Home / Blog
Axipro Resource Hub
Latest Articles
A SOC 2 auditor will not accept a business continuity plan that has never been tested. The AICPA Trust Services Criteria require you to test your recovery procedures, and a written plan sitting in a shared drive does not count. A BCDR tabletop exercise, a facilitated discussion where your team walks through a simulated disaster and makes the decisions a real incident would demand, is the most practical way for a lean team to produce that evidence. This playbook takes a first-time GRC lead from zero to a completed, documented, audit-ready tabletop exercise in three weeks. It covers which Trust Services Criteria the exercise maps to, how to design a realistic scenario, how to run the session, and exactly which artifacts to hand your SOC 2 auditor. No prior exercise experience is assumed, and no external facilitator is required, though we will be honest about when hiring one makes sense. The stakes are real. An untested disaster recovery plan is one of the most common sources of exceptions in SOC 2 reports that include the Availability category. The fix costs one afternoon of your team’s time plus the preparation around it. Few controls offer a better ratio of audit value
On October 7, 2026, the Monetary Authority of Singapore issued its final Guidelines on AI Risk Management, and the clock is now running. Every financial institution in Singapore has until October 7, 2027 to meet the core supervisory expectations, with the remaining sections due by October 7, 2028. The Guidelines apply to all FIs and all forms of AI, from a chatbot embedded in a support tool to autonomous agentic systems. Here’s the part most coverage will miss: the most commercially significant clause is not aimed at banks at all. MAS makes financial institutions fully accountable for third-party AI, including AI developed, operated, or provided by vendors. FIs must obtain sufficient assurance from those providers, and if they cannot, MAS expects them to limit, suspend, or replace the service. If you sell AI-powered software to banks, insurers, payment firms, or asset managers with a Singapore presence, that sentence is about you. Over the next twelve months, your FI customers will start asking how your AI is governed, and a security questionnaire alone won’t answer the question. This article covers what the Guidelines require, why vendors are effectively in scope, and how ISO 42001, the international standard for AI management systems,
Gartner predicts that by 2028, 90% of enterprise software engineers will use AI code assistants, up from less than 14% in early 2024. SOC 2 and ISO 27001 change management controls were written before that shift, and both rest on an assumption that AI-generated code breaks outright: the person who approved a change wrote it, or at least fully understood it. Neither the AICPA nor ISO has published AI-specific change management requirements, so auditors apply the existing controls, SOC 2 CC8.1 and ISO 27001 Annex A 8.32, to commits no human authored. Most teams discover the mismatch mid-audit, when a sample pulls up a 2,000-line agent-generated pull request that was approved in four minutes. This guide maps AI code generation to both frameworks: what each one requires, the risks AI coding assistants introduce, the workflow that satisfies auditors, and the evidence they request when GitHub Copilot, Cursor, or Claude Code shows up in your SDLC. Why AI-Generated Code Breaks Traditional Change Management Change management controls assume a human bottleneck. AI removes it in three places at once. The Volume Problem: AI Commits at Machine Speed A single developer running an agentic coding tool can open more pull requests in a
SecNumCloud is the French state’s highest security qualification for cloud services, and ANSSI only grants it after a state-supervised evaluation. Since August 2026 it’s also law for part of the French public sector. State bodies now have to keep their most sensitive data on services that meet the SecNumCloud 3.2 requirements. Everyone else, from French hospitals to US and UK SaaS vendors chasing French public contracts, now treats SecNumCloud as the working definition of a “sovereign cloud.” It’s also one of the hardest qualifications in Europe to get, because ANSSI checks who owns the provider and which foreign laws could reach it, on top of the technical controls. This guide walks through what SecNumCloud is and who needs it, what the requirements ask for, how qualification works and what it costs, and the options open to companies headquartered outside the EU. SecNumCloud at a Glance In short, SecNumCloud is a three-year qualification the French state grants to one specific cloud service. It’s built on ISO 27001 and adds sovereignty rules that no other European scheme enforces today. Attribute Detail Issued by ANSSI, France’s national cybersecurity agency Type Qualification (an ANSSI Visa de sécurité), not a certification Current version SecNumCloud 3.2,
SOC 2 has no fixed evidence retention period. The AICPA doesn’t tell service organizations to keep evidence for one year, three years, or seven. What it does require is proof that every in-scope control operated across the entire audit period. That’s stricter than it sounds, because a log that expires before your auditor samples it is a control you can no longer prove. That makes evidence retention one of the few SOC 2 topics where a configuration default can cost you a clean report. Below, we walk through what the AICPA and the Trust Services Criteria require and how long to keep each type of evidence. We also cover where HIPAA, PCI DSS, ISO 27001, and GDPR change the answer, and how to store and automate evidence so it holds up when the auditor tests it. For most SaaS teams, the short answer is this. Keep evidence for the current observation period plus at least one prior period, and keep security logs searchable for 12 months. Go longer only when a contract, a regulation, or a legal hold says you have to. What Is SOC 2 Evidence Retention vs. Data Retention: Key Distinctions Teams often lump the two into one
Vanta can tell you a control is failing within the hour. It cannot rewrite your access review process, decide which systems belong in audit scope, or explain to a CPA why a test that shows red is actually fine. That work falls to people, and choosing the right ones is the difference between a 6-week path to audit readiness and a 6-month slog that ends with your Vanta subscription renewing before you have a report. This guide ranks the 7 best Vanta deployment services for 2026, explains what each one is good at, and covers what most comparison pages skip: how long this really takes, what it costs, and how to spot a partner who’ll hand you a half-configured platform and disappear. What Is a Vanta Deployment Service? A Vanta deployment service is a hands-on engagement where a specialist firm sets up, configures, and operationalizes Vanta so your company reaches audit readiness for one or more compliance frameworks. Vanta itself is a compliance automation and trust management platform: it connects to your cloud, identity provider, code repositories, HR system, and endpoints, then runs automated tests and maps the evidence to frameworks such as SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, and GDPR.
Compliance software collects the evidence. A consultant builds the system that evidence is meant to prove. That’s the real difference in the ISO 27001 consultant vs software decision, and most teams only figure it out after they’ve bought one and realized they still need the other. Below, we compare what each route covers, where it breaks down, and what it costs you in time, money, and your team’s hours. Short version: software on its own works for a small group of companies. For most SaaS and tech scale-ups trying to get an enterprise deal over the line, consultant-led implementation on a compliance platform is the faster and safer path to a certificate. Quick Answer: Consultant, Software, or Both? Software-only works if you already have an in-house security lead who’s taken a company through ISO/IEC 27001 before and has the time to own the project. Consultant-only still makes sense if you run mostly on-premise or legacy systems that platforms barely integrate with. For everyone else, which means most cloud-native companies under a few hundred people, a hybrid works best: a platform to handle evidence and monitoring, and a consultant to build the management system and stand behind it in front of
Uzbekistan regulates artificial intelligence through two documents. The first is Law ZRU-1115, signed on 21 January 2026. It amends existing legislation to define AI, stops anyone from basing decisions about people’s rights on AI output alone, and fines companies that process personal data unlawfully with AI. The second is the set of Ethical Rules approved by Order No. 3787, in force since 17 June 2026, which spell out what developers, implementers, and users actually have to do. Uzbekistan hasn’t passed a standalone AI act, and its rules don’t sort systems into risk tiers or require conformity assessments. The framework is short and blunt, and it’s already enforceable. Below we walk through what each document requires, who it applies to, how it stacks up against the EU AI Act, and what a company using AI in Uzbekistan should do next. Uzbekistan AI Regulation at a Glance (TL;DR) Instrument Date What it does Who it binds Law ZRU-1115 Signed 21 January 2026 Defines AI in law, sets general rules for AI-built information resources and systems, bans legally significant decisions based only on AI, adds fines for unlawful AI processing of personal data State bodies, organizations, website owners, anyone processing personal data with
You can get a SaaS company ready for a SOC 2 audit in six weeks, but you’ll feel every one of them. Most published timelines say three to six months. For a company with no project owner, no identity provider, and nothing written down, that’s about right. A cloud-native startup that already has the basics in place and can protect some time is a different story, and it can fit the work into six hard weeks. This plan walks through that route one week at a time. Each week has an owner, an hour estimate, and a clear test for when it’s finished. The free Google Sheet version turns the plan into a tracker you can hand out to owners and update in your weekly standup. Before you start, know what you’re signing up for. At the end of week 6 you’ll be audit-ready, which isn’t the same as holding a Type II report. Nobody can get you a Type II in six weeks. This is also the do-it-yourself route, and it takes a lot of hours. We’ll show you where those hours go and what the faster option looks like. Is Six Weeks Realistic for Your Company? Six weeks
Most SaaS companies that want someone to handle SOC 2 or ISO 27001 for them end up with the same four names on the shortlist: Axipro, Cognisys, Eden Data, and Workstreet. Their published timelines to audit readiness run from under six weeks to twelve months, and pricing differs by a factor of three or more. When an enterprise deal is waiting on a report, that spread can decide whether the deal closes this quarter or next. We should say upfront that we’re Axipro, so we have a horse in this race. We built this comparison from feedback from our clients, each firm’s public website, partner directory listings, and marketplace pages. We also wrote it to be useful even if you hire someone else, and we say so where a competitor is the better fit. There’s one more piece of context. Since the Delve allegations broke in March 2026, buyers have treated the phrase “fast compliance” with suspicion, and they’re right to. So this article answers two questions: who gets you audit-ready fastest, and how you can tell real speed from a rubber stamp. Quick Verdict: Which Compliance Partner Fits Which Company Axipro is our pick for most companies, and the
Hardly any startup starts a compliance program because it wants one. It usually starts the week an enterprise buyer sends over a 200-question security questionnaire, the deal stalls, and it turns out nobody on a team of 20 engineers knows what a Statement of Applicability is. Managed cybersecurity compliance means handing that problem to an outside team. They scope the framework, put the controls in place, write the policies, run the GRC platform, and deal with the auditor until you have a report or certificate in hand. Below: what a managed service should include, how it’s different from buying software or hiring an MSSP, what it costs, how long it takes, and how to tell a good provider from a bad one. What Is Managed Cybersecurity Compliance? Managed cybersecurity compliance is an outsourced service in which a provider designs, implements, and maintains your compliance program against one or more frameworks, such as SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, or GDPR. You stay accountable for your own security, but the provider does the work that gets you audit-ready and keeps you there. You’ll also see it sold as Compliance as a Service. Managed Compliance vs. Compliance Automation Software Alone A GRC platform
ISO published ISO 9001:2026 on September 16, 2026, and the 2015 edition is now formally withdrawn. If you hold a certificate, the good news is that the structure and the process approach are the same, and the list of new requirements is short. Top management now has to promote a quality culture and ethical behavior. Risks and opportunities get handled separately, change management carries more weight, and the 2024 climate change amendment sits inside the core text. That’s most of it. Below, we go through each change clause by clause, cover what stayed where it was, set out the transition timeline, and list the work a certified company has to do before the deadline. Key Takeaways ISO 9001:2026 is the sixth edition of the standard and replaces ISO 9001:2015. Most of the new text is guidance, and only a small part of it adds requirements. The changes that carry audit weight are in Clause 5.1 (quality culture and ethical behavior), Clause 6.1 (risks and opportunities addressed separately), and Clause 6.3 (planning of changes). ISO 9001:2015 certificates stay valid during the transition period, which is expected to run for three years, until around September 2029. Your certification body confirms the exact
Compliance Hubs
Discover key insights, educational articles, helpful guides and more.
An AI agent reads a customer record, decides a refund is warranted, and calls the payments API. The trail it leaves looks nothing like a human doing the same job. The log says a user logged in, a service account made three API calls, and the transaction cleared. It doesn’t say why the agent decided on a refund, what it read first, which model version did the reasoning, or who gave the agent permission to act in the first place. That missing “why” is the whole audit problem. This article covers what ISO/IEC 42001:2023 and the SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria expect from AI agent audit logs, where the two overlap, the fields a log needs to satisfy both, how long to keep records, what you shouldn’t record, and how to package it all for an auditor. It’s written for the CTO, platform lead, or founder who owns compliance for a product that now ships with autonomous agents and needs a certification and a Type II report without running two separate logging programs. The Compliance Gap: Traditional Application Logs vs. AI Agent Audit Logs Why Standard Logs Fall Short for Autonomous Agents Application logs were built for deterministic software. Same
Most people asking this question fall into one of two camps. Either they already hold ISO 27001 and just shipped an AI feature, or they run an AI-native company and an enterprise buyer has asked for “your AI governance certification.” The answer is the same for both camps: ISO 27001 secures your information and ISO 42001 governs your AI. Neither certificate covers the other. If AI is part of what you sell or how you make decisions, you’ll need both. If it’s just a productivity tool humming away in the background, ISO 27001 on its own is still fine. Below: what each standard governs, where they overlap, what your existing ISMS doesn’t say about AI, how to decide, and how to run both as one management system rather than two. The Short Answer: When You Need Both (and When You Don’t) You need both when AI is part of your product or part of a decision that affects people, and a customer, regulator, or board could reasonably ask how you govern it. That covers most SaaS companies with a generative feature, every AI-native vendor, and any firm using AI to screen candidates, score credit, or make health or safety calls.
The EU buys more from Türkiye than anyone else. According to the European Commission’s trade profile for Türkiye, about 41% of Turkish goods exports went to the EU in 2024, and the share keeps climbing. Nearly every company behind those shipments holds some EU personal data: a buyer’s name in the CRM, a webshop account, a logistics contact, a support ticket. That data puts the exporter inside the GDPR, and a KVKK compliance file won’t answer the questions an EU customer’s procurement team is going to ask. KVKK and GDPR look alike, and the 2024 amendments brought them closer. They’re still two laws with two regulators, two sets of paperwork and very different fine ceilings. This article walks through the eight places where a KVKK-compliant Turkish exporter falls short of GDPR, covers both directions of data flow, and ends with a roadmap that reflects how long this stuff actually takes. Why KVKK Compliance Doesn’t Make a Turkish Exporter GDPR-Ready Law No. 6698 was written to line Türkiye up with the EU’s 1995 Data Protection Directive. It came into force in April 2016, a few weeks before the EU adopted the GDPR. That timing explains most of what follows. KVKK inherited
A consultant-grade ISO 42001 gap analysis checklist has 38 Annex A controls, roughly 80 clause-level “shall” statements, and one question attached to every line: where is the evidence, and would a certification body accept it? That last question is what separates the checklists consultants use from the free self-assessment spreadsheets that rank for the same search. This article lays out the checklist itself: what a consultant checks before the engagement starts, the clause-by-clause and control-by-control checkpoints, how evidence gets sampled, how gaps get scored, what the deliverables look like, and what fails most often. Use it to run your own assessment, or to check whether the consultant you’re about to hire is doing the job properly. What Makes a Consultant-Grade ISO 42001 Gap Analysis Checklist Different Depth of Evidence Review vs. Self-Assessment Tools A self-assessment tool asks whether you have an AI policy. A consultant asks to see it, checks the approval date and version, reads clause 5.2 against it, and then asks three people in engineering whether they’ve read it. The checklist item is the same. The evidence standard is not. Consultants score every item on three levels: documented, implemented, and effective. A policy that exists but nobody follows
ISO/IEC 42001:2023 asks for three assessments, and most teams try to squeeze them into one spreadsheet: a gap analysis against clauses 4 to 10 and Annex A, an AI risk assessment under clause 6.1.2, and an AI system impact assessment under clause 6.1.4. Treat them as one exercise and the auditor pulls them apart for you at Stage 2. Treat them as three unrelated projects and you triple the workshops, the registers, and the remediation lists. What works is a single methodology with distinct outputs that share inputs, share a traceability matrix, and feed one remediation plan. This article lays out that methodology end to end: how gap analysis and risk assessment fit together under ISO 42001, how to prepare, the step-by-step process for each, how to merge the outputs into one risk treatment plan, the registers and templates you’ll need, and what a certification body expects to see when you’re done. Why Gap Analysis and Risk Assessment Must Work Together Under ISO 42001 A gap analysis measures distance from the standard. A risk assessment measures exposure from your AI systems. They answer different questions, and ISO 42001 makes them depend on each other in a way ISO 27001 only
Around 700 AI agents attacked Hugging Face, known as the “GitHub for AI,” in July. They got cluster admin across several of the company’s clusters in under 13 hours, and the company that built them didn’t know it was responsible for the breach for ten days. Since then, every compliance influencer on LinkedIn has explained why their framework would have stopped it. I run a compliance firm, so let me say the opposite: no certification would have prevented this attack. What the two relevant standards would have done is narrower and more useful, and it’s worth understanding properly, because three different organizations failed here in three different ways, and only two of those failures have a framework that speaks to them. The third failure is the one that should worry most people reading this. It’s also the one that looks most like your company. What actually happened The headlines got this wrong, so the facts matter. This wasn’t a rogue AI. According to MIT Technology Review’s account of the incident, OpenAI’s own analysis found the models were fixated on solving an internal cyber-evaluation called ExploitGym. It went after Hugging Face because it might hold answers they could use to cheat.
Guides and Reports
SOC 2 Hub
All you need to know about SOC 2 compliance
Most SOC 2 auditors will pick a handful of recent hires from your employee list and request one specific artifact: the completed background check, dated before the start date, sourced from a documented vendor. If you cannot produce it, that is an exception in your report. The control sits inside CC1.4, the Common Criteria provision the AICPA derives from COSO Principle 4, and it is one of the most reliably tested items in a first-year SOC 2 examination. Background screening is not the most technically complex part of SOC 2. It is, however, one of the most procedurally fragile. The policy looks simple on paper. Then a contractor starts a week early because someone needed help shipping a release, the vendor screening gets postponed, and a year later an auditor finds the gap in twenty minutes. This guide explains what SOC 2 actually requires when it comes to background checks, what auditors look for in practice, and how to build a screening programme that holds up under sampling. What Is a SOC 2 Background Check? A SOC 2 background check is the pre-employment screening a service organisation performs to verify that the people it hires can be trusted with access
A company that already holds a SOC 2 report has, by most industry estimates, already built somewhere between 60 and 80 percent of what ISO 27001 certification requires. Yet only a small fraction of organizations actually capture that overlap. Teams run the second framework as a fresh project, rewrite policies that already exist, and re-collect evidence they already have on file. The result is paying twice for the same security program. SOC 2 to ISO 27001 mapping is the discipline that stops this. It is a control crosswalk: a structured comparison that shows which SOC 2 controls already satisfy which ISO 27001 requirements, where the genuine gaps sit, and what new work the second framework actually demands. Done well, it turns the second audit from a rebuild into a mapping exercise. What Is SOC 2 to ISO 27001 Mapping? SOC 2 to ISO 27001 mapping links each SOC 2 Trust Services Criterion to its corresponding ISO 27001 clause or Annex A control. The output is a single control library: each control is defined once, tagged to both frameworks, and backed by evidence that both auditors will accept. Worth being clear about upfront: a crosswalk does not make you compliant with
A well-built SOC 2 runbook is the difference between a finding and a clean opinion. It converts the abstract language of a control into a sequence of actions someone actually performed, in a verifiable order, with a paper trail attached. Auditors do not fail companies for having incidents. They fail them for not being able to prove how those incidents were handled. This guide shows you how to build a runbook that holds up under scrutiny — covering what a SOC 2 runbook is, what makes it audit-ready, how it differs from a playbook, the components every runbook should include, the control areas where runbooks are expected, and how to keep them current between annual examinations. What Is a SOC 2 Runbook? A SOC 2 runbook is a documented, repeatable procedure that operationalises a specific SOC 2 control. Where a policy states what must happen and why, a runbook states exactly how: the trigger, the steps, the people, the systems touched, the evidence captured, and the sign-off that closes it out. Runbooks live closest to the engineers and operations staff actually doing the work. They are the layer auditors care about most because they are where the control either operates
SOC 2 compliance is a critical trust signal for organizations handling sensitive data. Unlike ISO standards, SOC 2 reports are private attestations issued by licensed CPA firms, making verification essential. To verify a SOC 2 report, you need to review the auditor’s opinion, audit period, report type, scope, and any control exceptions, then confirm the auditor’s AICPA registration and request a bridge letter if the report is outdated. In today’s cybersecurity-driven business environment, SOC 2 compliance has become one of the most recognized trust signals in the industry. Whether you are a SaaS provider handling customer data or an enterprise evaluating third-party vendors, a SOC 2 report plays a central role in proving that security controls are properly designed and operating effectively. Verifying a SOC 2 report, however, is not as simple as checking a public registry. Unlike ISO 27001, SOC 2 is not a public certification. Despite being regulated by the AICPA, there is no central database or government portal where you can confirm a company’s compliance status. Instead, SOC 2 is a private attestation report, issued by an independent CPA firm. That makes verification a matter of careful review and disciplined due diligence. If you want to understand
EORs are often the leaders in data security compliance. As the responsible party for payroll and HR data, the burden of SOC 2 compliance is greater for them than for other companies. But SOC 2 compliance doesn’t have to be complicated. In this article, we’ll guide EOR firms through the process with an easy, step-by-step approach. What Is SOC 2 Compliance and Why Does It Matter for EOR Providers? Understanding SOC 2 and Its Role in Employer of Record Services An Employer of Record processes payroll data, national identification numbers, bank account details, tax filings, and employment records for workers across dozens of countries. In a single month, a mid-sized EOR platform may handle more sensitive personal data than many healthcare organisations. That concentration of risk is precisely why SOC 2 compliance has moved from a nice-to-have to a procurement prerequisite for clients who take data security seriously. SOC 2 is a security auditing framework developed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). It evaluates service organisations against a set of Trust Services Criteria covering security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy. Unlike prescriptive frameworks such as PCI DSS, SOC 2 does not mandate a specific list of
In March 2026, a regional conflict in the Middle East did something that stress tests and tabletop exercises rarely manage to do: it took down cloud infrastructure across multiple availability zones at the same time, in the same region, without warning. AWS data centers in the UAE and Bahrain were impacted. Banking apps went offline. Payments failed. Delivery platforms stopped. And a significant portion of the affected organizations had done everything “right” by conventional standards — multi-AZ deployments, redundancy within the region, documented continuity plans. It wasn’t enough. This article breaks down what happened, what it revealed about how most organizations think about availability, and what a more resilient architecture actually looks like. If your systems run on cloud infrastructure — in any region — this case is worth understanding closely. What Happened: The March 2026 Incident Regional conflict in the Middle East caused physical and infrastructural disruption to AWS facilities across the UAE and Bahrain. Based on publicly reported information, the incident involved power outages affecting data center operations, physical damage to infrastructure facilities, connectivity loss across affected environments, and service degradation spanning multiple availability zones within the same region — simultaneously. That last point is the one that
The “SSAE 18 vs SOC 2” debate typically surfaces when buyers, vendors, and even internal teams are all talking about the same general assurance problem, but using the wrong labels. A procurement team asks, “Do you have SSAE 18?” A founder says, “We’re going for SSAE 18 certification.” A customer security team asks for an “SSAE 18 SOC 2 report.” Everyone is circling the same planet, but not always landing on the right terminology. SSAE 18 and SOC 2 are not competing things. They are related, but they are not interchangeable. The AICPA defines SOC 2 as an examination and report on controls at a service organization relevant to security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, or privacy. SSAE 18, by contrast, is the attestation standard framework under which these kinds of engagements are performed. That distinction matters because buyers often ask for the wrong artifact. If you answer the wrong question, you can waste months preparing the wrong report. Quick Answer: SSAE 18 Is a Standard; SOC 2 Is a Report The simplest accurate explanation is this: SSAE 18 is the professional attestation standard; SOC 2 is the report deliverable. The standard tells the auditor how to perform the engagement. The
ISO 27001 Hub
The latest resources and guides for ISO 27001 Certification
ISO 27001 does not use the words “penetration test” anywhere. And yet, auditors conducting Stage 2 assessments routinely expect to see one. Understanding why that gap exists, and how to close it, is what separates organizations that sail through ISO 27001 certification from those that get caught off-guard. This guide covers what the standard actually says about security testing, which controls drive the expectation for penetration testing, what types of testing are relevant, and how to build a testing programme that genuinely supports your ISMS rather than simply ticking a compliance box. What Is Penetration Testing in the context of ISO 27001? ISO 27001 penetration testing refers to structured, simulated attacks conducted against an organization’s systems, networks, and applications in order to identify exploitable vulnerabilities before real attackers do. In the context of ISO 27001, it serves a specific purpose: providing evidence that the technical controls underpinning your Information Security Management System (ISMS) actually work under real-world conditions. The distinction matters. A vulnerability scan tells you what weaknesses exist whilst a penetration test tells you whether those weaknesses are exploitable, to what degree, and with what consequence. That difference is exactly what auditors are looking for when they ask for
As businesses handle growing volumes of sensitive data, regulatory compliance has become a core operational concern. Frameworks like SOC 2 and HIPAA exist to safeguard user information, reduce breach risk, and ensure organizational accountability. However, staying compliant is challenging due to frequent updates, evolving interpretations, and differing requirements across standards. Compliance automation platforms such as Drata and Vanta help organizations manage these obligations more efficiently. They continuously monitor controls, collect audit evidence, and provide real-time visibility into compliance status. By automating repetitive compliance tasks, companies can reduce manual workload, limit human error, and maintain adherence to regulatory standards with greater consistency and confidence. Quick Recommendation: Drata vs. Vanta If you want the short version: both Drata and Vanta are modern compliance automation platforms designed to help companies achieve certifications such as SOC 2 and ISO 27001 with less manual effort. These frameworks have become baseline requirements in B2B SaaS procurement and security reviews. The real difference isn’t which tool is “better,” but how complex your environment is and how much control you want over your compliance program. Decision Factor Drata Vanta Core Strength Deep control monitoring and granular configurability Fast implementation with intuitive workflows Framework Coverage 20+ frameworks with strong
AI Hub
The latest insights into AI implementation and compliance
When researchers found that Microsoft 365 Copilot could be tricked into leaking corporate data from a single email, the flaw got a clean public identifier: CVE-2025-32711, severity 9.3. When a bug hunter coaxed ChatGPT into producing valid Windows product keys by framing the request as a guessing game, it got nothing. Both were prompt injections. Only one is trackable. That Vulnerability Tracking Gap in AI Security, and what it costs defenders, is the subject of this article. What Is a CVE and Why Does It Matter for Software Security? A CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures) is a unique public identifier for a specific software flaw. It gives the whole industry one name for one bug, so a researcher in Berlin and an analyst in Bahrain know they mean the same thing. The Role of MITRE’s CVE Program in Traditional Vulnerability Management The CVE program is run by the MITRE Corporation, a US nonprofit. Since 1999 it has assigned hundreds of thousands of IDs, each tied to a discrete, reproducible defect in a defined product and version. A CVE is the connective tissue of coordinated disclosure: a researcher reports the flaw, the vendor patches it, the ID is published, and defenders
Most security certifications were built for software that follows rules. AI agents do not. They consume data, draw conclusions, call tools, and take action, increasingly without a human in the loop. That gap is what AIUC-1 was created to close: it is the first auditable security standard built specifically for AI agents, and a few enterprise buyers have started asking vendors for it by name. This guide covers what AIUC-1 actually tests, the six risk domains it audits, how the certification process works, what it costs, how long it lasts, and how it aligns with SOC 2, ISO 42001, ISO 27001, and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. It also covers the structural questions worth asking before you treat an AIUC-1 report as proof of anything. What Is AIUC-1 Certification? AIUC-1 is a certifiable standard for AI agents created by the Artificial Intelligence Underwriting Company (AIUC), a San Francisco-based, venture-backed startup founded by people with experience at organizations including Anthropic. The standard was developed with input from Orrick, Stanford, the Cloud Security Alliance, MIT, and MITRE, and launched in mid-2025. The framework comprises 51 requirements and 130 controls, organized across six risk pillars. It evaluates whether an organization has implemented