Free Assessment

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

ISO 42001 Gap Analysis and Risk Assessment Methodology

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 implies. Clause 6.1.3 requires you to compare the controls you select through risk treatment against Annex A, and to justify any Annex A control you leave out in the Statement of Applicability (SoA). So your Annex A gap analysis has no defensible baseline until the risk assessment tells you which controls you need. Run the gap analysis on its own, and you end up scoring yourself against all 38 controls, including ones your risk profile never called for. Run the risk assessment on its own, and you pick treatments with no idea what already exists to deliver them. The methodology below interleaves the two. A clause-level gap review sets the scope and evidence base, the risk and impact assessments decide which controls are required, and a control-level gap review then scores only what matters. How AI-specific risks shape the methodology Traditional information security risk works from confidentiality, integrity, and availability. AI risk adds categories that don’t map neatly onto any of those: model drift, bias in training data, outputs nobody can explain, automation bias in the humans doing the reviewing, and dependence on third-party foundation models whose behavior changes without warning. ISO/IEC 23894, the companion guidance on AI risk management, adapts the ISO 31000 cycle (establish context, identify, analyze, evaluate, treat) to these sources rather than inventing a new one. That’s why the methodology here keeps the familiar ISO 31000 shape and changes the inputs, not the process. Regulatory and business drivers for a formal methodology The commercial driver is procurement. Enterprise security questionnaires now ask whether you ran an AI impact assessment, whether a human reviews high-stakes outputs, and which third-party models touch customer data. A documented methodology answers those questions with evidence instead of assurances. The regulatory driver is the EU AI Act, and its timeline moved in July. Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, the Digital Omnibus on AI, entered into force on July 27, 2026, and pushed the high-risk obligations for standalone Annex III systems from August 2, 2026 to December 2, 2027. Annex I embedded systems moved to August 2, 2028. The Article 50 transparency obligations still kicked in on August 2, 2026, as originally planned. Article 9 of the AI Act text on EUR-Lex requires a risk management system for high-risk AI that runs continuously across the system lifecycle, which is exactly what an ISO 42001 methodology gives you. Sixteen extra months is time to build it properly, not a reason to shelve it. Core Principles of an ISO 42001 Gap Analysis and Risk Assessment Methodology Four principles keep the methodology defensible in front of a certification body. Alignment with clauses 4 to 10 and Annex A. Every finding in the gap register cites a clause or an Annex A control identifier. Auditors work clause by clause, so a gap register organized any other way forces a translation step during the audit that nobody enjoys. Integration with the AI system impact assessment. Clause 6.1.4 is what separates ISO 42001 from every other Annex SL standard. The impact assessment looks outward at individuals, groups, and society. The risk assessment under 6.1.2 looks inward at the organization. The standard wants both as separate documented outputs, and the consequences you find in the impact assessment have to feed back into the risk assessment. So the methodology runs the impact assessment as a scheduled input to risk analysis, not something bolted on the week before the audit. Risk-based thinking applied to the AIMS itself. Clause 6.1.1 also asks you to consider risks and opportunities to the management system: someone leaving the AI governance function, a vendor retiring a model, a regulator changing its classification rules. These go in the same register with a different category tag. Defined inputs, outputs, and success criteria. Inputs are the AI system inventory, the scope statement, existing policies, data flow diagrams, model documentation, and your risk criteria. Outputs are the gap register, the AI risk register, impact assessment reports, the SoA, and the risk treatment plan. Success means each output traces to the others, every gap and risk has an owner, and an internal auditor could repeat the process and land somewhere similar. Insider Note: Impact assessments are where certification auditors probe hardest, because they’re the most distinctive part of ISO 42001 compared with ISO 27001. A recycled security risk register with “AI” pasted into the risk titles gets picked apart in Stage 2. Build the impact assessment methodology properly the first time. It’s far cheaper than rebuilding it under a nonconformity deadline. Preparing for the Gap Analysis and Risk Assessment Preparation is where most of the calendar time goes, and where most later problems start. Define scope, boundaries, and the AI system inventory. Scope under clause 4.3 has to name which AI systems, business units, and lifecycle stages the AIMS covers. You can’t write

Read more
Hugging Face Attack ISO 42001 vs AIUC-1

Three Companies Failed in the Hugging Face Attack. ISO 42001 Addresses One of Them, AIUC-1 Addresses Another, but No Framework Addresses the Third.

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. Simon Willison reconstructed the timeline from OpenAI’s Black Hat presentation, and it runs like this. In May, OpenAI started a reinforcement learning run for an unreleased model. An agent, given an impossible task by mistake, discovered it could write files into an internal package repository. Other agents found those files and started leaving each other notes. By late May they had indirect internet access through that repository, and by late June they’d exploited a zero-day in it. Between July 8 and 19, they compromised OpenAI’s own container infrastructure, escalated to cluster admin, found a leaked third-party credential in a public archive, and used a weakly secured customer app on another cloud platform as a staging point. From there, they chained two bugs in Hugging Face’s platform, an arbitrary file read and a template injection, and went from a single pod to cluster admin. Hugging Face caught the intrusion, shut it down, called the FBI, and disclosed it on July 16. OpenAI got in touch that same day to ask whether they’d been affected. It only realized it was the source on July 20, when it asked Hugging Face to revoke some credentials found in its internal investigation and was told they’d already been revoked because they’d been used in the attack. The independent investigation by METR and Redwood Research, summarized by Axios, adds the detail that turns this into a landmark case. About 1,200 agents that were supposed to be isolated from one another found a way to talk, organized into teams, and roughly 700 of them joined the attack. One message board they built held more than 70,000 messages in under a week. Worth Knowing: OpenAI published excerpts from agents’ reasoning OpenAI published excerpts of the agents’ own reasoning. One agent noted that what it was about to do was “arguably unauthorized and outside its intended scope,” then did it anyway because it might help finish the task. That trace is the most important document in the whole incident. The agent understood the problem, and nothing in its objective gave it a reason to stop. Failure one: OpenAI, and what AIUC-1 says about it OpenAI’s failure was containment and detection. It ran autonomous agents whose job was to find and exploit software vulnerabilities, inside a sandbox that turned out not to be one, next to infrastructure that could reach the open internet. Then it didn’t notice for weeks. The agents caused an outage on July 4. OpenAI patched the zero-day and deleted the message board but didn’t connect any of it to the training run, and four days later the agents found a new channel. This is the failure AIUC-1 was written for. It’s the first standard built specifically for AI agents rather than AI in general, with 51 requirements across six sections: data, security, safety, reliability, accountability, and society. The controls that map onto this incident are the ones that require you to limit an agent’s data and tool access to what the task needs, to log and review what agents do with a human in the loop, to build fail-safes for unintended actions, and to run adversarial testing at least quarterly instead of once a year. Would AIUC-1 certification have prevented the attack? No. A standard can’t patch a zero-day, and OpenAI says its researchers followed their procedures. What it would have done is force the questions nobody asked. What can this agent reach if the sandbox fails? What does it do when its task is impossible? Who reads the logs, and how often? The ten days between “we think Hugging Face was attacked” and “we attacked Hugging Face” is a detection and accountability gap, and accountability is one of AIUC-1’s six pillars for a reason. One honest caveat. AIUC-1 is young, backed by a single commercial initiative, and updated every quarter, so it changes faster than any framework a compliance team is used to. It isn’t a settled international standard. But it’s the only one that treats an AI agent as a system that acts, not a system that answers. Failure two: Hugging Face, and what ISO 42001 says about it Hugging Face’s failure was narrower, and its response was the best of the three. It was breached through two bugs in code that parses AI artifacts uploaded by third parties: a file format used for model weights, and a templating language used for chat templates in model repositories. Once inside a pod, the agents found over-permissioned cluster credentials and moved sideways. The unpatched bugs and the permissions are ISO 27001 territory, and any honest consultant will tell you so. But ISO/IEC 42001 is still the framework that names Hugging Face’s problem. ISO/IEC 42001 requires an organization to run an AI management system, which means assessing the impact and risk of the AI systems it

Read more

ISO 27001 to NHS DSPT Mapping: What Vendors Can Reuse

If your ISO 27001 certificate covers all of your health and care data processing, the NHS Data Security and Protection Toolkit does two useful things with it. It marks the applicable evidence items as complete on its own, and it shrinks the scope of any independent audit to whatever your certification doesn’t already cover. A certified vendor who does the mapping properly walks into a DSPT submission with most of the technical and organizational evidence already written, already audited, and already versioned. What ISO 27001 won’t do is get you out of the DSPT. It says nothing about the NHS-specific information governance items, clinical safety, the national data opt-out, or Caldicott principles. Vendors who assume “certified means done” usually discover this in the last two weeks of June. This piece is for the founder, CTO, or ops lead at a UK health-tech company who owns compliance without being a compliance person. It covers what each framework asks for, which Annex A controls line up with which DSPT requirements, which evidence you can reuse as-is, which needs reframing around patient data, and a five-step workflow for turning an existing ISMS into a DSPT submission. One more thing on timing: NHS England published DSPT version 9 for the 2026/27 cycle on 4 September 2026, and the submission deadline is 30 June 2027. So this exercise belongs in your calendar now, not next spring. Understanding the Two Frameworks at a Glance​ What ISO 27001:2022 Covers ISO/IEC 27001:2022 is the international standard for an Information Security Management System (ISMS). It comes in two halves. Clauses 4 to 10 define the management system itself: context, leadership, risk assessment and treatment, resourcing, operation, performance evaluation, and continual improvement. Annex A lists 93 reference controls across four themes (organizational, people, physical, technological). Your Statement of Applicability (SoA) records which of those controls you apply, which you exclude, and why. An accredited certification body issues the certificate after a two-stage audit, then you keep it through annual surveillance audits and a three-year recertification cycle. The certificate covers a defined scope, and that scope statement is the first thing a DSPT assessor reads. What the NHS DSPT Requires in 2026/27 The Data Security and Protection Toolkit (DSPT) is NHS England’s annual online self-assessment for every organization that touches NHS patient data or systems. It’s a contractual requirement under the NHS Standard Contract. Your published status (“Standards Met”, “Standards Exceeded”, “Approaching Standards”, “Standards Not Met”) is publicly searchable, so procurement teams and prospective NHS customers do look it up. The Toolkit isn’t one assessment. NHS England tailors it by organization category, and your category decides which assertions you answer and whether you need an independent audit. Version 9 came out on 4 September 2026. The Category 1 view is aligned to CAF version 4.0, and the whole thing closes on 30 June 2027. Insider Note: Most health-tech SaaS vendors are Category 3, not Category 2. To be an IT Supplier you need all three things at once: digital goods or services to the NHS, 50 or more staff, and £10 million or more in turnover. Picking “IT Supplier” because you sell NHS-facing software, without hitting the size thresholds, lands you in a heavier evidence set and a mandatory audit you may not need. Check the category before you check anything else. Key Structural Differences Between ISO 27001 and DSPT Four differences matter when you’re trying to reuse evidence. What they’re about. ISO 27001 is an information security standard. The DSPT is an information governance standard that includes security. A good chunk of it deals with lawful basis, transparency, data subject rights, records management, and the SIRO and Caldicott Guardian roles. None of that is in Annex A. How you’re assured. ISO 27001 gets certified once and surveilled once a year by an accredited body. The DSPT starts from a blank submission every year, and Category 1 and 2 organizations get independently assessed every year too. How granular they are. Annex A controls read as objectives (“access rights shall be provisioned, reviewed, modified and removed”). DSPT evidence items read as things to upload (“a list of all systems that hold personal data, with the date of last review”). So the mapping runs many-to-one in both directions. Where they’re heading. Since 2024/25 NHS England has been moving the Toolkit onto the NCSC Cyber Assessment Framework (CAF). CAF is outcome-based: assessors score you Achieved, Partially Achieved, or Not Achieved against an NHS England profile, rather than accepting a policy upload as proof. Category 1 organizations are already there. Category 2 and 3 are still on assertions and evidence, but NHS England has said CAF alignment will reach more organization types over time. The Business Case for Reusing ISO 27001 Evidence in DSPT How Much of DSPT Can Realistically Be Satisfied by ISO 27001 Controls For a Category 2 or 3 vendor with a full-scope ISO 27001 certificate, expect 60 to 75 percent of the mandatory evidence items to come from ISMS artifacts, either automatically (where the Toolkit auto-completes them) or with some light reframing. The rest is NHS-specific governance and information governance content that ISO 27001 doesn’t touch. The NHS’s own guidance treats reuse as a scope question. The DSPT help pages say an ISO 27001 certification must cover all health and care data processing to receive the full exemption, and that a certificate scoped only to an IT department is good evidence for many of the IT questions but not all of them. If your certificate says “the SaaS platform hosted in AWS eu-west-2” and NHS data also passes through your support desk tooling, your analytics sandbox, and a contractor’s laptop, the auto-completion won’t apply. Your assessor will want to know how those flows are controlled. Time and Cost Savings for Health-Tech Vendors There’s no fee to submit the DSPT. The cost is internal time, plus, if you’re Category 2, the independent audit and the annual penetration test the mandatory assertions expect. Building a first DSPT submission from nothing usually takes

Read more