DORA, NIS2, and the SEC have arrived at the same conclusion: backup logs aren't evidence. They want verifiable recoverability. Cryptographic proof that your data can actually be restored. Traditional backup systems can't provide it.
The Confidence Gap That Gets CISOs Fired
60% of IT leaders believe they can recover from a disaster in under a day. Only 35% actually do.
That gap isn't a testing problem. It's an evidence problem.
"Just because your backup job completed doesn't mean you can restore. Too many execs think that green checkmark means they're safe." That's a practitioner in an IT operations forum, describing what compliance teams are discovering the hard way.
46% of small businesses have never tested their backup and disaster recovery plans. Among those who do test, 77% find failures. The backup software says "success," but the application doesn't work because config files weren't included. Or the database is corrupted. Or the restore takes three weeks instead of three hours.
Practitioners call this "Schrodinger's backup." It exists and doesn't exist until you actually need it. And by then, you're explaining the gap to your CFO, your insurer, and possibly your regulator.
When "Screenshots or It Didn't Happen" Becomes Policy
Auditors have changed what they're asking for. They want actual restore logs, not just backup success reports. Verification that workloads can actually come back online. Screenshots, timestamps, full test documentation.
One practitioner described their insurance renewal stalling because the insurer wanted proof of a recent disaster recovery test on their finance database. "Screenshots or it didn't happen." Another had their renewal blocked until they produced a video of an Exchange mailbox restore actually working.
Insurers learned that backup reports don't predict recovery success. The 40% claim denial rate forced the shift. Now they want evidence they can verify independently.
Major insurers now require annual proof of recoverability, not just backup existence. Documented test restores of critical systems, attested by IT or external auditors. Failure to provide this evidence results in claim denials, higher premiums, or outright refusal to renew policies.
The Regulatory Hammer: DORA, NIS2, and the SEC
Three regulatory frameworks have converged on the same requirement: prove it.
DORA (Digital Operational Resilience Act) takes full effect January 17, 2026. Financial services firms must develop and document recovery procedures, including how to access, recover, and return data held by third-party providers. Testing must be at least annual, and for non-microenterprises, an independent audit is required.
The key phrase: "Documentation and practical evidence (actual tested restore from backup) are required. Mere policy, without proven, tested capability, is insufficient."
Penalties: administrative fines up to 2% of global annual turnover, or suspension of activities.
NIS2 has been enforced across EU member states since October 2024. Organizations must develop, document, and regularly test business continuity plans with evidence of effectiveness. Not paper plans. Tested recoverability.
Executive management is directly liable for failures in oversight, with possible personal liability and bans from management roles. Fines reach €10 million or 2% of annual global turnover.
The SEC's cybersecurity disclosure rules (effective December 2023 for large companies, July 2024 for smaller ones) require companies to describe their processes for managing cybersecurity risks, including backup and recovery. In Q2 2025, the SEC settled for $8 million over undisclosed backup testing failures.
The pattern is clear. Regulators have stopped accepting backup reports as compliance evidence. They want proof that auditors can verify independently.
Why Screenshots Don't Survive Audits
Most backup and DR conversations miss the real issue: the problem isn't testing frequency. It's the nature of the evidence.
Traditional backup systems produce vendor-controlled logs. Screenshots. Dashboard exports. Certification PDFs. All of this evidence has the same structural flaw: it requires trust.
An auditor looking at a backup success log has to trust that the log wasn't edited. Trust that the timestamps are accurate. Trust that the test actually happened the way the report describes. Trust that the vendor's dashboard is showing reality, not what the vendor wants them to see.
This is certification theater. The appearance of compliance without the substance of proof.
When a regulator asks "can you prove your data is recoverable?" and your answer is "here's a screenshot from our backup vendor's dashboard," you're not providing proof. You're providing a claim.
Claims are exactly what regulators have stopped accepting.
The structural gap: traditional evidence is vendor-controlled and editable. Regulatory requirements now demand evidence that is independently verifiable and immutable.
What Verifiable Recoverability Actually Means
Verifiable recoverability means the ability to prove - cryptographically and independently - that data is intact, retrievable, and restorable.
The shift: from "trust our logs" to "verify our proofs." Instead of evidence that requires trust, you need evidence that auditors can verify independently, without trusting your assertions or your vendor's.
This requires a different evidence architecture:
Cryptographic proof of data possession. Storage providers prove they hold your data without retransmitting it. Mathematical proof that the data exists, is intact, and can be retrieved.
Immutable audit trails. Every data operation is recorded in a ledger that can't be edited, deleted, or backdated. Not by you, not by your vendor, not by anyone. The audit trail is the proof, and the proof is independently verifiable.
Merkle proofs provide block-level integrity verification. Any modification at a granular level is detectable. If a single bit changes, the proof fails.
On-chain verification. When audit trails live on a blockchain, auditors verify them without trusting the storage provider. They check the ledger themselves. The proof doesn't depend on the vendor's honesty.
This is what regulators mean when they demand "practical evidence" and "tested recoverability." Not more frequent testing. Not better screenshots. Evidence that works under audit because it doesn't require trusting the entity being audited.
Akave Cloud Delivers Proof, Not Promises
Akave Cloud was built for this regulatory environment.
Every data operation generates cryptographic proof. Not logs that can be altered. Evidence that withstands regulatory scrutiny because auditors can verify it independently.
The foundation is eCID (Encrypted Content Identifier), which provides tamper-proof content addressing. The hash is calculated after encryption and erasure coding, not on raw data. The content identifier itself becomes proof of integrity.
PDP (Proof of Data Possession) proves data exists without retransmitting it. Storage providers prove possession mathematically. This is the "practical evidence" DORA requires.
For granular verification, Merkle proofs detect any modification at the block level. If a single bit changes, the proof fails. Comprehensive verification, not sampling.
On-chain verification logs on Avalanche L1 create an immutable ledger of all data operations. Only metadata and state changes go on-chain—never user data. No tokens, no volatility. Just an immutable ledger. Auditors verify without trusting Akave's logs. They check the blockchain directly. Governance-mode retention adds WORM-style protection with administrative override that's logged and auditable.
The outcome: auditors verify recoverability without trusting Akave's assertions. The proof is mathematical, not testimonial. The evidence is independently verifiable, not vendor-controlled.
11×9s durability (99.999999999%) via erasure coding and Filecoin proofs. Mathematically verifiable, not vendor-promised.
At $14.99/TB with zero egress fees, the math works for compliance-heavy workloads. But the real value isn't the price. It's the proof your auditor can verify without trusting anyone's logs.
The Path Forward
DORA full enforcement arrives January 17, 2026. NIS2 is already active. The SEC has established enforcement precedent with an $8 million settlement.
The 40% insurance claim denial rate isn't a fluctuation. It's the new baseline. Insurers have learned that backup reports don't predict recovery success, and they're adjusting requirements accordingly.
The question isn't whether to improve your backup testing procedures. Testing is necessary but insufficient. The question is whether your evidence architecture produces proof that auditors can verify independently.
If your answer to "can you prove recoverability?" is a screenshot from a vendor dashboard, you're providing claims, not proof.
Pull your last backup report. Ask: can an auditor verify this without trusting your vendor's dashboard?
If the answer requires trust, the gap is structural. Under DORA, NIS2, and SEC scrutiny, structural gaps aren't acceptable. They're fixable. Start with the evidence.
Connect with Us
Akave Cloud is an enterprise-grade, distributed and scalable object storage designed for large-scale datasets in AI, analytics, and enterprise pipelines. It offers S3 object compatibility, cryptographic verifiability, immutable audit trails, and SDKs for agentic agents; all with zero egress fees and no vendor lock-in saving up to 80% on storage costs vs. hyperscalers.
Akave Cloud works with a wide ecosystem of partners operating hundreds of petabytes of capacity, enabling deployments across multiple countries and powering sovereign data infrastructure. The stack is also pre-qualified with key enterprise apps such as Snowflake and others.