/

  / Drata Security Awareness Training: Setup, Tracking & Audit Readiness

Drata Security Awareness Training: Setup, Tracking & Audit Readiness

Roughly 60% of data breaches still trace back to a person rather than a system, according to Verizon’s 2025 Data Breach Investigations Report. Earlier editions of the same report put the figure as high as 74%. That single statistic is why every framework Drata supports — from SOC 2 to HIPAA — treats Drata security awareness training as a required control rather than a nice-to-have.

Drata gives you three ways to run that training: automatic tracking across your personnel and recurring resets that keep evidence current for auditors. This guide covers how each piece works, how to configure it, and the quiet mistakes that break compliance.

Drata Security Awareness Training

What Is Security Awareness Training in Drata?

Security awareness training in Drata is the annual cybersecurity education your workforce completes to satisfy personnel-related controls across frameworks. The control language is consistent across audits: security awareness training is provided to all employees on an annual basis. Drata’s job is to deliver or track that training, then hold the completion evidence in one place so you can show an auditor that every current employee and contractor met the requirement for the current cycle.

The discipline itself is well established. The broad concept of security awareness maps to the Protect function (PR.AT) of the NIST Cybersecurity Framework, which treats workforce education as a foundational layer of organizational defense. Inside Drata, training settings live on the Internal Security page, and completion surfaces on the Personnel page and in each person’s My Drata onboarding.

Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less

Schedule Your Free SOC 2 Assessment Today

Training Methods Available in Drata

Drata supports three approaches, and you choose one on the Internal Security page. They differ mainly in who delivers the content and who supplies the completion evidence.

Drata Embedded Security Awareness Training (Default)

Drata built its own training course that personnel complete directly inside the platform. During onboarding, the employee opens the Complete Security Awareness Training task, clicks Begin Training, and works through the module. On completion, the task flips to completed automatically, and the Personnel page reflects it. No file uploads, no chasing screenshots. This is the simplest route to compliance and the default for most accounts.

Connected Training Provider

If you already run a training platform, you can connect it so completion data flows into Drata automatically. Drata integrates with providers including KnowBe4, Huntress, and Curricula. Once connected, Drata recognizes that provider as your default training source and pulls completion status for the campaigns you select. For each person, Drata combines campaign selection, enrollment, and completion status to decide whether they are compliant.

Insider Note: Drata only syncs training for individuals who are not yet compliant. Once someone is marked compliant, Drata stops pulling their status from the connected provider, so a later change in that tool won’t accidentally overwrite a green check. The practical consequence: if you need to re-run someone, reset them in Drata first, then let the sync pick them back up.

External Training (Evidence Upload)

The third option covers training done entirely outside Drata. Here, evidence is uploaded manually — either by the employee through My Drata, or by an admin on their behalf, depending on configuration. Compliance is determined by the presence of valid evidence — a certificate, screenshot, or other file — for each current person.

How to Configure Security Awareness Training in Drata

Where to Find Security Awareness Training Settings

All training configuration lives in one place. Select your account from the bottom-left navigation, open Settings, then Internal Security. Only account administrators can access this section. The Security Awareness Training section is where you choose your method. If HIPAA or an AI-related framework is enabled on your account, additional training sections appear below it.

Setting Up Security Awareness Training for All Personnel

Under the Security Awareness Training section, select the radio button for your chosen method — embedded, a connected provider, or external upload — then save. That setting applies to all personnel going forward, and new hires see the corresponding task in their onboarding automatically.

Assigning Training to Individual Personnel

Most configuration is account-wide, but you manage individuals from the Personnel page. Select a person to open their detail drawer, where you can view their training status and, for the external method, view or upload evidence on their behalf. This is also where you handle one-off resets, covered further below.

Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less

Schedule Your Free SOC 2 Assessment Today

HIPAA Training in Drata (If Enabled)

What Is Annual HIPAA Training in Drata?

The HIPAA Security Rule requires covered entities to implement a security awareness and training program for their entire workforce — a standard codified at 45 CFR 164.308(a)(5). If you have purchased the HIPAA framework in Drata, a dedicated HIPAA Training section appears on the Internal Security page so you can track this separately from general security awareness. Personnel complete it annually to address the associated control.

How to Configure HIPAA Training

With HIPAA enabled, the HIPAA Training section offers four options: Drata’s embedded HIPAA training, a connected provider, external training with manual evidence upload by an admin or information security lead, or opting out if HIPAA training is not required for your personnel. Select one and save. If you opt out, Drata removes all references to HIPAA training from the interface. Compliance is based on valid evidence existing for each current employee or contractor.

 

AI Awareness Training in Drata

What Is AI Awareness Training?

AI awareness training covers responsible and secure use of AI tools, and it maps to newer governance frameworks. Personnel should complete it annually to satisfy requirements in frameworks such as the NIST AI Risk Management Framework and ISO 42001. The setting only appears on your Internal Security page when a related framework is enabled on your account.

How to Configure AI Awareness Training

The AI Awareness Training section offers four options that mirror the others: Drata’s embedded AI training, a connected provider, external training with manual upload, or a URL that links personnel straight to an external course from My Drata. With the embedded option, Drata generates a certificate of completion as a PDF and uploads it automatically, viewable from the personnel drawer and in My Drata.

Worth Knowing: AI Awareness Training Sync Requirements

If you plan to sync AI awareness completions automatically through KnowBe4, that content sits in the KnowBe4 Diamond plan, and Drata currently requires the NIST AI RMF framework to be enabled for automated import and tracking. Organizations running ISO 42001 alone do not yet get automatic sync, so plan to handle those completions through manual evidence instead.

Training Status & Compliance

Training Status and Compliance Tracking

Understanding Training Completion Statuses

Status reflects whether a person has completed the current training cycle, not whether they have ever done the training at all. You see a completed or compliant state when current-cycle evidence exists, and Incomplete (sometimes shown as Pending or Failed) when it does not. The Personnel page shows these statuses across your entire roster in dedicated columns, and you can filter by compliance to pull a list of everyone still outstanding.

What Does a “Pending” Status Mean?

A pending status means the person has not completed the ongoing training cycle. It is not an error or a system fault. It is the normal state after onboarding begins, or after a reset, and it stays that way until valid evidence lands.

How to Show Completion of Security Awareness Training

To evidence the control, Drata lets employees upload proof during onboarding and annually thereafter. For the embedded course, completion records itself. For external training, the employee or an admin uploads the file under Complete Security Awareness Training in My Drata. Either way, that completion evidence is exactly what an auditor reviews when sampling your personnel.

Important: Compliance in Drata is judged on the current cycle, not your full history. A reset returns status to Incomplete even though last year’s certificate still sits in the record. Auditors sampling personnel look for evidence inside the current window, so a stack of old completions will not cover a lapsed cycle. Treat the green check as a statement about now, not about ever.

Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less

Schedule Your Free SOC 2 Assessment Today

Resetting Security Awareness Training in Drata

How Training Resets Work

Annual frameworks expect training to repeat, so Drata lets you reset completed training to push personnel through it again. A reset returns status to Incomplete until new evidence is provided. You can do this automatically on a schedule or manually at any time. Only account administrators or information security leads have access to this functionality.

How to Schedule Recurring Training Resets

On the Internal Security page, under the relevant training section, enable Schedule recurring training resets, choose when resets happen, and save. One option resets training 12 months after each person’s own completion date — dynamically — so each individual’s clock runs from when they actually finished. After you save, anyone who completed more than 12 months ago is reset immediately, and from the next day Drata’s automation checks daily and resets any training older than the configured window.

Pro Tip: Use 12-Month Rolling Renewals

Choose the dynamic "12 months after each person's last completion date" option rather than a single fixed calendar date. A fixed date resets everyone at once — including the person who onboarded last week — which creates a wave of needless retraining and a burst of false non-compliance. The rolling option keeps each person on their own annual cycle and smooths the workload across the year.

How to Reset Training Manually

You reset manually from the Personnel page using the Actions button. The scope depends on whether any individuals are selected when you trigger it.

Resetting Training for All Current Personnel

From the Personnel page, select Actions, then Reset Security Training, making sure no individual checkboxes are selected. With nothing selected, the action applies to all personnel. You will be asked to confirm before anything changes.

Resetting Training for Individual Current or Former Personnel

To reset specific people, check the boxes next to their names first, then choose Actions and Reset security training. To reset a single person, open their detail drawer, click the three-dot menu, and select the reset option. Both paths prompt for confirmation, and resets can be applied to current or former personnel alike.

What Happens After a Training Reset

Once confirmed, the compliance check on the Personnel table, in the detail drawer, and in My Drata onboarding switches to Incomplete or Failed. The person can then retake the embedded course or upload fresh evidence, depending on the method configured in Internal Security settings.

Resetting HIPAA Training in Drata

HIPAA training resets the same way, through its own dedicated action, keeping it cleanly separate from general security awareness. Only admins or information security leads can perform it, and it can be applied in bulk or to individuals.

Reset HIPAA Training for All Current Personnel

From the Personnel page, click Actions and select Reset HIPAA Training with no individuals selected, then confirm when prompted.

Reset HIPAA Training for Individual Personnel

Open a person’s detail drawer, click the three-dot icon, and choose Reset HIPAA Training. After confirmation, their HIPAA status shows Incomplete or Failed, and they retake or re-upload depending on your configured settings.

 

Resetting AI Awareness Training in Drata

AI awareness training resets through the same Actions menu, available if you have purchased the relevant AI framework such as NIST AI RMF. From the Personnel page, select Actions, then Reset AI Awareness Training, or reset an individual from their detail drawer. Confirmation is required before the change takes effect. After a reset, the person’s AI awareness status returns to Incomplete until they complete the current cycle again or new evidence is uploaded, in line with the delivery option selected in Internal Security settings.

Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less

Schedule Your Free SOC 2 Assessment Today

Policies for Security Awareness Training in Drata

Configuring the training is only half the control. Most frameworks also expect a written policy stating that security awareness training is provided annually. Drata’s policy templates and policy center let you publish that policy and collect personnel acknowledgement alongside the training itself.

This matters more than most teams realize: pairing the policy acknowledgement with completion evidence gives an auditor both the stated commitment and the proof that it was carried out — the combination that closes the control cleanly.

A completed training record without a supporting policy, or a policy without evidence of training, leaves a gap that experienced auditors are trained to find. The ISO 27001 standard, for example, explicitly calls for documented information as part of its competence and awareness requirements, a pattern echoed across virtually every major framework.

 

The Bottom Line

Drata reduces security awareness training to three decisions: how you deliver it, how you keep it current, and how you prove it. Pick a method that matches how your team already works, schedule rolling resets so evidence never goes stale, and remember that auditors care about the current cycle rather than your archive. Get those right, and the human-error problem that sinks so many compliance programs becomes one of the easiest controls to keep green.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does SOC 2 to ISO 27001 mapping guarantee compliance with both frameworks?

No. Mapping shows where control coverage overlaps and where gaps remain. Compliance still depends on designing the controls properly, operating them consistently, and producing evidence that satisfies each auditor. A crosswalk is a planning tool, not a substitute for the work itself.

Industry estimates generally place the control overlap between 60 and 80 percent, concentrated in access control, risk management, incident response, and change management.

The overlap is high enough that the second framework should never be a full rebuild, but it is not complete, because the ISO management system clauses have no SOC 2 equivalent and must be built from scratch regardless of where you are starting from.

Often, yes. A large share of SOC 2 evidence, including access reviews, change tickets, vulnerability scans, and training records, directly supports ISO 27001 Annex A controls.

The catch is that ISO also requires evidence SOC 2 never asks for, such as internal audit reports and management review records, which must be generated separately and cannot be substituted.

Treat it as a living document. Review it at least once a year, and also whenever you add a major system, adopt a new cloud service, change a core process, or when either framework is revised. A mapping that sits untouched between audits is almost certainly inaccurate by the time it is needed.

It depends on your customers. If your buyers are mostly US-based, starting with SOC 2 is common practice. If you sell internationally or need a recognized certificate, starting with ISO 27001 builds the broader management system foundation and tends to make the subsequent SOC 2 faster. Either order works.

What matters is building one security program rather than two. A good SOC 2 guide can help you assess which starting point makes the most sense for your current market and customer base.

For most organizations, ISO 27001 takes more time and effort on the first attempt, mainly because of the management system requirements. SOC 2 has no equivalent to the ISMS clauses, the Statement of Applicability, or the internal audit and management review cycle.

The controls themselves are comparable in difficulty. It is the surrounding management system that makes ISO 27001 the heavier lift, and the reason why arriving from SOC 2, with your control library already built, gives you a meaningful head start.

Axipro Author

Picture of Pedro Dias

Pedro Dias

Pedro has been writing online for over 10 years. With experience in all things programming, cyber security, and compliance, he is our editor-in-chief at Axipro.

Blog Highlights

Explore More Articles

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 scores as “ad hoc,” not “defined.” A control that runs but produces no record scores as unverifiable, which for audit purposes is the same as absent. Self-assessment tools collapse those three levels into a single yes/no, which is why companies that score 85% on a free tool routinely receive major nonconformities at Stage 2. Alignment with Certification Body Expectations Certification bodies auditing against ISO/IEC 42001:2023 now work under ISO/IEC 42006:2025, which sets competence, audit-time, and impartiality requirements for AIMS auditors and builds on ISO/IEC 17021-1. A consultant-grade checklist is written with 42006 in mind: it organizes findings by clause and control identifier, because that’s how the auditor works, and it records evidence locations, because that’s what the auditor will sample. The practical difference shows up in the report. A gap register that says “AI governance needs improvement” is useless in front of an auditor. One that says “A.5.2 not conformant: no documented impact assessment process; two of four in-scope systems have no assessment on file” maps directly to the audit plan. Risk-Weighted Scoring Methodology Self-assessments count gaps. Consultants weight them. A missing AI policy under clause 5.2 and an incomplete competence matrix under 7.2 are both gaps, but the first will block certification and the second will earn you a minor finding. A consultant-grade checklist carries two scores per line: a maturity rating (how far the control is from working) and a certification criticality (what happens at audit if it stays this way). Effort estimates live in the remediation plan, never in the gap score, because mixing them produces a roadmap that fixes easy things first rather than important ones. Insider Note: The fastest tell that a checklist is consultant-grade rather than a marketing download is whether it has a column for evidence location. Auditors don’t accept “yes” as evidence. If the checklist has nowhere to record where the proof lives, it wasn’t built by someone who has sat through a Stage 2. Pre-Engagement Preparation Consultants Complete Before the Gap Analysis Client AI Inventory and Use Case Cataloging Nothing in the checklist works without a complete AI inventory, and it’s the input clients get wrong most often. The inventory records every AI system in use: purpose, the role you play (developer, provider, deployer, or user), data consumed, outputs produced, whether a human sits between the output and the decision, and which third-party model or API it depends on. Consultants push hard on shadow AI here: SaaS tools that added AI features, agents running under employee credentials, and internal scripts calling model APIs. Every one of those is in scope until you document why it isn’t. Defining AIMS Scope Boundaries Clause 4.3 requires a scope statement naming which AI systems, business units, locations, and lifecycle stages the AIMS covers. Consultants draft this from the inventory, not before it. Scope discipline matters commercially too: certification bodies price audits by audit days, and audit days scale with scope. A narrow, well-justified first scope (the customer-facing AI product, say, rather than every internal tool) is usually the right call for a first certification. Stakeholder Interview Planning The checklist needs answers from people who don’t write policies. A typical interview plan covers the executive sponsor (clause 5), the AI or product lead (clauses 6 and 8), data engineering (A.7), procurement or vendor management (A.10), legal or privacy (A.5, A.8), and at least one front-line user of the AI system (A.9). Consultants interview the doers separately from the document owners, because the distance from what the procedure says to what actually happens is the finding. Document Request List (DRL) Consultants Send Clients The DRL goes out one to two weeks before fieldwork. A standard ISO 42001 DRL asks for the AI inventory; existing AI, security, and data policies; org chart with AI governance roles; any AI risk assessments or impact assessments; model documentation (model cards, system cards, or whatever exists); training-data provenance and data quality records; supplier contracts for third-party models; incident and change logs; training records; any ISO 27001 ISMS documentation; and the last internal audit and management review minutes if they exist. Missing items become findings rather than delays. Pro Tip: Return an Honest DRL Return the DRL with a column that says “does not exist” wherever that’s true. Consultants would rather know on day one than discover it in a workshop. An honest DRL shortens fieldwork by days and makes the maturity scores more accurate, which makes the remediation plan cheaper. Clause-by-Clause Checklist Consultants Use (ISO 42001 Clauses 4 to 10) ISO 42001 follows the Harmonized Structure shared with ISO 27001 and ISO 9001, so clauses 4 to 10 will look familiar to anyone who has run an ISMS. What’s different is the content each clause demands. Clause 4 – Context of the Organization Checkpoints Consultants check for a documented analysis of

Scigeniq, a UAE life sciences software vendor, completed SOC 2 Type 2 and ISO 27001 in one three-month engagement with Axipro and Vamu.

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