting PHI, it does not prescribe how to achieve compliance, or provide  a certification program. That is why implementing HIPAA standards can be complex and confusing. To make it easier to achieve compliance, the Health Information Alliance Trust (HITRUST), a private not-for-profit company, developed the HITRUST Common Security Framework (CSF). HITRUST is a trusted official certifying organization, and its HITRUST CSF helps organizations design, deploy and manage their security compliance programs with a single streamlined framework based on HIPAA rules. In short, HIPAA lays out the rules and HITRUST outlines how to comply with them. 

To receive certification, an independent auditor assesses the organization’s compliance with applicable HITRUST requirements.  A successful HITRUST assessment and certification can be used to demonstrate HIPAA compliance. 

Achieve HIPAA and HITRUST to Protect Your Health Data with HackerOne Pentest

Data security is at the core of HIPAA, and pentesting plays a crucial role in helping organizations achieve HIPAA and HITRUST certifications. Pentesting identifies cyber security vulnerabilities that can affect data, with the testing results informing remediations. It validates the effectiveness of security controls and demonstrates to regulators that your organization is proactive in protecting data.

HackerOne Pentest offers a comprehensive approach to help organizations achieve and maintain HIPAA and HITRUST compliance through rigorous pentesting::

• Safeguard PHI Security: Our pentests meticulously examine controls around Protected Health Information (PHI), verifying that they meet the stringent requirements of the HIPAA Security Rule. We assess the effectiveness of access controls, encryption mechanisms, and other security measures designed to protect PHI from unauthorized access, modification, or disclosure. Additionally, our pentests are designed to simulate real-world attack scenarios that can uncover misconfigurations, unpatched systems, and many other flaws that could potentially lead to data breaches.
• Leverage Experienced Pentesters: The HackerOne Delivery Team assigns seasoned, HIPAA and HITRUST-certified pentesters who possess deep expertise in healthcare security. These experts assess your organization's security posture against the comprehensive standards set forth by HIPAA and HITRUST. By identifying vulnerabilities and misconfigurations, we provide actionable recommendations to strengthen your security controls and achieve compliance.
• Comprehensive Reporting: Upon completion of our pentests, we deliver detailed reports that articulate the identified vulnerabilities and their potential impact on HIPAA and HITRUST compliance. These reports serve as a roadmap for targeted improvements, enabling your organization to prioritize remediation efforts and demonstrate to regulators and stakeholders that you are proactively protecting sensitive health data.
• Real-Time Results on the HackerOne Platform: The HackerOne platform provides organizations with real-time visibility into the pentesting process and results. Through the platform, customers can track the progress of the pentest, review findings as they emerge, and collaborate with the pentesters and the HackerOne team to address identified vulnerabilities promptly. This real-time access ensures that organizations can take immediate action to mitigate risks and maintain HIPAA and HITRUST compliance.

To learn more about how to use pentesting to address HIPAA compliance, contact the experts at HackerOne today.

Healthcare records are a prime target for malicious actors. Health data has a higher value and longer shelf life than other data types and can be used for a variety of purposes including extortion, medical fraud, and prescription purchasing. In 2023 there were 725 large security breaches in healthcare with over 133 million breached records. To help safeguard medical information, the U.S. government established the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), a federal law that sets the standard for protecting sensitive patient data in the U.S. 

DORA focuses on Information and Communications Technology (ICT) systems and applies to all financial institutions in the EU. This includes traditional entities such as banks, insurance companies, investment firms, and credit institutions, as well as non-traditional entities like crypto firms and crowdfunding platforms. The regulation also extends to ICT third-party service providers, including cloud service providers and data centers. Although DORA is an EU regulation, any organization that works with EU-covered entities must maintain compliance, regardless of its physical location.

DORA regulations can be grouped into three core concepts: 

• ICT Risk Management: Regulated organizations must have a documented ICT risk management framework that ensures a high level of operational resilience, including regular testing.
• Incident Management: Organizations must have an ICT incident management process for the detection, remediation or resolution, and notification of ICT-related incidents.
• Supply Chain Security: Organizations must manage ICT third-party risk as an integral part of their risk management framework.

In addition to these requirements, DORA encourages, but does not require, information sharing among covered parties.

The regulations in DORA are similar to those in the Network and Information Security (NIS2) Directive. Both DORA and NIS2 share the common goal of ensuring cyber resilience, though their target sector definitions differ, with some overlap, especially in the financial sector. While NIS2 has a wider scope, DORA imposes more demanding requirements for security testing. Since financial institutions fall under the scope of both DORA and NIS2, they must comply with both regulations.

Why DORA and Why Now?

The financial sector is becoming increasingly dependent on internet technology as well as fintech (financial technology) and non-financial technology companies to deliver financial services.  With this increasing dependence comes the increasing risk of cyberattacks and other service disruptions. In 2023, the number of cyberattacks on European financial services more than doubled, and the average cost of a cyberattack on entities in the financial sector worldwide was a staggering $5.9 million.

With today's distributed systems and the interconnected nature of financial operations, disruptions can easily spread across national borders. Before DORA, there was no unified program across the EU to strengthen digital operational resilience of its financial institutions and third-party service providers. DORA strengthens and harmonizes the ICT risk management regulations that already exist in EU member states, and establishes a universal framework for managing and mitigating IT risk in the entire financial sector. 

DORA and Pentesting

It is in every ICT organization’s vital interest to identify and resolve or remediate vulnerabilities in their IT systems and applications before they can be exploited by bad actors. DORA requirements include regular testing for operation stability, and threat detection and response. Pentesting, the simulation of a cyberattack under near, or actual real-world conditions is perfectly suited for this task. It is a critical tool for satisfying DORA requirements. 

DORA requires two levels of testing.  All regulated entities must perform digital operational resilience testing at least annually for systems and applications supporting important functions to detect vulnerabilities and weaknesses, and to validate security controls in place. DORA also mandates threat-led pentesting (TLPT) at least once every three years, which focuses on specific threats for the most important financial operations as designated by authorities in each country. 

In addition to detecting vulnerabilities in ICT systems before they can be exploited, pentesting can also be deployed in application development to check for vulnerabilities before they are installed, improving the organization’s overall security posture. It can also be used to improve overall resilience by giving the organization an opportunity to react to a cyberattack in a test situation, rather than in an actual cyber event.

Satisfy DORA Requirements with HackerOne’s Comprehensive Security Testing Solutions

HackerOne offers a comprehensive suite of security solutions designed to help financial services organizations meet DORA compliance requirements. Our portfolio includes CREST-accredited Pentest as a Service (PTaaS) model, Code Security Audits, Bug Bounty programs, and Spot Checks. This integrated approach aligns perfectly with DORA's mandates for regular and comprehensive ICT risk assessment and management, as outlined in Articles 24 and 25.

At the core, HackerOne Pentest provides a detailed, methodology-driven approach to security testing conducted by heavily vetted security researchers. In accordance with DORA Article 24(1), our pentest services help organizations establish, maintain and review a sound and comprehensive digital operational resilience testing program as an integral part of the ICT risk-management framework. Each pentesting engagement with HackerOne delivers detailed reports and attestations, providing documented evidence of DORA compliance efforts. This aligns with the need for "internal validation methodologies" as mentioned in Article 24(5).

Our pentesting services are complemented by:

• Code Security Audits (CSA): HackerOne CSA service addresses DORA Article 25(1)'s requirement for "source code reviews where feasible." Conducted by over 600 vetted senior software engineers, these audits provide a comprehensive view of your codebase's security posture, identifying vulnerabilities that automated tools might miss.
• Bug Bounty Programs: HackerOne Bounty offers continuous, human-powered security testing, aligning with DORA Article 24(6)'s mandate for yearly testing of "all ICT systems and applications supporting critical or important functions." This always-on approach ensures your systems are constantly tested against new and emerging threats.
• Spot Checks: As part of our Bug Bounty offering, Spot Checks allow for quick, flexible testing iterations. This capability supports DORA Article 25(1)'s call for "vulnerability assessments and scans, open source analyses, network security assessments, gap analyses," and other appropriate tests.

HackerOne’s human-powered, continuous approach ensures that organizations can meet DORA's requirements for a "range of assessments, tests, methodologies, practices, and tools" as specified in Article 24(2). By leveraging HackerOne's global network of security experts, including EU-based professionals specializing in DORA requirements, organizations can ensure their security measures are thoroughly evaluated against both DORA standards and broader EU regulatory expectations.

By integrating HackerOne's security testing solutions into their DORA compliance strategy, organizations are empowered to meet the required digital operational resilience standards while demonstrating a proactive, risk-based approach to cybersecurity. This comprehensive strategy significantly enhances their credibility with regulators and ensures ongoing resilience in the face of evolving ICT risks.

The Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA) is a European Union (EU) regulation that was enacted in January 2023 and will apply to regulated entities as of January 2025. Digital Operational Resilience refers to the ability of financial entities to maintain IT security and withstand operational disruptions. The act is aimed at strengthening the IT security of financial organizations in the EU and ensuring that they can stay resilient in the event of a cyberattack or other severe operational disruption. 

Overview of NIST 800-53, FISMA, and FedRAMP

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is a U.S. federal agency responsible for developing and promoting technology standards and guidelines for a variety of areas, including cybersecurity, in support of federal agencies and private sector organizations. NIST’s goal is to help organizations mitigate cybersecurity risks, protect data and information, and enhance their overall security posture. 

NIST 800-53

To support this and other security efforts, NIST has issued a number of publications. One such publication, NIST Special Publication 800-53, “Security and Privacy Controls for Federal Information Systems and Organizations,” provides a comprehensive catalog of security controls and guidelines that can be implemented to secure information systems. NIST 800-53 is a foundational resource for organizations to follow in developing security programs and facilitating compliance with security regulations and standards, including FISMA and FedRAMP. 

FISMA

The Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) is a U.S. law that mandates federal agencies to develop, document, and implement agency-wide programs to provide security for the information and information systems that support the operations and assets of the agency. Under FISMA, organizations are required to implement minimum recommended information security controls as defined in NIST 800-53.

FedRAMP

The Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) has the same basic goal as FISMA, to protect government information and systems and reduce cybersecurity risks in information systems. But while FISMA applies to all federal information systems, FedRAMP deals exclusively with cloud-related computing and services. FedRAMP provides a standardized approach to security assessment, authorization, and monitoring, including additional controls beyond baseline controls specified in NIST 800-53 to address the unique elements of cloud computing. 

Key Insights on NIST 800-53 Compliance

NIST 800-53 compliance is mandatory for U.S. federal agencies, and it is typically required for federal contractors who handle or have access to government information systems or sensitive information. 

NIST 800-53 covers security policies and controls that can be categorized into five major areas:

• Identify: Identification and management of assets, including risk management
• Protect: Protection of assets and data security, including user access control and least-privileged access controls
• Detect: Continuous monitoring and discovery of anomalous activities
• Respond: Methods and strategies for identifying and mitigating threats
• Recovery: Restoration procedures for recovery from a system failure or attack

To achieve NIST 800-53 compliance, the organization needs to make a detailed evaluation of its cybersecurity requirements, policies and programs. Organizations tailor their compliance path to align with their individual operations, but all should consider the following steps.

• Define scope: Understand NIST 800-53 requirements. Determine which systems and applications are in scope.
• Conduct risk assessment: Identify vulnerabilities and security risks. Prioritize mitigation efforts.
• Implement and test controls: Select and implement applicable controls from NIST 800-53 framework. Update policies and procedures as required. Document controls to facilitate compliance audits.
• Monitor continually: Develop plans for ongoing monitoring of security controls
• Develop incident response plans: Develop plans for detecting, responding to, and recovering from a cybersecurity incident.
• Perform regular audits: Undergo regular audits to fulfill compliance requirements and enhance cybersecurity posture.

Leveraging HackerOne Pentest to Meet NIST 800-53 and FISMA Standards

HackerOne Pentest offers a proven approach to help organizations efficiently achieve compliance with NIST 800-53 and FISMA standards. By leveraging the expertise of elite, vetted pentesters, HackerOne Pentest conducts targeted validations of key technical controls, providing actionable insights to strengthen security posture. Our pentesting services assist with the following areas: 

• Access Control Validation: Assess the enforcement of least privilege and separation of duties through effective authentication and authorization mechanisms. This ensures that only authorized users can access sensitive resources, reducing the risk of unauthorized access or privilege escalation.
• Incident Response Evaluation: Evaluate the capabilities for a comprehensive incident response lifecycle, from preparation to recovery. This comprehensive assessment helps identify gaps and areas for improvement, enabling the organization to respond effectively to potential threats.
• Risk Assessment: Conduct in-depth risk evaluations to identify vulnerabilities and inform control implementations. By leveraging the expertise of seasoned pentesters, organizations can gain a clear understanding of their risk landscape and prioritize remediation efforts effectively.
• System and Communications Protection: Secure communication channels and control interfaces, employing cryptographic protections as necessary. This ensures that confidential data remains secure during transmission and that control interfaces are hardened against unauthorized access or manipulation.
• Audit and Accountability Validation: Evaluate the organization's audit and accountability mechanisms, ensuring that user activities can be traced and unauthorized access or modifications can be detected and addressed promptly. This helps maintain the integrity of the system and supports forensic investigations in the event of a security incident.

"The MoD has embraced a strategy of securing by design, with transparency being integral for identifying areas for improvement in the development process. Working with the ethical hacking community allows us to build out our bench of tech talent and bring more diverse perspectives to protect and defend our assets. Understanding where our vulnerabilities are and working with the wider ethical hacking community to identify and fix them is an essential step in reducing cyber risk and improving resilience."
— Christine Maxwell, CISO, Ministry of Defence (MoD)

Read the full press release.

Navigating FedRAMP Compliance with HackerOne

HackerOne's pentesting services are expertly tailored to help organizations achieve successful FedRAMP compliance. Our offerings focus on the following areas:

• Cloud-Specific Controls: Our pentests extend beyond NIST 800-53, targeting cloud-specific concerns such as multi-tenancy, data encryption both at rest and in transit, and virtualization security.
• Third-Party Assessment Organization (3PAO): While HackerOne is not a 3PAO, we collaborate with independent assessors during our pentests to deliver an unbiased and comprehensive evaluation of our security controls and compliance efforts.
• Authorization Packages Documentation: Following our pentests, we produce detailed documentation, including the System Security Plan (SSP), Security Assessment Report (SAR), and Plan of Action and Milestones (POA&M). These documents articulate our security measures and findings, providing organizations with a clear roadmap to address any identified vulnerabilities and achieve FedRAMP compliance.

"Implementing the VDP helped us triage and supplemented the internal team we were building. We also knew that the federal government was mandating VDP policies for their agencies, and we wanted to be on the forefront of embracing that security policy for our own constituents."
— Jillian Burner, CISO, Ohio Secretary of State

Read the full story.

Additional HackerOne Services

• Public Reporting Channel with a Vulnerability Disclosure Program (VDP): Risk Assessment control RA-5 (11) requires that organizations establish a public channel to receive external vulnerability reports, HackerOne Response offers a Vulnerability Disclosure Program (VDP) to help satisfy the control. By enabling organizations to establish a structured process for receiving and addressing security vulnerabilities reported by external parties, organizations can be on track to meet requirements and enhance overall risk management and compliance efforts.
• Continuous Monitoring with a Bug Bounty Program: While our pentesting offers deep, targeted FedRAMP assessments, HackerOne Bounty extends this capability, providing ongoing, crowdsourced security testing, ensuring that your systems are constantly tested against new and emerging threats. This continuous approach aligns with FedRAMP's emphasis on continuous monitoring, offering an agile, responsive framework to identify and mitigate vulnerabilities year-round. 

Federal organizations are required to meet specific technology and cybersecurity standards, and several agencies and laws are responsible for setting and enforcing these guidelines. Let's break down some of the different governing bodies and laws for federal organizations and how to use pentesting to address NIST 800-53, FISMA, and FedRAMP compliance.