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

LiteLLM Supply-Chain Breach: How to Check If You’re Exposed and What to Rotate

Two compromised versions of LiteLLM sat on PyPI for roughly 40 minutes on the morning of March 24, 2026. That window was enough to capture secrets from around 434,000 CI/CD pipeline runs across nearly 2,500 organizations, including AWS, Samsung, Cisco, Salesforce, Siemens, and Deloitte. In August, researchers at CloudSEK and Hudson Rock confirmed they had obtained the raw exfiltrated data: a 153GB archive containing 433,909 files of environment variables, cloud keys, Kubernetes secrets, and API tokens harvested live from running pipelines, as covered by Help Net Security’s reporting on the credential archive. If LiteLLM runs anywhere in your stack, or you touch any AI proxy infrastructure at all, you need answers to three things: whether you were exposed, what to rotate first, and whether the rotation you did back in March actually held. That last one matters more than it sounds, because “we rotated everything” has already burned at least one very large company. How the Breach Happened The attack didn’t start with LiteLLM. On March 19, 2026, a threat group called TeamPCP compromised the build pipeline of Trivy, a vulnerability scanner half the industry runs, and pushed a poisoned release. LiteLLM’s own CI pipeline ran Trivy, so the poisoned scanner had legitimate read access to the project’s runner environment. The attackers used that to steal LiteLLM’s PyPI publishing tokens and ship two malicious releases of their own: versions 1.82.7 and 1.82.8. KICS and the Telnyx Python SDK got hit in the same campaign. The payload design is the part worth studying. The malicious package dropped a .pth startup hook into site-packages, so the code ran the moment any Python interpreter started on the machine, whether or not anything imported LiteLLM. From there it harvested environment variables, read local credential files like .aws/credentials and .kube/config, tried to move laterally across Kubernetes clusters, and installed a systemd backdoor dressed up as a generic telemetry service. InfoQ’s coverage of the PyPI compromise put downloads of the compromised release above 40,000. For scale, LiteLLM normally gets downloaded around 3 million times a day. The exfiltration had a nasty fallback, too. According to CloudSEK, stolen data was encrypted and sent to a typosquatted domain, and when that failed, the malware created a public repository inside the victim’s own GitHub account and uploaded the loot as a release asset. Some companies were publishing their own secrets to the open internet and had no idea. Worth Knowing: The malicious code only existed in the PyPI artifacts. The GitHub source repository stayed clean the whole time, so a developer reviewing the code on GitHub saw nothing wrong. Source review isn’t artifact verification. If you don’t check that what the registry serves matches the upstream source, this class of attack is invisible to you. How to Check If You Were Exposed Three checks, from quickest to most involved. 1. Confirm whether the compromised versions ever ran The malicious versions went live on PyPI at 10:39 UTC on March 24, 2026 and got quarantined about 40 minutes later. The project’s advice: treat any install from that day before 16:00 UTC as suspect. Search your lockfiles, pip caches, SBOMs, and container image histories for 1.82.7 and 1.82.8. And check your internal artifact mirrors. An Artifactory or Nexus proxy that cached the bad release in March can keep serving it internally long after PyPI pulled it. Keep the .pth mechanism in mind when you scope this. The question isn’t “which applications import LiteLLM,” it’s “which machines had the package installed at all,” because every Python process on an infected machine triggered the payload. 2. Hunt for persistence Rotation is pointless if the attacker still has a foothold. Check developer machines, CI runners, and containers for unauthorized .pth files in site-packages and for suspicious systemd units, especially anything posing as a system telemetry service. And review activity from March 24 onward, not just the 40-minute window. Persistence is there so the access outlives the infection. Pro Tip: Don’t limit the persistence hunt to live machines. Base container images rebuilt in late March may have baked the payload into every image derived from them since. Scan your image registry for the affected LiteLLM versions and for unexpected .pth files, then trace which running workloads came from flagged images. 3. Check whether your secrets are in the dump Hudson Rock has published a domain lookup tool and is running ethical disclosures for affected organizations, and CloudSEK maintains a high-confidence victim list. Use them, but know their limits. Attribution in this dataset is genuinely hard. One dump with a siriusxm.com committer email actually traced, through its self-hosted GitLab endpoints, to AdsWizz, a SiriusXM subsidiary. And a large share of the dumps are generic pipeline configurations with no identifying domain, email, or server name at all. Absence from a victim list is not evidence of absence. If your pipelines ran the compromised versions, assume exposure no matter what a lookup tool tells you. What to Rotate, in What Order The guidance from both research teams is blunt: treat every secret the LiteLLM environment could reach as compromised. That covers secrets on disk, in memory, injected into CI jobs, and anything retrievable through instance metadata services. Work down by blast radius: Priority Credential type Why it comes first 1 Cloud IAM keys (AWS, GCP, Azure) Direct control of infrastructure, data stores, and billing. This is where attackers monetize fastest. 2 GitHub and GitLab PATs, package publishing tokens These let an attacker poison your releases and turn your company into the next link in the supply chain. 3 Kubernetes service account tokens and kubeconfigs Lateral movement across clusters was built into the payload, not a theoretical risk. 4 Database passwords and third-party API keys Dumped in plain text in the archive, often with no attribution, so nobody will warn you they leaked. 5 AI provider API keys Billing abuse, quota theft, and access to whatever data flows through your LLM routing layer. One word matters more than the rest of this article: revoke, don’t just rotate. That

Read more

EU AI Act Recruitment Rules: What to Know for 2027

The EU AI Act names recruitment AI as high-risk. Annex III explicitly lists AI systems used for recruitment, candidate selection, and employment decisions, which pulls CV screeners, video interview platforms, and assessment tools into the most demanding compliance regime the Act contains. The original compliance date for these systems was August 2, 2026. In June 2026, the EU’s Digital Omnibus moved the deadline to December 2, 2027, a 16-month extension that has led many HR and talent teams to shelve the topic entirely. That’s a mistake, for two reasons. First, one rule that directly affects recruitment technology is already in force: the ban on emotion recognition in the workplace has applied since February 2, 2025, and it catches features still shipping in some video interview products today. Second, the deferred obligations didn’t shrink. Conformity assessments, human oversight design, bias monitoring, and documentation all still arrive in full, and the practical work of auditing a recruitment stack, renegotiating vendor contracts, and training hiring teams routinely takes a year or more. Here’s what the EU AI Act actually requires of employers and vendors using recruitment tools, on the timeline that now applies. Why Recruitment Tools Are Classified as High-Risk Under the EU AI Act​ Definition of High-Risk AI Systems in Hiring​ The Act takes a list-based approach. Annex III, point 4, designates as high-risk any AI system intended for the recruitment or selection of natural persons, including placing targeted job advertisements, analyzing and filtering applications, and evaluating candidates. The same point covers AI used for decisions on promotion, termination, task allocation, and monitoring of workers, so the classification follows the tool through the entire employment lifecycle, not just the hiring funnel. The reasoning is straightforward: hiring decisions shape access to livelihoods, and algorithmic discrimination in hiring is well documented. The European Commission’s regulatory framework for AI treats employment as one of the areas where an AI error or bias causes serious harm to fundamental rights. That’s the test for the high-risk tier. Types of Recruitment Tools Affected In practice, the high-risk classification captures most of the modern recruitment stack: CV and resume screeners that rank or filter applicants, video interview platforms that score responses or delivery, psychometric and skills assessment tools that produce scores feeding a hiring decision, sourcing and matching algorithms that decide which candidates a recruiter sees, and programmatic job ad targeting systems that determine who sees a vacancy at all. If the system’s output materially influences who advances and who does not, assume high-risk until proven otherwise. Important: Emotion recognition is not high-risk in the workplace. It is prohibited. Article 5 bans AI systems that infer emotions of people in the workplace (outside narrow medical and safety cases), and that ban has applied since February 2025 with the Act’s top penalty tier attached. If your video interview vendor markets “engagement scoring” or “sentiment analysis” of candidates, that feature needs to be switched off for EU hiring now, not in 2027. Recruitment Tools That May Fall Outside High-Risk Classification Not everything in the HR stack qualifies. The Act carves out systems performing narrow procedural tasks that do not materially influence decision outcomes. An applicant tracking system that stores applications, schedules interviews, and sends templated emails is a database with a workflow, not a high-risk AI system. The same goes for tools that transcribe interviews without scoring them, deduplicate candidate records, or generate first drafts of job descriptions for a human to edit. The line is decision influence: the moment a tool ranks, scores, filters, or recommends candidates, it crosses into Annex III territory. Deployers who rely on an exemption must be able to document that assessment, so “we decided it doesn’t count” needs to exist on paper. Extraterritorial Scope: Which Employers Are Covered The Act applies to providers placing AI systems on the EU market and to deployers established in the EU, but it also reaches further: it covers providers and deployers located outside the EU where the output of the system is used in the EU. For recruitment, the consequence is blunt. A US or UK company with no EU entity that uses an AI screener to filter applicants for roles based in Berlin or Dublin, or that screens candidates located in the EU, is using the system’s output in the Union. Brexit doesn’t move UK employers out of scope when they hire into or from the EU. Providers vs. Deployers of Recruitment AI Tools The Act splits obligations between the provider (the vendor that develops the tool and places it on the market) and the deployer (the employer using it). Most employers are deployers, and deployer obligations are lighter but real. One common trap: an employer that substantially modifies a high-risk system, or puts its own name on it, can be reclassified as a provider and inherit the full provider stack. Heavy customization of a screening model, or fine-tuning it on your own hiring data, can be enough to trigger this. Key Obligations for Employers Using AI Recruitment Tools Human Oversight in Automated Hiring Decisions Deployers must assign oversight of the system to people with the competence, training, and authority to intervene. That last word matters. A recruiter who rubber-stamps whatever the ranking algorithm produces, because nobody has time to review 800 rejected CVs, doesn’t count as oversight. Regulators and courts will look at whether the human could genuinely override the system and whether they ever did. Designing review checkpoints where a person can meaningfully change the outcome, and logging when they do, is the core of compliant deployment. Transparency Requirements Toward Candidates Employers must inform workers and their representatives before putting a high-risk AI system into use at work, and candidates subjected to such a system must be told it is being used. In countries with works councils, such as Germany, this obligation lands on top of existing co-determination rights, so employee representatives may need to be consulted before the tool goes live rather than just told afterward. Burying an AI disclosure in a privacy policy paragraph is unlikely to survive scrutiny.

Read more

4 SOC 2 Controls Auditors Reject Even When Your Compliance Tool Says Passing

A green dashboard is not an audit opinion. Compliance automation platforms like Vanta, Drata, Secureframe, and Hyperproof have made SOC 2 readiness faster and cheaper, but every audit cycle produces the same pattern: controls that sat at “passing” for months come back from the auditor with exceptions or requests for re-testing. The four controls below account for a disproportionate share of those rejections, and they all fail for the same underlying reason. The tool confirmed that evidence exists. The auditor tested whether the control actually operated. This article walks through each of the four: what auditors reject, why, and how to fix the evidence before fieldwork starts. Why Compliance Tools Show “Passing” But Auditors Still Reject Controls​ The Gap Between Automated Checks and Auditor Judgment Compliance platforms run continuous control monitoring: API calls that check whether a configuration exists, a document is uploaded, or a task is marked done. That’s real value. It catches drift, keeps evidence in one place, and saves weeks of screenshot collection. An audit is a different exercise. A SOC 2 examination is an attestation performed by a CPA firm under AICPA standards, and the auditor’s job is to form an independent opinion on whether your controls met the Trust Services Criteria. That opinion rests on professional judgment, not on whether an API integration returned a 200 response. What “Passing” Actually Means in Your Compliance Dashboard​ When a control shows “passing,” the platform is telling you one narrow thing: at the moment of the last scan, an automated test found the artifact or setting it was programmed to look for: MFA enforced in the identity provider, a policy document uploaded, a training campaign sitting at 100%. The test says nothing about whether the underlying process ran the way your control narrative claims it did, or whether it ran that way across the whole audit period. How Auditors Evaluate Controls Beyond the Checkbox Auditors test two dimensions. Design effectiveness asks whether the control, as described, would meet the criterion if it worked as intended. Operating effectiveness, the core of a SOC 2 Type 2 report, asks whether it actually did throughout the audit period. To answer that, the auditor pulls a population (every access review, every change, every new hire in the period), selects a sample, and inspects the evidence item by item. A dashboard status feeds into that process. It doesn’t replace it. Insider Note: Auditors increasingly ask for evidence outside the compliance platform precisely because they know what the platform auto-collects. If every artifact you produce comes from the same tool export, expect the auditor to independently pull the population from the source system and compare. Discrepancies between the two are one of the fastest routes to an exception. Control #1: Access Reviews That Automation Marks Complete but Auditors Reject Why Auditors Reject Automated Access Review Evidence​ User access reviews sit under the logical access criteria (CC6.1 through CC6.3), and they are the single most common source of audit exceptions we see. The typical failure: the platform generated a user list, someone clicked “complete,” and the dashboard turned green. The auditor then asks a simple question the evidence can’t answer: what did the reviewer actually decide? The Missing Element: Documented Reviewer Judgment​ An access review is a judgment control. Someone with knowledge of the system must look at each account and confirm the access is still appropriate for the person’s role. A timestamped task closure proves the task was closed. It doesn’t prove anyone assessed anything, and an “approve all” review completed in ninety seconds gets exactly the skepticism it deserves. What Auditors Actually Want to See in Access Review Evidence Auditors look for four things: The full population of accounts at the time of review (including service accounts and admin roles), Evidence of who reviewed it and when, explicit dispositions per account or group (retain, modify, revoke), and Proof that flagged access was actually removed. That last item, the deprovisioning ticket showing revocation within a defined window, is the piece most companies can’t produce. How to Fix Your Access Review Control Before the Audit​ Assign a named control owner per in-scope system, run reviews quarterly, and require reviewers to record a disposition for every line, not a blanket approval. When access is revoked, link the removal ticket to the review record. If a quarter was missed, don’t backfill it. Document it honestly and show the remediation, because auditors treat fabricated retroactive evidence far more severely than a disclosed gap. Control #2: Change Management Approvals That Pass Automated Scans​ Why Ticket Closure Isn’t Proof of Approval​ Change management (CC8.1) automation typically verifies that production changes link to a ticket and the ticket is closed. Auditors test something stricter: that each sampled change was approved by an authorized person before deployment. An approval added after the merge, or a ticket closed by the same engineer who wrote the code, fails that test even though every automated check came back green. The Segregation of Duties Problem Automation Misses Segregation of duties is the requirement that no single person can develop, approve, and deploy the same change. NIST’s SP 800-53 control catalog treats it as a foundational access control principle, and SOC 2 auditors apply the same logic. Small engineering teams trip on this constantly. Self-approved pull requests, admins who can bypass branch protection, direct pushes to main: a scanner sees “changes with tickets” while an auditor sees SoD violations. Emergency Changes and Retroactive Approvals: Common Rejection Triggers​ Every audit period contains hotfixes. Auditors don’t reject emergency changes. They reject emergency changes with no documented post-hoc review. If your policy says urgent changes get retroactive approval within two business days, the auditor will sample your emergency changes and check exactly that. No policy, or a policy nobody followed, produces an exception. Rebuilding Change Management Evidence Auditors Will Accept​ Enforce the control technically: branch protection requiring at least one independent reviewer, no admin bypass, and deploy pipelines that only run from protected branches. Then write the emergency change procedure down and generate the review artifact every time it fires.

Read more