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

Secure Data Disposal: ISO 27001, SOC 2 & GDPR Requirements

Researchers who buy second-hand drives off online marketplaces keep finding the same thing: live data.  A widely cited study by Blancco Technology Group found that 42% of used drives sold on eBay still held recoverable information, including financial records and personal data the previous owners assumed was long gone. The drives were not hacked; they were thrown away by organizations that treated deleting a file as the same thing as destroying it. Secure data disposal is where many compliance programs fail. ISO 27001, SOC 2, and GDPR all demand it, but they describe it in different languages, enforce it through different mechanisms, and punish failure in very different ways.  This article sets out what each framework requires, where the requirements overlap, and how to run a single disposal program that satisfies all three at once. Why Secure Data Disposal Matters Across Compliance Frameworks Disposal is the last link in the data lifecycle, and the easiest one to skip. An organization can run flawless access controls, encryption, and monitoring for years and still cause a reportable breach the moment one unwiped laptop leaves the building. A recoverable drive in a recycling skip is functionally identical to an open database on the internet, and auditors and regulators know it. Most disposal failures are unforced errors: a control that was already written into policy but never carried through to the actual hardware. The gap between having a disposal policy and proving this specific drive was destroyed is exactly where audits and breach investigations live. Defining Secure Data Disposal: Key Terms and Concepts What Is Secure Data Disposal? Secure data disposal is the end-to-end process of removing data and the equipment that holds it from active use, in a way that prevents its recovery. It covers the full lifecycle end: deletion of data while a system is still live, sanitisation of media that will be reused, physical destruction of media that will not, and the safe handling of equipment that is recycled, returned to a lessor, or sold. Disposal is the goal. The methods are how you get there. What Is Secure Data Destruction? Secure data destruction is the subset of disposal that renders media permanently unusable or its contents mathematically irretrievable. Shredding a drive, pulverising it, incinerating it, or destroying the encryption keys that make an encrypted disk readable are all forms of destruction. Destruction is one route to disposal, and it is the right route when the data is highly sensitive, or the media will never be reused. Secure Data Disposal vs. Secure Data Destruction: What Is the Difference? The distinction matters more than it looks. Disposal is the outcome you owe to every framework: data gone, unrecoverable, equipment handled appropriately. Destruction is just one of the methods. You can dispose of data without destroying the hardware by sanitising a drive thoroughly enough to reuse it. Confusing the two leads to two classic mistakes: destroying assets that could have been securely wiped and reused, and assuming a quick deletion counts as disposal when it does not. Important: Emptying the recycle bin, formatting a drive, or hitting delete does not dispose of data under any of these frameworks. Standard deletion only removes the pointer to the data; the bits remain until they are overwritten. Every framework discussed here expects the data to be unrecoverable, which is a far higher bar than not visible. What ISO 27001 Requires for Secure Data Disposal ISO/IEC 27001 handles disposal through a small cluster of Annex A controls that auditors read as a single process rather than in isolation. The two controls that do most of the work are 7.14 and 8.10. For a deeper look at how these controls fit into a broader compliance program, see our ISO 27001 implementation guide. ISO 27001 Annex A 7.14: Secure Disposal or Re-Use of Equipment Annex A 7.14 is a physical control. Before any equipment is disposed of or reused, the organisation must check whether it holds information assets or licensed software and ensure those are permanently erased or the media physically destroyed. It applies to servers, laptops, desktops, mobile devices, printers, network gear, and any storage media: if it ever processed information, it is in scope. The control replaces the older 2013 clause 11.2.7 and adds explicit expectations around removing identifying markings and handling end-of-occupancy scenarios. ISO 27001 Control 8.10: Information Deletion Annex A 8.10 is a technological control, and it focuses on the data rather than the box. It requires information stored in systems, devices, or media to be deleted when it is no longer required, and rendered unrecoverable. The cleanest way to keep these straight: 8.10 governs the data while it is in use or reaches its retention limit; 7.14 governs the hardware at end of life. Most retention-driven deletion sits under 8.10; most decommissioning sits under 7.14. ISO 27001 Control 8.12: Data Leakage Prevention and Its Role in Disposal Control 8.12 is rarely filed under disposal, but improperly discarded media is one of the oldest data leakage channels there is. A drive that leaves your control with recoverable data on it is a leak, regardless of how it left. Treating disposal as part of your leakage prevention posture forces the right question at the right time: what could walk out the door on this device, and has it actually been removed? Physical Destruction and Irretrievable Erasure Under ISO 27001 ISO 27001 offers two broad routes: physically destroy media that holds information, or erase and overwrite it so retrieval by a malicious party is precluded. The standard cross-references ISO/IEC 27040 for detailed sanitisation methods. The unifying requirement is that recovery should be impractical, not merely inconvenient. Deletion alone never satisfies this. Overwriting, Full-Disk Encryption, and Other Approved Methods Overwriting user-accessible storage with multiple passes is acceptable for many sensitivity levels. Full-disk encryption changes the economics of disposal entirely: if a device is encrypted from day one and the keys are properly managed, secure disposal can be as simple as destroying the keys, a technique known as

Read more

Business Continuity Plan Testing for SOC 2

A business continuity plan that has never been tested is, to a SOC 2 auditor, a document and nothing more. The Availability criteria do not award credit for a polished plan sitting in a shared drive. They ask for evidence that you ran the plan, watched it work or fail, recorded what happened, and fixed what broke. That gap — between having a plan and proving it works — is where most availability findings originate. Business continuity plan testing for SOC 2 is the exercise that turns your plan into auditable evidence. It maps directly to Availability criterion A1.3, one of the few SOC 2 controls that explicitly requires you to test something rather than merely document it. This guide covers what counts as a valid test, the test types auditors accept, a step-by-step process, the exact evidence you need, and the mistakes that turn a routine review into a finding. What Is Business Continuity Plan Testing in the Context of SOC 2? Business continuity plan (BCP) testing is the structured validation of whether your organization can keep critical operations running — and restore them within defined targets — during a disruption. In a SOC 2 context, the testing is not freeform. It must produce dated, traceable evidence that the recovery procedures in your plan actually work, that the people involved know their roles, and that systems and data come back within your stated recovery objectives.   Why SOC 2 Requires Business Continuity Plan Testing SOC 2 is an attestation against the AICPA’s Trust Services Criteria, and the Availability category exists specifically for organizations that make uptime or resilience commitments to customers. A plan you never exercise cannot demonstrate operating effectiveness over the audit period — which is the entire point of a Type 2 examination. Testing is the control that converts a static plan into a recurring, observable activity an auditor can sample. SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria and BCP Testing Requirements Availability is one of the five Trust Services Criteria, and it is optional, included only when your service commitments warrant it. When in scope, it is built around three sub-criteria: A1.1 addresses capacity management. A1.2 addresses recovery infrastructure and backup processes. A1.3 addresses the testing of recovery procedures. BCP testing lives squarely in A1.3, with A1.2 supplying the backups and infrastructure that the test validates. Availability Criteria A1.2 and A1.3 Explained Per the AICPA’s Trust Services Criteria, A1.2 requires the entity to design, implement, operate, and monitor environmental protections, recovery infrastructure, and data backup processes that meet its availability objectives. In plain terms: you need real backups, stored away from production, with recovery infrastructure ready to use. A1.3 then requires the entity to test recovery plan procedures supporting system recovery to meet its objectives. The two work as a pair: A1.2 builds the capability, A1.3 proves it functions. Important: The most common A1.3 gap is not a missing test. It is a test that never validated the recovery objectives. Teams run a tabletop, write “no issues found,” and move on — but the plan claims a 4-hour RTO that no one ever measured against an actual restore. If your plan states recovery targets, your test evidence must show whether you met them. A test that does not measure against your RTO and RPO leaves the most important question unanswered.   What Auditors Look for During a BCP Test Review Auditors want proof that the test happened, proof that it was meaningful, and proof that it led somewhere. Concretely, that means a test plan with a defined scenario, a dated record of execution with participants, results measured against your recovery objectives, a list of gaps or issues found, and evidence that those issues were remediated. A test that finds nothing and changes nothing is treated with suspicion — because real tests almost always surface something.   Types of Business Continuity Plan Tests Accepted for SOC 2 SOC 2 does not mandate a specific test type. It expects the rigor of the test to match the criticality of what you are protecting. The four common approaches sit on a spectrum from low-effort, low-disruption to high-effort, high-assurance. Tabletop Exercises A tabletop exercise is a facilitated discussion where key personnel talk through a disruption scenario and their responses. It is cheap, fast, and excellent for confirming that people understand their roles and that the plan reads coherently. Its limit is obvious: nobody actually recovers anything. For many organizations a tabletop is a legitimate annual test, especially in the first audit cycle, but auditors expect more rigor as a program matures. Walkthrough and Simulation Tests A simulation applies a specific scenario and asks the team to perform recovery actions, not just describe them. It is more involved than a tabletop and far better at exposing the gaps that only appear when people touch the tools. Simulations are where teams discover that a runbook references a system that was decommissioned, or that the on-call engineer lacks the access the plan assumes. Full Interruption Tests A full interruption test shuts down primary systems and shifts operations entirely to the recovery environment. It is the most comprehensive validation available and the only one that proves your failover genuinely works end to end. It also carries real operational risk, so it demands thorough planning and is usually reserved for mature programs and the most critical systems. Parallel Testing Parallel testing activates recovery systems alongside production without taking the primary offline, then compares the two to confirm the recovery environment performs as expected. It delivers much of the assurance of a full interruption test while sparing the business the disruption. For most SaaS and cloud-hosted services, parallel testing of failover and restore is the sweet spot between confidence and risk. How to Test Your Business Continuity Plan for SOC 2 Compliance The sequence below aligns with the contingency planning process in NIST’s Contingency Planning Guide, SP 800-34, which auditors widely treat as authoritative for resilience practices. Each step produces an artifact, and the artifacts together form

Read more

How to Build an Incident Reporting Process That Holds Up in a SOC 2 Audit

A SOC 2 auditor will not ask whether you have an incident reporting policy. They will ask you to pull a specific incident from the last twelve months and walk them through it: when it was detected, who classified it, when it was escalated, who was notified, and how it was closed. The policy is the easy part. The part that fails audits is the gap between what the document says and what the timestamps actually show. Incident reporting sits at the center of the SOC 2 System Operations criteria, and it is one of the most frequently exception-flagged areas in Type 2 reports. The reason is consistent: teams treat reporting as paperwork generated after the fire is out, rather than as a controlled process that produces evidence at every step. This guide breaks down how to build a reporting process that an auditor can test, sample, and sign off on without a finding. What Is the Incident Reporting Process in SOC 2? The incident reporting process is the documented, repeatable sequence your organization follows from the moment a security event is detected to the moment the incident is formally closed and archived. It governs how events are logged, classified, escalated, communicated, and recorded. Reporting is not a single notification email. It is the connective tissue that links detection, response, and post-incident review into an auditable chain. How SOC 2 Defines a Security Incident SOC 2 does not hand you a rigid statutory definition. It works through the AICPA’s Trust Services Criteria, which frame an incident around a failure, or potential failure, of the system to meet the organization’s service commitments and security objectives. In practice, a security incident is any event that compromises, or could compromise, the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of systems or data. The criteria expect you to define this threshold yourself and apply it consistently, which is precisely what auditors test against. What Qualifies as a Reportable Security Incident Under SOC 2? An event becomes reportable when it crosses the threshold your own policy sets. The distinction matters. A blocked phishing email is a security event. A user who clicked the link and entered credentials is a reportable incident. SOC 2 rewards organizations that draw this line explicitly, because a clear definition is what makes consistent triage possible. Vague language like “significant events will be reported” invites the auditor to ask who decides what counts as significant, and on what basis. Examples of Security Incidents Relevant to SOC 2 Common reportable incidents include unauthorized access to production systems, credential compromise, malware or ransomware infection, data exfiltration or accidental disclosure, denial-of-service events affecting availability, lost or stolen devices holding company data, and misconfigurations that expose data to the public. Vendor and subprocessor breaches that touch your data belong on this list, too, since the criteria extend your responsibility into the supply chain. How Incident Severity Levels Are Established and Classified Severity classification drives everything downstream: how fast you respond, who gets pulled in, and which notification clocks start ticking. Most mature programs use a tiered scheme tied to business impact rather than technical noise. The point is not the labels you choose but the fact that the labels map to defined response times and escalation paths, and that the mapping is documented before an incident occurs, not invented during one. Auditors quietly judge your maturity by how few P1s you declare and how consistently you apply the tiers. A program that labels everything critical looks panicked; one that never escalates looks asleep. The strongest signal is a severity matrix with response-time SLAs next to each tier, and ticket history showing the tiers were actually applied as written. SOC 2 Incident Reporting Requirements There is no single “incident reporting requirement” in SOC 2. The obligation is distributed across several Common Criteria, and the auditor assembles a picture from all of them. Understanding which criteria govern reporting tells you exactly what evidence to keep. Which SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria Govern Incident Reporting? Incident reporting lives mainly in the CC7 (System Operations) series. CC7.2 covers monitoring system components to detect anomalies that may signal an incident. CC7.3 requires you to evaluate detected events to determine whether they are incidents and to take action. CC7.4 governs the response itself, including containment, eradication, and communication. CC7.5 addresses recovery and remediation. Communication obligations also reach into CC2.2 and CC2.3, which deal with internal and external information flow, and third-party incidents implicate CC9.2 on vendor risk. These are points of focus, not a checklist, but auditors use them to frame their testing. For a deeper look at how these criteria map to your broader compliance program, see our SOC 2 compliance guide. What Evidence Do Auditors Expect From Your Incident Reporting Process? Auditors want artifacts with time references, not assertions. That means incident tickets showing detection and closure timestamps, severity classifications with the name of who assigned them, escalation records, communication logs, and post-incident review notes. In a Type 2 examination they will trace one real incident end to end. Evidence pulled from a staging environment, or any artifact with no clear date, gets challenged immediately. Who Is Responsible for Reporting Security Incidents? Everyone reports; a defined role decides. SOC 2 expects that all staff know how to raise a suspected incident, and that a named function, often a security lead or incident commander, owns the determination of severity and the decision to escalate. The auditor will look for evidence that this ownership is real: a RACI chart is fine, but ticket history showing the right person actually classified and closed incidents is better. Step-by-Step SOC 2 Incident Reporting Process The following sequence maps cleanly to the lifecycle in NIST’s Computer Security Incident Handling Guide (SP 800-61), which auditors widely recognize as authoritative. NIST withdrew Revision 2 in April 2025 and released Revision 3, which reorganizes the lifecycle around the six functions of the Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. The underlying steps below remain the same; the framing simply shifts toward continuous risk management.

Read more