EvidenceSheet

Art.25 Testing of ICT tools and systems

The testing programme provides, proportionately under Article 4(2), for appropriate tests such as penetration and end-to-end tests, performance and compatibility testing, scenario-based tests, review of source code where feasible, scans and vulnerability assessments, analysis of open-source components, gap analyses, assessments of network security, reviews of physical security, and questionnaires with scanning software. Central securities depositories and central counterparties also run vulnerability assessments before deploying or redeploying applications or infrastructure components, and ICT services behind critical or important functions (Art. 25(2)). Microenterprises plan their tests by pairing a risk-based approach with strategic planning, weighing the resources and time spent against urgency, risk type, criticality and their capacity to take calculated risks (Art. 25(3)). The at least yearly testing of systems supporting critical or important functions is an Article 24(6) duty on entities other than microenterprises.

Source: DORA (Regulation (EU) 2022/2554), Art.25. The statement above is our statement of the clause, read from the published text and cited so you can check it against the official text, not the instrument verbatim. Open DORA (Regulation (EU) 2022/2554) in the compliance library.

Applies to the financial entities listed in Article 2. Many duties are lighter or absent for microenterprises and for the entities in Article 16(1); each statement says where. Article 19 carries the reporting clocks of Delegated Regulation (EU) 2025/301, Article 5.

4
artefacts
1
held by a system
1
at each review
moderate
to go live
Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling
where the evidence lives
teal = a system already holds it · olive = produced at each review. To go live: easy when half or more of the artefacts are already held by a system, moderate from a quarter to a half, hard below a quarter.

These are the artefacts auditors commonly ask for on this requirement, our guidance rather than text from the standard. Your assessor decides what is sufficient in your context, and asks for samples across the period when a report covers one.

system holds itEvidence a system already holds

  • Vulnerability scan and penetration test reports with dates and scope · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

periodic reviewEvidence produced at each review

  • Pre-deployment vulnerability assessment records (central securities depositories and central counterparties only) · Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling

governing documentDocuments that govern the control

  • Test catalogue showing which Article 25(1) test types are used for which systems and why · Document repository
  • Microenterprise ICT test plan showing how risk and resources were balanced · Policy repository / GRC workspace

First move

Start with the 1 of 4 artefacts that already live in a system (Vulnerability scanner / patch tooling); keep the periodic reviews but log each one as a dated record with a named reviewer.

Common gaps auditors find

Do this for your whole sheet

Paste the rows you run your controls from and get this mapping for every control at once, with the periodic-review ones flagged and a first move per row. No account for the first run.

Build my evidence sheet

Art.24 General requirements for the performance of digital operational resilience testing · Art.26 Advanced testing of ICT tools, systems and processes based on TLPT