EU Data Act Remediation: 60-Day Rapid Plan

Why this matters now

The EU Data Act has been applied since 12 September 2025—and enforcement expectations will only rise as the connected-product scope under Article 3(1) kicks in on 12 September 2026. If you run data-sharing APIs, rely on cloud/edge providers, or ship connected products, the clock is already ticking. This 60-day EU Data Act remediation plan shows how to harden data-sharing API security, prepare cloud switching compliance, and assemble an evidence pack that stands up during due diligence and audits.

---

Who’s impacted & when (quick recap)

• Data holders expose data via APIs to users or third parties.
• Cloud and edge providers are expected to support fair switching and portability.
• Connected-product makers & related services (with Article 3(1) product scope applying from 12 Sept 2026).
  If that’s you, the next 60 days are for eliminating “known-unknowns,” raising control maturity, and proving it with artifacts.

---

Your 60-Day EU Data Act Remediation Plan (audit-ready)

Day 0–5: Baseline & scope

1. Inventory all data-sharing API endpoints and users (first/third party).
2. Map data categories, purposes, consent/contractual bases, and tenants.
3. Identify current cloud regions/services and exit constraints.
4. Run a free external exposure sweep with our tool to catch easy wins. Convert findings into 30/60/90-day tasks.

Free Website Vulnerability Scanner – Landing Page

---

Day 6–20: Remediate data-sharing APIs (prove it with evidence)

Objectives: purpose binding, tenant isolation, least privilege, rate-limiting, change control, and retesting—mapped to clauses/evidence in your evidence pack.

1) Enforce purpose binding at the API layer

FastAPI example (Python) — annotate and enforce allowed purposes per client/app):

from fastapi import FastAPI, Depends, HTTPException, Request

app = FastAPI()

# Static registry or DB table mapping client_id -> allowed_purposes
CLIENT_PURPOSES = {
    "partner_app_123": {"billing_reconciliation", "analytics_aggregated"},
    "internal_tool_007": {"customer_support"}
}

def purpose_guard(request: Request):
    client_id = request.headers.get("x-client-id")
    purpose = request.headers.get("x-processing-purpose")
    if not client_id or not purpose:
        raise HTTPException(status_code=400, detail="Missing client or purpose")
    allowed = CLIENT_PURPOSES.get(client_id, set())
    if purpose not in allowed:
        raise HTTPException(status_code=403, detail="Purpose not permitted")
    return {"client_id": client_id, "purpose": purpose}

@app.get("/v1/invoices")
def list_invoices(ctx=Depends(purpose_guard)):
    # downstream services can read ctx["purpose"] for audit logs & DLP
    return {"status": "ok"}

OpenAPI contract snippet (document the x-processing-purpose header):

openapi: 3.0.3
info:
  title: Data-Sharing API
  version: "1.0"
paths:
  /v1/invoices:
    get:
      summary: List invoices
      parameters:
        - in: header
          name: x-processing-purpose
          required: true
          schema:
            type: string
            enum: [billing_reconciliation, analytics_aggregated, customer_support]
          description: Declares the allowed processing purpose for this request.
      responses:
        "200": { description: OK }

2) Enforce tenant isolation at DB level (PostgreSQL RLS)

-- Precondition: each row has tenant_id; session sets current_setting('app.tenant_id')
ALTER TABLE invoice ENABLE ROW LEVEL SECURITY;

CREATE POLICY tenant_isolation ON invoice
  USING (tenant_id = current_setting('app.tenant_id')::uuid);

-- App sets tenant_id per request (from verified token/claim)
-- SELECT set_config('app.tenant_id', '<tenant-uuid>', false);

3) Rate limiting at the edge (NGINX)

# 100 requests/min per API key
limit_req_zone $http_x_api_key zone=api_key_zone:10m rate=100r/m;

server {
  location /v1/ {
    limit_req zone=api_key_zone burst=50 nodelay;
    proxy_pass http://app_upstream;
  }
}

4) Change control with signed config and peer review (GitHub Actions gate)

name: change-control
on: [pull_request]
jobs:
  enforce:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
      - name: Verify signed commits
        run: |
          git verify-commit $(git rev-list --no-walk HEAD) || exit 1
      - name: Require 2 approving reviews
        run: |
          gh pr view ${{ github.event.pull_request.number }} --json reviews | jq \
            '.reviews | map(select(.state=="APPROVED")) | length' | grep -q '2'

5) Retest and attach proof

• Re-scan public endpoints after each change (delta scans + manual checks).
• Export logs: “request purpose header,” “tenant id claim,” “rate-limit hits.”
• Save diffs (before/after) and attach test notes to your evidence pack.

Vuln Scan Report – Sample Findings to check Website Vulnerability

---

Day 21–40: Cloud switching & portability (prove you can exit)

Goals: pre-build exit runbooks, dependency maps, and export tests; capture configurations and logs reviewers will ask to see.

Exit runbook (YAML skeleton)

runbook: cloud-exit
scenarios:
  - id: "primary-to-alt-region"
    rpo: "5m"
    rto: "30m"
    steps:
      - "Freeze writes; drain queues"
      - "Export data (S3 + DB snapshot); verify checksums"
      - "Rehydrate in alt region"
      - "Flip read/write endpoints via DNS"
artifacts:
  - "DB snapshot manifest + checksums"
  - "S3 bucket inventory + lifecycle rules"
  - "IAM diff before/after"
  - "DNS cutover logs"

IAM boundary for export jobs (Terraform)

resource "aws_iam_policy" "export_boundary" {
  name = "export-boundary"
  policy = jsonencode({
    Version = "2012-10-17",
    Statement = [
      {
        "Sid": "S3ExportOnly",
        "Effect": "Allow",
        "Action": ["s3:PutObject", "s3:ListBucket", "s3:GetBucketLocation"],
        "Resource": ["arn:aws:s3:::data-exports/*", "arn:aws:s3:::data-exports"]
      },
      { "Sid": "DenyDangerous", "Effect": "Deny", "Action": ["s3:DeleteObject","s3:PutBucketPolicy"], "Resource": "*" }
    ]
  })
}

Kubernetes egress control for export jobs

apiVersion: networking.k8s.io/v1
kind: NetworkPolicy
metadata:
  name: export-egress
spec:
  podSelector:
    matchLabels: { job: data-export }
  policyTypes: ["Egress"]
  egress:
    - to:
        - namespaceSelector: { matchLabels: { name: "infra" } }
        - ipBlock: { cidr: 0.0.0.0/0 } # optionally constrain
      ports: [{ protocol: TCP, port: 443 }]

Evidence you’ll want in the evidence pack

• Exit runbook + last success timestamp.
• Export logs, checksums, and object manifests.
• IAM & network policy diffs.
• Screenshots of a successful restore in the alternate target.

---

Day 41–60: Consolidate the Evidence Pack & prepare the retest

What to include (make it “reviewer-friendly”):

• Purpose-binding design, configs, and gateway rules.
• Tenant isolation proof: RLS policies + unit tests.
• Rate-limit configs + logs for throttled attempts.
• Change-control trail: PRs, approvals, signed commits.
• Cloud exit runbook + last validated drill output.
• Vulnerability scans and manual test notes from retests.

Auto-collect artifacts with a simple script:

#!/usr/bin/env bash
set -euo pipefail
OUT="evidence_pack_$(date +%F)"
mkdir -p "$OUT"
cp -r infra/policies "$OUT/"
cp -r api/openapi.yaml "$OUT/"
jq '.' logs/retests/*.json > "$OUT/retests.json"
git log --since="60 days ago" --pretty=oneline > "$OUT/change_log.txt"
tar -czf "$OUT.tgz" "$OUT"
echo "Evidence pack created: $OUT.tgz"

Optional DAST gate on retest (GitHub Actions + ZAP baseline):

name: dast-retest
on:
  workflow_dispatch:
jobs:
  zap:
    runs-on: ubuntu-latest
    steps:
      - uses: actions/checkout@v4
      - uses: zaproxy/[email protected]
        with:
          target: ${{ secrets.PUBLIC_BASE_URL }}
          rules_file_name: ".zap/rules.tsv"
          allow_issue_writing: false
      - name: Archive ZAP report
        uses: actions/upload-artifact@v4
        with:
          name: zap-report
          path: report_html.html

---

Quick start (today)

1. Run a light external exposure scan: free.pentesttesting.com → triage headers, cookies, redirects, CORS, and basic leaks.
2. Turn findings into a 30/60/90-day backlog mapped to EU Data Act remediation objectives.
3. Book a structured risk assessment to prioritize work and align artifacts.
4. Engage remediation services to accelerate fixes and assemble your evidence pack.

---

Services to help you execute (no guesswork)

• Risk Assessment Services — prioritize gaps and build a crisp roadmap (GDPR/ISO/SOC 2 friendly).
• Remediation Services — hands-on fixes with audit-ready artifacts (policy + technical).
• GDPR Risk Assessment & Remediation — if privacy overlaps dominate your scope.

Prefer a package approach for certification-aligned fixes? See ISO 27001 and SOC 2 remediation options as well.

---

30/60/90-Day Backlog Template (copy/paste)

30 days (critical):

• Purpose headers enforced on all data-sharing APIs; OpenAPI updated.
• RLS tenant isolation lives on the top-3 sensitive tables.
• Rate-limit policies deployed at the gateway + logs exported to SIEM.
• Exit runbook drafted; first data export smoke test done.
• Initial evidence pack folder seeded.

60 days (high):

• Purpose registry tied to client onboarding with approvals.
• Change-control gate (signed commits + 2 reviews) for API surfaces.
• Exit drill executed with restore validation in the alternate region.
• DAST baseline retest attached to PR merges.

90 days (maturing):

• Quarterly exit drill cadence + checksum attestation.
• Purpose-binding unit/integration tests in CI.
• Continuous external exposure checks feeding the risk register.

---

Further reading on our blog

• Top 7 Ways to Fix OAuth Misconfiguration in Laravel — practical auth hardening + scanner walk-through.
• Prevent XSSI Attack in Laravel with 7 Powerful Ways — client-side data safety patterns.
• AI App Security Audit: 7 VAPT Reveals & Fixes Critical Risks — real outcomes & artifacts.

---

Ready to move? (Next steps)

• Run the free scan now → free.pentesttesting.com (attach the results to your backlog).
• Book Risk Assessment Services to prioritize EU Data Act gaps.
• Engage Remediation Services to implement fixes and compile an evidence pack that your stakeholders will trust.

Questions or a tricky requirement you want sanity-checked? Email [email protected]—we’ll help you ship an audit-ready outcome.

---