Penetration Testing for FinTech Payments, lending, BNPL and neobanks — tested for APRA, PCI DSS and SOC 2

Three things. First, transaction integrity — race conditions, double-spend, idempotency abuse, payment-flow tampering are FinTech-specific failure modes. Second, the integration surface — every FinTech sits inside a web of BaaS, payment processor, KYC, and fraud-vendor relationships, and the integration boundaries are where breaches happen. Third, the regulatory load — APRA CPS 234, PCI DSS v4.0.1, SOC 2, and ASIC oversight stack together in a way generic SaaS doesn’t face. Engagements take longer (7–12 days vs 5–10) and the threat model is different.

Possibly. CPS 234 directly applies to APRA-regulated entities (ADIs, general and life insurers, super funds, private health insurers). It also applies indirectly through paragraph 13 — APRA-regulated entities must ensure their service providers manage information security to a standard consistent with CPS 234. So if you sell FinTech to an Australian bank, super fund, or insurer, your customer’s CPS 234 obligation flows down to you. See our APRA CPS 234 page.

It depends on your scope. If your platform fully outsources card handling to a hosted payment page (Stripe Checkout, Braintree Drop-In, similar) and your servers never see card numbers, PAN or CVV, you may qualify for SAQ A and not need full Requirement 11.4 testing. If your platform touches card data at any point — even briefly, even in iframes — Requirement 11.4 likely applies. Penva Security’s scoping call covers this assessment explicitly.

Yes, when scope and methodology are designed for it. The evidence requirements overlap heavily on penetration testing — what differs is the framing, the report structure, and the additional non-pentest evidence each framework needs. We produce a single engagement deliverable structured so APRA tripartite reviewers, PCI QSAs, and SOC 2 auditors each find the evidence they need without running three separate tests.

Carefully. We test the integration boundary — your code calling theirs, signature validation on their webhooks to you, OAuth client configuration, idempotency handling — without testing the BaaS provider’s infrastructure itself (which would require their authorisation). Most BaaS providers (Railsr, Solid, similar) have published guidance on what’s in and out of scope for partner pentests.

Yes — including document-upload abuse, OCR confusion attacks, sanctioned-name list bypass through Unicode and homoglyph tricks, identity-verification provider integration weakness, and re-verification flow tampering. This is one of the highest-yield areas on FinTech engagements and almost never appears in scanner-only testing.

7 to 12 business days of active testing for a typical FinTech application + API + integration surface, plus 1 to 2 days for reporting. Longer than generic SaaS (5–10 days) because the threat model is wider — transaction integrity, KYC, payment flows, and integration boundaries each need explicit attention.

Yes — by default. All Penva Security testers are Australian-based. Sensitive findings, technical evidence, and report drafts stay in Australian jurisdiction. This matches APRA’s third-party-management expectations and removes the data-residency question that AU FinTech buyers often raise during procurement when evaluating US-based PTaaS platforms.