Forty-six findings, behind the trading screen

Unauthorized external access to internal trading backend systems and admin dashboards.

Business logic flaws enabling manipulation of trade execution workflows and financial records.

Admin interface authentication weaknesses allowing unauthorized privileged access.

Sensitive trading and operational data exposed through unprotected internal API endpoints.

Access control gaps enabling privilege escalation within the exchange platform.

Session management vulnerabilities across internal admin and operations workflows.

Financial exchanges and trading platforms.

Fintech companies with complex internal admin systems.

Any business where internal system compromise could lead to direct financial manipulation.

Why test internal backoffice tools instead of just the public exchange?

Public trading interfaces get the most scrutiny by default. Internal admin tools that can move funds or alter records often get less, despite carrying more privilege, which makes them a high-value target if reachable.

What is a business logic flaw in a trading context?

A workflow that behaves incorrectly on its own terms, such as a trade execution step that can be replayed, reordered, or given inconsistent values, independent of any classic injection or authentication bug.

Why run this proactively rather than after an incident?

Backoffice systems accumulate privilege and integrations as an exchange scales. Testing ahead of that growth catches gaps while remediation is still straightforward, rather than after they are load-bearing.

Is 46 findings a lot for an internal system?

It reflects the surface tested, not unusual weakness. Internal admin systems are typically built for functionality first and reviewed less often, so a thorough first assessment tends to surface more.