Diyarbakır KVKK Cybersecurity: Measuring Technical Controls

The most common gap in KVKK readiness is the distance between written procedure and actual system behavior. A document may say access is limited, while an old employee account remains active, logging is incomplete or too many roles can reach sensitive data.

Security measurement closes this gap. Personal-data surfaces, admin panels, API endpoints, file upload areas and backup processes are reviewed through technical evidence.

In systems processing personal data, each user should access only what is needed for their work. Role-based authorization, separated admin accounts, MFA, session duration, password policy and inactive-user cleanup are reviewed together.

Authorization tests check whether users in the same role can view each other's data, whether lower roles can reach higher-role actions and whether object ownership is enforced at the API level.

If you cannot see which user accessed which data and when, breach assessment becomes weak. Admin actions, authentication events, data exports and critical configuration changes should be logged.

Keeping logs is not enough. Immutability, retention period, central monitoring, alerting and incident-response ownership must also be defined.

Sensitive data areas require TLS in transit, appropriate encryption at rest, key management and data minimization. Unnecessary data creates both operational cost and breach impact.

For backups, the real question is not whether a backup exists but whether recovery has been tested. A backup without regular restore testing cannot be treated as reliable in a crisis.

The report translates technical findings into the KVKK context. Each finding includes severity, affected data type, evidence, technical remediation and management priority.

This work does not replace legal advisory. It produces an evidence-led security output that helps legal, management and technical teams look at the same risk picture.