Narva Software SOC 2 Readiness in Record Time with Axipro

Featured Partner

Vanta

Product

SOC 2

Industry

IT Services and IT Consulting

Company size

2-10 employees

Location

Kerpen, Germany

Narva Software SOC-2 Readiness Axipro

Share This Post

Narva Software, a leading Atlassian partner based in Germany, achieved SOC 2 readiness faster than expected, thanks to Axipro’s expert guidance and structured approach.
With a clear plan, hands-on support, and seamless collaboration, the Narva Software SOC 2 readiness journey became smooth, efficient, and stress-free.
If you’re preparing for SOC 2 and want a faster, less stressful path, this success story will show you how.

About Narva

Narva Solutions UG, known as Narva Software, is headquartered in Kerpen, Germany.
The company builds innovative apps for Jira and Confluence, helping teams work smarter, collaborate better, and manage projects with greater efficiency.

Their solutions include:

  • Embedding external content into Confluence for richer documentation.
  • Exporting Confluence content quickly for sharing and reporting.
  • Enhancing Jira workflows with pre-built templates and labels.
  • Adding advanced capabilities to Confluence, such as LaTeX formula support.

Serving a global customer base, Narva Software is committed to delivering tools that make teamwork simpler and more effective.
When the time came to pursue SOC 2 compliance, they knew they needed a partner who could make the process clear, fast, and painless.

The Compliance Challenge

For Narva Software, achieving SOC 2 readiness was more than a checkbox. It was a way to strengthen customer trust, open doors to enterprise contracts, and demonstrate a strong commitment to data security.

However, the path to compliance came with challenges:

  • Understanding Vanta and configuring it for SOC 2 requirements.
  • Creating and refining the right security and operational policies.
  • Coordinating efforts without disrupting daily business operations.

They needed end-to-end guidance, a partner who could simplify the process while ensuring every requirement was met.
If this sounds familiar, you’re not alone. Many fast-growing companies face these same hurdles before they find the right compliance partner.

Why Narva Software Chose Axipro

Narva Software selected Axipro because of our proven record in helping companies achieve SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, and GDPR compliance.
As the Most Reviewed DRATA Partner, we are known for delivering results with speed, precision, and minimal disruption to business operations.

Our approach goes beyond simply “getting the badge.” We focus on building a compliance framework that strengthens operations and supports long-term growth.
For Narva Software’s SOC 2 readiness, they wanted a trusted partner who could own the process from start to finish, and that’s exactly what we delivered.

The Axipro Solution

We began by creating a structured, milestone-driven plan tailored to Narva Software’s timeline and business priorities.
Each stage was designed to make progress measurable and predictable.

Our team:

  • Guided Narva Software step-by-step through the Vanta platform.
  • Assisted in creating and refining the required SOC 2 policies.
  • Provided templates, best practices, and direct implementation support.
  • Coordinated closely with audit partner Johanson Group to ensure full readiness.

Because the plan was crystal clear, the Narva Software SOC 2 readiness process moved quickly, allowing their team to stay focused on building great products.
If you’ve been delaying compliance because it feels overwhelming, imagine what your team could accomplish with this kind of structured support.

Results Achieved

Narva Software reached full SOC 2 readiness faster than anticipated. The process delivered:

  • Well-documented and fully implemented security policies.
  • Confidence in meeting every SOC 2 requirement.
  • A smooth handoff to the audit partner with no last-minute issues.

With compliance in place, Narva Software is now positioned to attract more enterprise clients and strengthen its market credibility.
Fast compliance, minimal disruption, and zero guesswork, that’s the Axipro difference.

Customer Satisfaction

Narva Software expressed genuine satisfaction with the results.
They appreciated how the SOC 2 readiness process was not only fast but also well-organized and easy to follow.
The team highlighted Axipro’s clear guidance, efficient use of the Vanta platform, and ability to keep the project on track without slowing down their core development work.

In their words, the journey to compliance felt “smooth, structured, and surprisingly quick” — exactly the outcome they were hoping for.

Your Compliance Success Story Starts Here

The Narva Software SOC 2 readiness success demonstrates what’s possible when expert guidance meets proven processes.
At Axipro, we help businesses achieve SOC 2, ISO 27001, HIPAA, and GDPR compliance faster, with less stress, and without sacrificing productivity.

Whether you’re starting your first compliance project or preparing for a renewal audit, we can help you build the right roadmap and get you there with confidence.

AIUC-1 AI Agent Certification The Complete Guide

AIUC-1 AI Agent Certification: The Complete Guide

Most security certifications were built for software that follows rules. AI agents do not. They consume data, draw conclusions, call tools, and take action, increasingly without a human in the loop. That gap is what AIUC-1 was created to close: it is the first auditable security standard built specifically for AI agents, and a few enterprise buyers have started asking vendors for it by name. This guide covers what AIUC-1 actually tests, the six risk domains it audits, how the certification process works, what it costs, how long it lasts, and how it aligns with SOC 2, ISO 42001, ISO 27001, and the NIST AI Risk Management Framework. It also covers the structural questions worth asking before you treat an AIUC-1 report as proof of anything. What Is AIUC-1 Certification? AIUC-1 is a certifiable standard for AI agents created by the Artificial Intelligence Underwriting Company (AIUC), a San Francisco-based, venture-backed startup founded by people with experience at organizations including Anthropic. The standard was developed with input from Orrick, Stanford, the Cloud Security Alliance, MIT, and MITRE, and launched in mid-2025. The framework comprises 51 requirements and 130 controls, organized across six risk pillars. It evaluates whether an organization has implemented and tested the technical guardrails, operational practices, and legal policies needed to reduce the risk of unsafe, unreliable, or unauthorized AI behavior. Certification applies to a specific AI system or product, not to the organization as a whole. An AIUC-1 certificate, audit report, and badge tell enterprise buyers that an agent has been independently tested against agent-specific risks. People describe AIUC-1 as the “SOC 2 for AI agents,” and the analogy holds in spirit. The difference is what it looks at. SOC 2 examines a service organization’s general controls. AIUC-1 examines how an agent behaves under pressure: when someone tries to jailbreak it, when it is asked to do something outside its scope, when it has access to data it should not expose. Worth Knowing: About AIUC-1 AIUC-1 does not define what counts as an “AI agent.” The vendor decides which system to certify and what falls in scope. That makes scope the single most important thing to check on any certificate, because a narrowly scoped audit may not cover the agent you actually use. Why AIUC-1 Certification Matters for Enterprise AI Adoption The business case rests on a simple problem: enterprises cannot reliably assess the security of their AI vendors, and the failures are expensive. According to EY research on responsible AI, 64% of companies with over $1 billion in revenue have already lost more than $1 million to AI-related failures.  That gap shows up directly in sales cycles. When security, legal, and procurement teams evaluate an AI vendor, they ask about hallucinations, prompt injection defenses, and what happens when an agent makes an unauthorized call. SOC 2 and ISO 27001 do not answer those questions. AIUC-1 gives buyers a structured, third-party-tested answer, which is why holding the certificate can move a stalled procurement review forward. The certification also produces real engineering outcomes, not just a badge. AIUC has reported cases where a customer service agent’s hallucination rate dropped from 11% to under 2% after strengthening its groundedness filter, and another where inappropriate-tone outputs fell from 9% to under 2% through better defensive prompting and output moderation. One company found and patched a PII exposure vulnerability during the certification process itself. The Six Core Risk Domains Covered by AIUC-1 AIUC-1’s 51 requirements are grouped into six domains. Each targets a category of risk that traditional security frameworks were not designed to handle. Data and Privacy Covers how customer data is used, retained, and protected. Requirements address input and output data policies, limits on what data the agent can access, protection of IP and trade secrets, prevention of cross-customer data exposure, and prevention of PII leakage. This is where the standard forces clarity on whether customer data trains the model and how long it is kept. Security The adversarial-resistance domain. It covers third-party testing of adversarial robustness, detection and real-time filtering of malicious inputs, prevention of prompt injection and unauthorized agent actions, enforcement of user access privileges, and protection of the deployment environment. This is the heart of what separates an agent audit from a general security audit. Safety Focuses on preventing harmful and out-of-scope outputs. Requirements include defining an AI risk taxonomy, conducting pre-deployment testing, preventing harmful and customer-defined high-risk outputs, and flagging high-risk outputs for human review. Safety is partly judgment-based, which means documentation alone can sometimes satisfy a requirement, so the testing behind it deserves scrutiny. Reliability Targets the failure modes that erode trust in production: hallucinations and tool misuse. Controls cover hallucination prevention and restrictions on which tools an agent can call and when. For a customer-facing agent, this is the domain that keeps it from inventing a refund policy or triggering the wrong workflow. Accountability Covers what happens when things go wrong. Requirements include AI failure response plans, vendor due diligence, and clear AI disclosure so users know when they are interacting with an agent. With human workers, accountability is built into org charts and chains of command. Agents need an equivalent, and this domain supplies it. Society The broadest domain, focused on preventing misuse with wider consequences: AI-enabled cyber attacks and CBRN (chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear) misuse. Most enterprise agents will touch only a few of these controls, but they matter for higher-capability systems. Insider Note: Of the 130 total controls, roughly 65 are mandatory, and 65 are optional. A straightforward agent typically needs to meet around 40 controls. A complex, multi-modal agent gets closer to 65. The scoping exercise determines which apply, so two AIUC-1 certificates can represent very different amounts of work. Ready to Earn Your AIUC-1 Certification? Accelerate Your AI Certification Journey Talk to an Expert Who Needs AIUC-1 Certification? AIUC-1 is built for any company developing or deploying agentic AI that sells into enterprises. The strongest fit is an organization whose product uses AI agents in customer-facing operations, handles

Read More »
SOC 2 Password Requirements

SOC 2 Password Requirements: What Auditors Check

Most teams walk into a SOC 2 audit expecting standard requirements for their password policy: minimum length, 90-day rotation, one uppercase letter, one symbol, and so on. But there is no such checklist. The AICPA never published a list of mandatory password rules, and the federal guidance that most auditors lean on has thrown out half of what passed for best practice a decade ago.  Beyond compliance, this is remains a crucial cybersecurity control: Stolen and brute-forced credentials still drive a large share of breaches, and password policies are the main way to mitigate this risk. This guide covers what SOC 2 expects around passwords, where those expectations come from, and how to build a policy that satisfies an auditor without making your security worse. What Are SOC 2 Password Requirements? SOC 2 password requirements are the access controls that a service organization implements to govern how passwords are created, stored, enforced, and retired, all in service of the Trust Services Criteria. The important word is controls, not rules. SOC 2 does not hand you a specification. It asks whether your controls are suitably designed and operating effectively to keep unauthorized people out of your systems.   The Role of Passwords in the SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria The Trust Services Criteria, developed by the AICPA, are the evaluation standard for every SOC 2 report. Passwords sit inside the Security category, which is mandatory in all SOC 2 engagements, and specifically inside the Common Criteria series CC6, covering logical and physical access. Passwords are one of the most basic logical access controls you have, and one of the most scrutinized, because CC6 is usually the most evidence-intensive part of the entire audit. Relevant Common Criteria: CC6.1, CC6.2, and CC6.3 CC6.1 covers the controls that restrict logical access to systems, infrastructure, and data, this is where your password policy, MFA enforcement, and account lockout settings live. CC6.2 governs how access is granted, modified, and removed, meaning your provisioning workflows, access reviews, and offboarding processes are all evaluated here. CC6.3 focuses on the removal of access when it is no longer needed and the management of privileged credentials specifically. Together, these three criteria map to the full lifecycle of a credential: creation, ongoing use, and retirement. An auditor working through CC6 will expect evidence at every stage.   Does SOC 2 Mandate Specific Password Rules? No. The AICPA is explicit that the Trust Services Criteria do not define the controls an organization must have. You identify and implement controls that meet the criteria, and the auditor evaluates them. That means there is no AICPA-mandated minimum length, no required rotation interval, and no prescribed complexity formula. What the auditor checks is whether your stated controls exist, work, and reasonably prevent unauthorized access. Insider note: Auditors rarely fail you for choosing a 10-character minimum over 12. They fail you when your written policy says one thing and your actual system configuration says another. Consistency between the policy document and the enforced setting matters far more than the specific number. Why Password Requirements Matter for SOC 2 Compliance Preventing Unauthorized Access Credentials are the front door. The 2025 Verizon DBIR found that stolen credentials remained the single most common initial access vector, appearing in 22% of breaches, and that brute force attacks against basic web applications nearly tripled year over year. Strong authentication controls are the difference between an attacker hitting a wall and an attacker walking straight in with a valid login. Reducing Data Breach Risk Weak or reused passwords feed credential stuffing, where attackers replay username and password pairs harvested from earlier breaches against your login pages. Reuse is rampant: research from Microsoft’s Digital Defense Report routinely finds that the majority of people reuse passwords across services. A single leaked password elsewhere becomes a working key to your environment unless your controls catch it. Demonstrating Logical Access Controls to Auditors SOC 2 is an attestation. It is not enough to be secure; you have to prove it with evidence. Well-designed password controls produce exactly the artifacts an auditor wants: configuration screenshots, enforcement logs, MFA reports, and access review records. Good controls and good evidence are two sides of the same coin, and an internal audit process that routinely collects this evidence makes the formal engagement significantly less stressful. Core SOC 2 Password Requirements Although SOC 2 prescribes nothing specific, a defensible password policy almost always addresses the same set of controls. These are what auditors expect to see and what your peers in compliance treat as table stakes. Minimum Password Length Length is the strongest single lever for password entropy, and modern guidance favors it over everything else. A common defensible baseline is at least 12 characters for standard user accounts, with longer requirements for service and admin accounts. NIST SP 800-63B recommends that verifiers support passwords up to 64 characters so that passphrases and password-manager output are never truncated, an important implementation detail that many teams overlook. Password Complexity and Blocklists Old-style complexity rules, one uppercase, one symbol, one number, are fading, and for good reason. They push users toward predictable substitutions without meaningfully raising entropy. The more effective control is a blocklist: screening new passwords against dictionaries of common and previously breached credentials and rejecting matches. Tools like Have I Been Pwned’s Pwned Passwords API make this straightforward to implement. This stops Password1! from sneaking through even though it technically satisfies a legacy complexity rule. Password Rotation and History Forced periodic rotation is the control most teams keep out of habit, and it is also the one that modern guidance most clearly discourages. Rotation pushes users toward predictable patterns, Spring2025 becoming Summer2025, without improving security in any measurable way. Password history settings, which prevent the immediate reuse of recent passwords, still have a place, but blind calendar-based expiry should be replaced with event-driven resets: force a change when there is evidence of compromise, not because the calendar says 90 days have passed. Account Lockout After Failed Login Attempts An account

Read More »