Free Assessment

Table of Contents

Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less.

Request a Demo

Home

  / ,

  / Client Achievement: Peeklogic Attains ISO 27001 Certification Through Drata’s Automated Compliance Solution

Client Achievement: Peeklogic Attains ISO 27001 Certification Through Drata’s Automated Compliance Solution

Picture of Abeera Zainab
Copy Link

Peeklogic , a prominent SaaS solutions provider, achieved a significant milestone with the attainment of ISO 27001 certification, bolstered by seamless support from Drata, an innovative automated security and compliance solutions provider. This achievement marks a testament to Peeklogic’s commitment to robust data security and compliance standards. We’re excited to celebrate this milestone and look forward to continued success in their journey of growth and compliance. 

Understanding ISO 27001: Safeguarding Information Security Introduction to ISO 27001 

ISO 27001, a globally recognized benchmark in information security management by the International Standards Organization (ISO), provides a robust framework for establishing, implementing, and enhancing an Information Security Management System (ISMS). Also known as ISMS Certification or Cyber Security Certification, ISO 27001 ensures organizations safeguard valuable assets like financial data and intellectual property. Axipro offers comprehensive ISO 27001 services, demonstrating commitment to maintaining high information security standards and protecting sensitive data from cyber threats and unauthorized access. 

Focus on Risk Management 

Central to ISO 27001 is a concentrated emphasis on risk management and the adoption of a holistic security approach. Unlike certain other standards and frameworks, ISO 27001 does not mandate specific technical controls. Rather, it furnishes organizations with a structured framework and a checklist of controls to formulate and sustain a robust ISMS. 

Path to ISO 27001 Certification 

Becoming ISO 27001 certified necessitates a methodical examination of an organization’s information security risks, incorporating assessments of threats, vulnerabilities, and potential impacts. Organizations must then orchestrate the design and implementation of a cohesive and comprehensive suite of information security controls and risk mitigation measures. 

Rigorous Certification Process and Compliance Maintenance 

The journey towards ISO 27001 certification culminates in a rigorous auditing process conducted by a third-party entity. This meticulous evaluation assesses whether the organization has effectively implemented applicable best practices as outlined in the standard. Furthermore, certified organizations must undergo annual audits to ensure ongoing compliance and adherence to ISO 27001 standards. 

Why does ISO 27001 certification matter? 

At Axipro, we prioritize our customers’ security by offering solutions aimed at mitigating organizational risks. ISO 27001 certification exemplifies our dedication to this cause. While not legally mandated, certification serves as tangible proof that an organization’s security protocols meet exceptionally high standards. We firmly believe that upholding the utmost information security standards is paramount for both us and our clients. 

ISO 27001 serves as a pivotal framework to attain and maintain these standards. Anchored on three fundamental principles—Confidentiality, Integrity, and Availability—it empowers organizations to fortify their security strategies and implement robust policies and controls. 

Confidentiality: Safeguarding Data Privacy 

Confidentiality is a core principle of ISO 27001, emphasizing the importance of preserving data privacy. It mandates that sensitive information remains accessible only to authorized personnel, ensuring its security and preventing unauthorized access. 

Integrity: Ensuring Data Accuracy and Trustworthiness 

Integrity requires organizations to maintain the consistency, accuracy, and security of their data. By fostering trust and reliability, this principle ensures that information remains unaltered and reliable, maintaining the integrity of organizational data assets. 

Availability: Sustaining Operational Continuity 

Availability ensures that systems, applications, and data remain accessible to meet operational demands. This principle is essential for sustaining business continuity, ensuring that critical resources are available when needed, thereby supporting uninterrupted operations. 

By adhering to ISO 27001’s principles and obtaining certification, organizations affirm their commitment to safeguarding sensitive information and fortifying their security posture. 

Why Drata? 

Peeklogic’s partnership with Drata underscores Drata’s position as a leader in automated security and compliance solutions. Their platform simplifies compliance through continuous monitoring and evidence gathering, ensuring companies are audit ready. Drata’s expertise guides organizations, consolidating activities and mapping controls across frameworks, streamlining workflows, and providing thorough documentation. This accelerates compliance, saving time and ensuring consistent security standards. 

Moreover, Drata’s continuous control monitoring and Security Reports bolster transparency and efficiency. They enable swift responses to due diligence requests, enhancing overall operational effectiveness. In essence, Drata offers not just streamlined processes and enhanced efficiency but also increased transparency, ensuring Peeklogic and other organizations maintain robust security and compliance standards. 

How Drata empowers Peeklogic through this collaboration 

  • Automated Assessment: Drata’s sophisticated algorithms continually assess Peeklogic’s security posture, leveraging advanced techniques to identify vulnerabilities swiftly. Through automated assessments, Drata provides actionable insights, enabling Peeklogic to address security issues promptly and effectively. 
  • Real-Time Monitoring: With Drata’s real-time monitoring capabilities, Peeklogic gains unparalleled visibility into its security environment. By continuously monitoring for threats and anomalies, Drata empowers Peeklogic to proactively detect and respond to potential security incidents, enhancing overall security resilience. 
  • Policy Management:Drata simplifies the complex process of policy management for Peeklogic. By providing tools for policy creation, enforcement, and documentation, Drata ensures that Peeklogic’s security policies align with ISO 27001 requirements and industry best practices. This streamlined approach enables Peeklogic to maintain robust security standards with ease. 
  • Evidence Collection: Gathering evidence for compliance audits can be a time-consuming and labor-intensive task. Drata addresses this challenge by automating evidence collection processes for Peeklogic. By streamlining the audit preparation process, Drata reduces administrative burdens and enables Peeklogic to demonstrate compliance efficiently during audits. 

Peeklogic & Drata: A Powerful Partnership 

Axipro’s dedication to Simplify Compliance for customers shines through as they successfully onboard the Peeklogic team onto the Drata Platform. By facilitating this partnership, they demonstrate an unwavering commitment to streamlining the compliance journey, providing optimal solutions to expedite progress. 

“We are thrilled to facilitate partnership of Peeklogic with Drata for ISO 27001 by our side,” Principal Consultant Ali Hayat expresses excitement about Peeklogic’s collaboration with Drata for ISO 27001, emphasizing Axipro’s pivotal role in the process. 

With data security as a non-negotiable priority, Axipro relies on Drata’s innovative platform to equip them with the necessary tools and insights for efficiently achieving and maintaining ISO 27001 certification. 

Looking Ahead: Leading the Path to Security Excellence 

As Peeklogic embarks on its ISO 27001 compliance journey with Drata by its side, the company remains resolute in its commitment to excellence, innovation, and data security. By embracing industry-leading practices and harnessing cutting-edge technology, Peeklogic sets a precedent for others to follow in the ongoing pursuit of robust information security and regulatory compliance. 

Streamline Your Compliance Journey with Axipro and Drata 

Are you looking to enhance your data security efforts and expedite your compliance journey? Look no further! Axipro, a renowned Managed Security Service Provider (MSSP), proudly announces its partnership with Drata. Clients onboarded through this collaboration can avail an exclusive discount of 15-20% on services, ensuring streamlined compliance processes and enhanced security measures. Reach out for further information: 

🌐 Website: https://axipro.co/  

📧 Email: info@axipro.co  

📱 Phone: +973 32209587 

Axipro Author

Picture of Abeera Zainab

Abeera Zainab

Copy Link

Blog Highlights

Explore More Articles

Read More Blogs

AI Tool Usage Tracking: Why CASB & DLP Miss Shadow AI

One in five breached organizations last year traced the incident to shadow AI, and those breaches cost an average of $670,000 more than standard incidents, according to IBM’s 2025 Cost of a Data Breach Report. The worst part is that most of those organizations already ran a CASB, a DLP program, or both. The tools were on, but the traffic still got through. That’s the visibility gap this article is about. AI tool usage tracking isn’t the same problem as SaaS discovery, and the security stack built for the SaaS era misses most of what matters about AI. Below, we break down what tracking actually requires, where CASB and DLP fail, which categories of AI usage slip through, and what a stack that works looks like in 2026. What AI Tool Usage Tracking Actually Means Most teams that say they “track AI usage” mean they can see that someone visited chat.openai.com. That is app discovery, and it answers almost none of the questions a security or governance team actually needs answered. Beyond App Discovery: Tracking Prompts, Data Flows, and Model Interactions Real tracking covers three layers. First, which tools are in use: chatbots, copilots, coding assistants, embedded SaaS features, agents. Second, what data moves: the content of prompts, uploaded files, and pasted context, mapped against data classifications. Third, how models behave in your environment: which endpoints get called, which OAuth grants exist, which agents hold standing permissions. Seeing that an employee opened ChatGPT gets you nowhere. What you actually need to know is whether they pasted a customer contract into a personal account while they were there. The Difference Between Detection, Monitoring, and Continuous Tracking Detection is a point-in-time answer to “what AI is here?” Monitoring watches known tools on an ongoing basis. Continuous tracking is broader: it assumes the inventory changes weekly, correlates identity, data, and endpoint signals over time, and feeds a governance program rather than a one-off report. Frameworks such as the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and ISO 42001 assume the third mode. A discovery scan from last quarter won’t satisfy an auditor, and it certainly won’t slow down an attacker. Why Traditional SaaS Monitoring Falls Short for AI SaaS monitoring was built around a stable premise: an app is a destination with a domain, a login, and an admin console. AI breaks that premise in several ways at once. The risky activity is the content of an interaction, not the visit. The tool often isn’t a destination at all but a feature inside an app you already sanctioned. And increasingly the “user” isn’t a person but an agent acting on delegated credentials. Why CASB Misses Shadow AI Usage The Cloud Access Security Broker sits between users and cloud services to enforce policy, and for classic SaaS governance it still earns its keep. AI has structural blind spots that no amount of tuning can fix. CASBs Were Built for SaaS Apps, Not Model Endpoints A CASB catalog maps domains to applications with risk scores. AI usage doesn’t resolve neatly to a domain. The same api.openai.com endpoint serves a sanctioned enterprise deployment, a developer’s weekend experiment, and a data-leaking browser extension, and the catalog sees one “app”. Meanwhile, new model endpoints, wrappers, and niche AI tools appear faster than any vendor catalog can keep up with. Gartner research from late 2025 found 69% of organizations already suspect or have evidence that employees use prohibited public generative AI tools, catalog or no catalog. Blind Spots in Encrypted API Traffic to LLM Providers Prompt content travels over TLS. Without full TLS inspection, a CASB sees connection metadata: destination, volume, timing. It can’t see that the payload contained source code or patient records. And full TLS inspection is harder than the datasheet implies. Certificate pinning breaks it for many native apps and CLI tools, legal and works-council constraints limit it in the EU, and most organizations carve out broad exemption lists that AI traffic happily rides through. The OAuth and Embedded AI Problem CASBs Can’t See When an employee grants an AI meeting-notes tool access to their calendar and mailbox via OAuth, no proxy is involved at all. The vendor’s servers communicate directly with Microsoft’s or Google’s APIs using a persistent token. The same applies to AI features embedded inside sanctioned SaaS, think Notion AI, Slack AI, or Salesforce Einstein. The CASB sees approved traffic to an approved app, while the AI processing happening inside it, and whichever sub-processor it forwards data to, stays invisible. Personal Accounts and BYO-AI Bypass CASB Proxies Netskope’s 2026 Cloud and Threat Report found that nearly half of employees who use generative AI at work do so through personal accounts. Personal accounts on managed devices are hard enough; personal accounts on personal devices, home networks, and mobile connections never touch the corporate proxy path at all. Tenant restrictions help for a handful of major providers and do nothing for the long tail. Browser-Based and Extension-Delivered AI Escape Network Inspection AI browser extensions read page content and form inputs locally, then exfiltrate via their own backend, often to generic cloud infrastructure that categorizes as “technology” rather than “AI”. From the network’s view, it is routine HTTPS to a CDN. The riskiest interaction, an extension scraping everything an employee views, produces the most boring traffic signature. Insider Note: In AI governance readiness assessments, the OAuth grant review is where clients get the biggest surprise. We routinely find dozens of AI tools holding live mail, calendar, or drive scopes that nobody in IT ever approved, granted by employees who abandoned the tool (and sometimes the company) months earlier. The tokens keep working anyway. Why DLP Fails to Catch Shadow AI Data Exposure DLP has the opposite problem. It can sometimes see content, but it doesn’t understand it, and AI interactions defeat the pattern matching it depends on. Prompt-Based Data Loss Doesn’t Match DLP Signature Patterns DLP fires on signatures: credit card regexes, SSN formats, keyword dictionaries, file fingerprints. Sensitive prompts rarely look like that. “Summarize why we’re losing

Read more

SOC 2 Board Charter Template: CC1.2 Auditor Requirements

Most SOC 2 preparation effort goes into access controls, encryption, and vendor reviews. Then the auditor’s first evidence request arrives, and item one has nothing to do with technology: show us your board charter, your meeting minutes, and proof that your board operates independently from management. That’s CC1.2, and it causes more last-minute scrambling than almost any technical control in the framework. This guide explains what CC1.2 requires, provides a board charter template with sample language that auditors accept, and covers the situation most startups actually face: satisfying the criterion without a traditional board of directors. What Is a SOC 2 Board Charter and Why It Matters for CC1.2 A board charter is a formal document that defines your board’s purpose, composition, authority, meeting procedures, and oversight responsibilities. Outside of compliance, it’s a corporate governance tool and a good idea in general for companies with shareholders.  Inside a SOC 2 audit, it’s the primary design evidence for CC1.2, the criterion that asks whether an independent body oversees management and the internal control environment. The charter matters because CC1.2 is one of the few criteria where the control is a document plus behavior. The charter establishes the structure. The auditor then tests whether the structure operates: did the board actually meet, did it review the security program, did it challenge management? A beautifully drafted charter with no meeting minutes behind it fails just as surely as no charter at all. If you’re earlier in your preparation, our complete SOC 2 guide covers how the full audit fits together. Understanding CC1.2: The Board Independence Criterion CC1.2 is part of the Trust Services Criteria published by the AICPA (American Institute of Certified Public Accountants). The criterion requires that the board of directors, in the AICPA’s words, “demonstrates independence from management and exercises oversight” of how internal control is developed and how it performs. That sentence hides two separate tests. Independence means the board isn’t just management wearing a second hat. Active oversight means the board actually reviews and challenges the control environment instead of existing on paper. Plenty of companies pass one and fail the other. How CC1.2 Fits Within the CC1 Control Environment The Common Criteria run from CC1 through CC9, and the CC1 series covers the control environment: the governance and people layer everything else rests on. CC1.1 addresses integrity and ethical values, CC1.2 addresses board independence and oversight, CC1.3 covers organizational structure and reporting lines, CC1.4 covers competence and hiring, and CC1.5 covers accountability. CC1.2 is the layer that makes the other four credible. A code of conduct means little if nobody independent of management ever checks whether leadership follows it. The COSO Principle 2 Connection The Trust Services Criteria are built directly on the COSO Internal Control—Integrated Framework and its 17 principles. CC1.2 maps to COSO Principle 2, which carries four points of focus: the board establishes oversight responsibilities, applies relevant expertise, operates independently of management, and provides oversight of the system of internal control. Those four phrases are worth memorizing, because they’re effectively the outline of a good board charter. Why Auditors Prioritize Board Charter Evidence Auditors test the control environment first because failures there cascade. If governance is weak, every other control claim gets harder to trust: who approved the risk assessment, who reviewed the incident report, who held management accountable when a control slipped? An exception at CC1.2 tells the auditor that nobody independent was watching, and they’ll read the rest of your evidence with that in mind. That’s why board charter requests sit near the top of almost every evidence list. Worth Knowing: Points of Focus Points of focus are not pass/fail requirements. The AICPA describes them as characteristics that assist evaluation, and the 2022 revisions changed points of focus without changing any criteria. In practice, though, they function as the auditor’s mental checklist, so drafting your charter against them is the safest move. What Auditors Actually Look For in a Board Charter Auditors don’t grade prose style. They scan for specific, verifiable commitments. Here’s what they check, roughly in order. Documented Board Independence from Management The charter must state how many members are independent, define what independence means (no operational role, no material financial relationship beyond board compensation or equity), and describe how independence is maintained. “The board includes members independent of management” without a definition is boilerplate; auditors want criteria they can test against actual member profiles. Defined Oversight Responsibilities This is the heart of CC1.2. The charter should explicitly assign the board oversight of internal control, information security, and risk management. If the charter only mentions financial oversight and strategy, it wasn’t written with SOC 2 in mind, and the auditor will notice the gap. Clear Authority and Decision-Making Powers What can the board approve, veto, or demand? Typical provisions include approving the risk management framework, reviewing audit results, approving executive appointments, and requiring management to report on control deficiencies. Authority without teeth reads as decorative. Meeting Cadence and Quorum Requirements The charter should commit to a minimum meeting frequency (quarterly is the common standard) and define a quorum. This clause matters more than founders expect, because it’s the one auditors test directly against your calendar: if the charter says quarterly and you met twice last year, that’s an exception you wrote for yourself. Committee Structures Larger organizations delegate through audit, risk, and compensation committees, each with its own mini-charter. Smaller companies don’t need committees, but if your charter mentions them, they must exist and produce minutes. Never copy a public-company template with a phantom audit committee. Conflict of Interest Provisions A disclosure and recusal process for conflicts, usually paired with an annual attestation. This clause supports the independence claim: independence isn’t a one-time status, it’s maintained through disclosed and managed conflicts. Evidence of Board Member Expertise and Qualifications COSO’s “applies relevant expertise” point of focus means the board should be able to ask probing questions about security and risk, not just finance. Charters increasingly include a skills expectation clause, and

Read more

Drata Review 2026: Honest Gold Partner Assessment

Most Drata reviews are written by Drata’s competitors. Scroll the first page of Google and you’ll find review posts from rival compliance platforms, each one ending with a pitch for their own tool. This one is different, and the bias runs the other way, so let’s put it on the table: Axipro is a Drata Gold Partner, and our consultants configure the platform for clients every week. That means we profit when companies choose Drata. It also means we know exactly where it saves you months, where the invoice grows faster than you planned, and when you should pick something else. This review covers all three. What Is Drata?​ Drata is a compliance automation platform (the industry calls the category GRC, for governance, risk, and compliance) founded in 2020 in San Diego by Adam Markowitz, Daniel Marashlian, and Troy Markowitz. Its core job: connect to your cloud infrastructure, identity provider, HR system, and code repositories, then continuously test your security controls against frameworks like SOC 2 and ISO 27001, collecting timestamped evidence as it goes. When your auditor shows up, most of the evidence is already packaged. Funding, Valuation, and Market Position Drata has raised $328 million, most recently a $200 million Series C in late 2022 that valued the company at $2 billion. It passed $100 million in annual recurring revenue in early 2025, acquired the trust center platform SafeBase for $250 million the same year, and now serves more than 8,000 customers. In late 2025 it earned a FedRAMP 20x Low Pilot Authorization, which puts it in a small group of compliance platforms cleared through the U.S. government’s modernized FedRAMP review track. Together with Vanta, it’s one of the two platforms almost every compliance buyer shortlists. Who Drata Is Built For The sweet spot is cloud-native companies from seed stage to mid-market: SaaS businesses pursuing their first SOC 2 or ISO 27001, and scaling teams juggling three or four frameworks at once. If your infrastructure lives in AWS, Azure, or GCP and your team uses standard tools like Okta, GitHub, and a mainstream HRIS, Drata’s automation covers a large share of your evidence collection out of the box. The further you drift from that profile (heavy on-prem systems, exotic tooling, air-gapped environments), the more manual work remains. How Drata Works: From Connection to Audit The workflow runs in five stages. First, you connect your tech stack through more than 270 native integrations covering cloud providers, identity, version control, HRIS, MDM, and ticketing. Second, continuous control monitoring kicks in: automated tests run around the clock against your connected systems, checking things like MFA enforcement, encryption settings, and access reviews. Third, automated evidence collection captures timestamped proof each time a test passes, building the evidence library your auditor will draw from. Fourth, when a test fails, remediation workflows and alerts route the issue to an owner through Slack, Jira, or email, with guidance on how to fix it. Fifth, the Audit Hub gives your auditor a scoped login to review evidence directly in the platform instead of trading spreadsheets and screenshots over email. In our client engagements, that last piece cuts back and forth more than any other feature. Auditors ask fewer clarifying questions when they can trace evidence to its source themselves. Drata’s Core Features Reviewed Overview of the Drata platform and compliance management dashboard. Multi-Framework Control Mapping Drata maintains a single control set mapped across every framework you activate. Pass an encryption control once, and it satisfies the corresponding requirements in SOC 2, ISO 27001, and HIPAA simultaneously. For multi-framework programs, this is the feature that pays for the platform. Adding ISO 27001 to an existing SOC 2 program typically starts you at 60 to 80 percent complete rather than zero. The Drata Agent The Drata Agent is a lightweight application installed on employee laptops. It checks device posture: screen lock, disk encryption, password manager, antivirus, OS updates. It reads configuration states, not files, browsing history, or keystrokes. Employees sometimes push back on installing it anyway, which is why we advise clients to communicate what it does and doesn’t see before rollout, not after the first complaint. Companies with an existing MDM like Jamf or Intune can often pull device evidence from that integration instead. Risk Management, Vendor Risk, and the Trust Center The built-in risk register lets you score risks by likelihood and impact and tie them to controls and remediation tasks. Vendor risk management got a genuine upgrade with the August 2025 agentic AI release, which now collects vendor evidence, reviews SOC 2 reports, and drafts risk summaries with far less manual chasing. The Trust Center, built on the acquired SafeBase product, gives you a public page where prospects can review your certifications and policies under NDA. Clients in active enterprise sales cycles tell us it measurably shortens security review, though note it’s a paid add-on at most tiers, not a bundled feature. Policies, Training, and the Rest Drata ships editable policy templates for every major framework, embedded security awareness training with completion tracking, and an API for anything the native integrations miss. The policy templates are a real accelerator for first-time programs, with one caveat we see constantly: teams accept templates wholesale without adapting them, then get flagged in audit when their actual practice doesn’t match their written policy. A template you don’t follow is worse than no template. Supported Compliance Frameworks Drata supports more than 30 frameworks. The ones that matter for most buyers: SOC 2 (Type I and Type II) against the AICPA Trust Services Criteria, ISO 27001, HIPAA (where Drata operationalizes safeguards, since no formal HIPAA certification exists), GDPR under the EU data protection rules, and PCI DSS. Coverage extends to CMMC, NIS2, DORA, FedRAMP, and various NIST standards. You can also build custom frameworks by mapping your own control set, useful for internal standards or customer-specific requirements. What Users Really Say Drata holds a 4.8 out of 5 on G2 across more than 1,100 reviews, the highest score among the

Read more