Narva Software SOC 2 Readiness in Record Time with Axipro

Featured Partner

Vanta

Product

SOC 2

Industry

IT Services and IT Consulting

Company size

2-10 employees

Location

Kerpen, Germany

Narva Software SOC-2 Readiness Axipro

Share This Post

Narva Software, a leading Atlassian partner based in Germany, achieved SOC 2 readiness faster than expected, thanks to Axipro’s expert guidance and structured approach.
With a clear plan, hands-on support, and seamless collaboration, the Narva Software SOC 2 readiness journey became smooth, efficient, and stress-free.
If you’re preparing for SOC 2 and want a faster, less stressful path, this success story will show you how.

About Narva

Narva Solutions UG, known as Narva Software, is headquartered in Kerpen, Germany.
The company builds innovative apps for Jira and Confluence, helping teams work smarter, collaborate better, and manage projects with greater efficiency.

Their solutions include:

  • Embedding external content into Confluence for richer documentation.
  • Exporting Confluence content quickly for sharing and reporting.
  • Enhancing Jira workflows with pre-built templates and labels.
  • Adding advanced capabilities to Confluence, such as LaTeX formula support.

Serving a global customer base, Narva Software is committed to delivering tools that make teamwork simpler and more effective.
When the time came to pursue SOC 2 compliance, they knew they needed a partner who could make the process clear, fast, and painless.

The Compliance Challenge

For Narva Software, achieving SOC 2 readiness was more than a checkbox. It was a way to strengthen customer trust, open doors to enterprise contracts, and demonstrate a strong commitment to data security.

However, the path to compliance came with challenges:

  • Understanding Vanta and configuring it for SOC 2 requirements.
  • Creating and refining the right security and operational policies.
  • Coordinating efforts without disrupting daily business operations.

They needed end-to-end guidance, a partner who could simplify the process while ensuring every requirement was met.
If this sounds familiar, you’re not alone. Many fast-growing companies face these same hurdles before they find the right compliance partner.

Why Narva Software Chose Axipro

Narva Software selected Axipro because of our proven record in helping companies achieve SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, and GDPR compliance.
As the Most Reviewed DRATA Partner, we are known for delivering results with speed, precision, and minimal disruption to business operations.

Our approach goes beyond simply “getting the badge.” We focus on building a compliance framework that strengthens operations and supports long-term growth.
For Narva Software’s SOC 2 readiness, they wanted a trusted partner who could own the process from start to finish, and that’s exactly what we delivered.

The Axipro Solution

We began by creating a structured, milestone-driven plan tailored to Narva Software’s timeline and business priorities.
Each stage was designed to make progress measurable and predictable.

Our team:

  • Guided Narva Software step-by-step through the Vanta platform.
  • Assisted in creating and refining the required SOC 2 policies.
  • Provided templates, best practices, and direct implementation support.
  • Coordinated closely with audit partner Johanson Group to ensure full readiness.

Because the plan was crystal clear, the Narva Software SOC 2 readiness process moved quickly, allowing their team to stay focused on building great products.
If you’ve been delaying compliance because it feels overwhelming, imagine what your team could accomplish with this kind of structured support.

Results Achieved

Narva Software reached full SOC 2 readiness faster than anticipated. The process delivered:

  • Well-documented and fully implemented security policies.
  • Confidence in meeting every SOC 2 requirement.
  • A smooth handoff to the audit partner with no last-minute issues.

With compliance in place, Narva Software is now positioned to attract more enterprise clients and strengthen its market credibility.
Fast compliance, minimal disruption, and zero guesswork, that’s the Axipro difference.

Customer Satisfaction

Narva Software expressed genuine satisfaction with the results.
They appreciated how the SOC 2 readiness process was not only fast but also well-organized and easy to follow.
The team highlighted Axipro’s clear guidance, efficient use of the Vanta platform, and ability to keep the project on track without slowing down their core development work.

In their words, the journey to compliance felt “smooth, structured, and surprisingly quick” — exactly the outcome they were hoping for.

Your Compliance Success Story Starts Here

The Narva Software SOC 2 readiness success demonstrates what’s possible when expert guidance meets proven processes.
At Axipro, we help businesses achieve SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, and GDPR compliance faster, with less stress, and without sacrificing productivity.

Whether you’re starting your first compliance project or preparing for a renewal audit, we can help you build the right roadmap and get you there with confidence.

Secure AI Agent Vendor

Secure AI Agent Vendor Certifications: 2026 Buyer’s Guide

An AI agent that can read your inbox, query your CRM, and dig through internal documents has more standing access than most of your employees. It handles sensitive data, acts on its own, and often passes that data through sub-processors you’ll never see. Certifications are the quickest way to tell which vendors have let an outsider check their work, and which ones just put the word “secure” on a landing page. No single certificate proves an AI agent is safe. But the right mix of security attestations, privacy certifications, and AI governance standards tells you the vendor has real controls, that an independent auditor has tested them, and that someone is on the hook when the agent misbehaves. This guide covers which certifications to ask for, how to verify them, and which claims should make you walk away. The Core Certifications Every Secure AI Agent Vendor Should Hold SOC 2 Type II SOC 2 Type II is the baseline for any SaaS or AI vendor that handles customer data. A licensed CPA firm audits the vendor against the AICPA’s Trust Services Criteria (Security, Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, and Privacy) and reports on whether its controls actually worked over a review period, usually 3 to 12 months. A Type I report only confirms the controls existed on one particular day. For an AI agent vendor, insist on Type II. Anything less tells you nothing about how the company runs day-to-day. ISO/IEC 27001 ISO/IEC 27001 certifies that the vendor runs a formal information security management system (ISMS): documented risk assessments, defined controls, internal audits, and management review, all verified by an accredited certification body. It’s the most widely recognized security certification outside the US and often a hard procurement requirement in Europe, the UK, and the Gulf. A vendor with international customers should hold it alongside SOC 2, not instead of it. ISO/IEC 27701 (Privacy Information Management) ISO/IEC 27701 extends ISO 27001 with a privacy information management system (PIMS). It maps closely to GDPR concepts like controller and processor obligations, consent, and data subject rights. Almost every AI agent processes personal data at scale, and ISO 27701 is a decent signal that the vendor has built privacy into how it operates instead of delegating it to a policy PDF. ISO/IEC 42001 (AI Management Systems) ISO/IEC 42001 is the first certifiable international standard for AI governance. According to the International Organization for Standardization, it sets out requirements for building and maintaining an AI management system (AIMS): AI risk management, AI system impact assessments, lifecycle management, and oversight of third-party suppliers. For an AI agent vendor, this is the one that covers what SOC 2 and ISO 27001 don’t: how the vendor governs model behavior, training data, and the wider impact of autonomous systems. Worth Knowing: ISO 42001 certificates only started appearing in volume in 2024, and the accreditation ecosystem is still catching up. Check that the certificate came from a certification body accredited for ISO 42001 specifically (under ANAB or UKAS, for example), not just one accredited for ISO 27001. HIPAA (for Healthcare AI Agents) If the agent touches protected health information (PHI), the vendor has to comply with the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules and sign a Business Associate Agreement (BAA). There’s no official HIPAA certification, so vendors prove compliance through third-party assessments, a SOC 2 with HIPAA mapping, or HITRUST CSF certification. A vendor that won’t sign a BAA has disqualified itself for healthcare work. PCI DSS (for Payment-Handling AI Agents) AI agents that process, store, or transmit cardholder data (think agents automating billing, refunds, or checkout) fall under PCI DSS. Ask for the vendor’s Attestation of Compliance (AOC) and check whether a Qualified Security Assessor validated it or the vendor assessed itself. The current version is PCI DSS 4.x, so an AOC that still references 3.2.1 is out of date. FedRAMP (for Government-Facing AI Agents) FedRAMP authorization is mandatory for cloud services sold to US federal agencies. Authorizations come at Low, Moderate, and High impact levels, and every authorized service appears on the public FedRAMP Marketplace. If a vendor claims FedRAMP status and isn’t in the Marketplace, either the claim is false or the service is still “in process,” and those are very different things. State and local buyers should look for StateRAMP instead. Worth Knowing: ISO 42001 Certificates ISO 42001 certificates only started appearing in volume in 2024, and the accreditation ecosystem is still catching up. Check that the certificate came from a certification body accredited for ISO 42001 specifically (under ANAB or UKAS, for example), not just one accredited for ISO 27001. HIPAA (for Healthcare AI Agents) If the agent touches protected health information (PHI), the vendor has to comply with the HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules and sign a Business Associate Agreement (BAA). There’s no official HIPAA certification, so vendors prove compliance through third-party assessments, a SOC 2 with HIPAA mapping, or HITRUST CSF certification. A vendor that won’t sign a BAA has disqualified itself for healthcare work. PCI DSS (for Payment-Handling AI Agents) AI agents that process, store, or transmit cardholder data (think agents automating billing, refunds, or checkout) fall under PCI DSS. Ask for the vendor’s Attestation of Compliance (AOC) and check whether a Qualified Security Assessor validated it or the vendor assessed itself. The current version is PCI DSS 4.x, so an AOC that still references 3.2.1 is out of date. FedRAMP (for Government-Facing AI Agents) FedRAMP authorization is mandatory for cloud services sold to US federal agencies. Authorizations come at Low, Moderate, and High impact levels, and every authorized service appears on the public FedRAMP Marketplace. If a vendor claims FedRAMP status and isn’t in the Marketplace, either the claim is false or the service is still “in process,” and those are very different things. State and local buyers should look for StateRAMP instead. Regulatory Frameworks AI Agent Vendors Must Comply With Certifications are voluntary. Regulations aren’t. A credible AI agent vendor should be able to explain, in writing, how it meets

Read More »

Shadow AI Policy Template: Ready-to-Use IT Framework

One in five organizations has already suffered a breach traced back to shadow AI. Meanwhile, 63% of breached organizations either have no AI governance policy at all or are still drafting one. Below is a complete, copy-ready shadow AI policy template with twelve sections, plus guidance on adapting it for your company size, your industry, and the regulatory frameworks you answer to. The template assumes one hard truth up front: your employees are already using unapproved AI tools. A policy that pretends adoption hasn’t started yet fails on day one, so this one starts from the assumption that it has. What Is a Shadow AI Policy? A shadow AI policy is a formal document that defines how your organization discovers, evaluates, approves, and governs AI tools that employees adopt outside official IT channels. The term borrows from shadow IT, the older problem of unsanctioned software and hardware, but the AI version carries sharper risks: data pasted into a public model may be retained, used for training, or exposed in ways the organization can’t reverse. The policy does three jobs: it separates approved use from unapproved use, gives employees a fast and visible way to request new tools so the sanctioned route beats the workaround, and spells out what happens when someone crosses the line, including how the organization detects it and responds. Shadow AI Policy vs. General AI Acceptable Use Policy Many organizations already have an AI acceptable use policy (AUP) and assume it covers shadow AI. It usually doesn’t. An AUP tells employees how to behave inside approved tools. A shadow AI policy governs the tools themselves: which ones exist in your environment, which ones are allowed, and what happens with the rest. You need both. The AUP handles conduct; the shadow AI policy handles inventory and control. If you only have room for one document, fold the AUP’s data-handling rules into Section 6 of the template below. The Shadow AI Policy Template (Download Link and Copy-Ready Sections) We’ve created a compliance safe template for Shadow AI Policy, use the link below to create a copy and customize for your company: Download The Shadow AI Policy Template → Copy the sections below into your policy management system and replace the bracketed placeholders. The language is plain on purpose. Legalese gets skimmed. Section 1: Purpose and Scope This policy governs the acquisition, approval, and use of artificial intelligence tools, features, and services at [Company]. It applies to all employees, contractors, interns, and third parties with access to [Company] systems or data. It covers standalone AI applications, AI features embedded in existing software, browser extensions, AI agents, APIs, and personal AI accounts used for work purposes, on both corporate and personal devices. The purpose of this policy is to enable productive AI use while protecting [Company] data, customers, and legal obligations. This policy does not prohibit AI. It prohibits ungoverned AI. That last sentence matters. Employees read the purpose statement first, and it decides whether they see the policy as an enabler or a blocker. Section 2: Definitions and Terminology Shadow AI: any AI tool, feature, agent, or service used for work purposes without formal approval under this policy. Approved AI Tool: an AI tool listed in the Approved AI Tools Registry (Section 4) and used under a [Company]-managed account. Personal AI Account: an account on any AI service registered to a personal email address or paid for personally. AI Feature: AI functionality embedded within otherwise approved software (e.g., an AI assistant added to a project management tool), which requires separate evaluation. Sensitive Data: data classified as [Confidential] or [Restricted] under [Company]‘s data classification policy, including the prohibited data classes in Section 6. Define “AI feature” explicitly. Vendors now ship AI additions into already-approved SaaS products every month, and without this definition, those features inherit approval they never earned. Section 3: Roles and Responsibilities The CISO (or designated security lead) owns this policy, maintains the Approved AI Tools Registry, and runs the approval workflow. Department heads ensure their teams know the policy and surface tool requests rather than suppressing them. Legal and Compliance review tools that touch regulated data or fall under the EU AI Act, GDPR, HIPAA, or client contractual restrictions. IT operates detection and monitoring controls (Section 9). Every employee is responsible for using only approved tools for work, reporting unapproved AI use they discover, and requesting new tools through the workflow in Section 7 rather than adopting them directly. Insider Note: In organizations under roughly 200 people, the “CISO” in this section is often the same overworked IT lead who manages laptops. Name a real person, not a title that doesn’t exist yet. A policy that assigns duties to a phantom role is unenforceable, and auditors notice. Section 4: Approved AI Tools Registry [Company] maintains a registry of approved AI tools at [location/URL]. For each tool, the registry records: tool name and vendor, approved use cases, prohibited use cases, permitted data classes, account type (enterprise/team/individual), data retention and training settings, risk tier (Section 5), approval date, and next review date. Only tools listed in the registry may be used for work. Tools not listed are unapproved by default. The registry is reviewed [quarterly]. Keep the registry somewhere employees actually look, such as your intranet homepage or IT help center, not buried in a GRC platform they can’t access. An invisible registry recreates the problem the policy exists to fix. Section 5: Risk Tier Classification (Low, Medium, High) Each tool in the registry is assigned a risk tier. Low: the tool processes only public or internal non-sensitive data, runs under an enterprise agreement with training opt-out, and produces output that a human reviews before use. Approval by IT Security alone. Medium: the tool processes internal business data or connects to [Company] systems via API or integration. Approval by IT Security plus the data owner. High: the tool processes sensitive data, customer personal data, or regulated data; makes or influences consequential decisions (hiring, credit, medical, legal); or operates autonomously

Read More »