Assessment, testing, and the remediation that follows — one platform, one spine. Intelligent scoring, defensible evidence, auditor-grade reports, and authored remediation guidance for the findings they produce. Across 86 frameworks.
Comprehensive coverage across the entire security and compliance spectrum — each with its own intelligent assessment lens.
Posture & maturity — where you stand today
Governance programme effectiveness
Conformity & assurance
Penetration & red team
Strategy & roadmaps
DFIR & readiness
AI governance & safety
Cloud posture & governance
Smart contract review
SWIFT, PCI, DORA, SBP
National regulators
Bring your own standard
Every assessment is grounded in real framework controls, tailored to your context, and defensible end to end.
Asks only what this engagement needs
Derived from real controls, prioritised by risk
A targeted, de-duplicated document list
Maturity, conformity, or severity — gated for honesty
Auditor-grade findings & recommendations
Every assessment platform tells you what is wrong. Almost none tells you what to do about it, and the ones that try produce a sentence.
InfoSecGRC carries authored remediation for the controls it assesses — not a line of guidance, but a playbook: what to do immediately, what the likely causes are and who owns each, the routes available with their effort, cost and trade-offs, what to do where none of them is possible, and what evidence closes the finding.
What reduces the exposure this week, before the remediation project starts — and what that measure does not achieve, said plainly.
Several ways to close a finding, each with its effort, its cost, its trade-off and its safety note. The ordinary route first, because most estates take it.
Options are evaluated against your own assets and findings. Where a route applies because several affected systems share a build image, the platform says so — and says which ones.
Guidance authored once reaches every framework the control maps to, labelled with its source and whether the mapping is equivalent or partial. A NIST 800-53 finding can carry ISO 27001 guidance, and it tells you that is what happened.
The same control, assessed four different ways — because the question matters as much as the answer.
Risk, GRC, Cloud, AI — capability on a 0–4 scale, mapped to recognised tiers.
Audit & Banking — a clean nonconformity register, no misleading percentages.
Offensive & DFIR — findings ranked by CVSS-aligned severity.
Strategy & roadmaps — options, recommendations, and a clear path forward.
Speak every standard your clients need — from international baselines to banking schemes and regional regulators. 865 cross-framework control mappings mean an assessment against one standard carries context from the others, and remediation authored for one reaches the rest. ISO 27001:2013 is supported alongside :2022.
ISO 27001/2, 27701, 22301, 42001, 20000
800-53, 800-171, CSF 2.0, AI RMF, 800-30
SWIFT CSP, PCI DSS 4.0, DORA, NYDFS, SOX, Basel III, FFIEC, SBP
GDPR, CCPA, HIPAA, ISO 27018, BS 10012
CSA CCM, FedRAMP, EU AI Act, ISO 23894
OWASP Top 10/ASVS/SAMM, MITRE ATT&CK, PTES
Compliance platforms carry a control title and a description. Technical testing platforms hold findings, and the methodology stays with the tester. Nobody else carries all four on one spine.
What each control means, what an auditor is looking for, how to test it, what evidence to expect, and what a finding against it looks like.
Twelve engagement types, each with its methodology: procedure, tools, evidence expected, pass and fail criteria, common mistakes and red flags. Written for the tester, step by step.
Mapped to the controls that address them and the tests that find them.
What to do about the finding, in the depth the finding deserves.
Most platforms want to hold your evidence. We hold as little of it as the work allows, and we say why.
A log extract, a screenshot, a policy PDF — it is your data, it is bulky, and every month we hold it is a month it can be lost. So files follow the retention the service sets: ephemeral means deleted, an engagement keeps them 90 days, extended keeps them 180.
What was sampled, how many, what was examined, what was found, what was concluded — and the hash of every artefact we looked at. It holds none of your content, and it means a report we issued two years ago stays defensible. Deleting the file does not delete the proof that we looked at it.
Your evidence lives in your folder and the previous cycle is not purged when the new one arrives — the periodic cycle reports movement against the last one, so the prior cycle has to survive. New evidence supersedes; it does not erase.
The subscription stops, a grace window runs — 90 days, or 180 where contracted — you receive an exit pack of your own material, and then your files are purged from our estate. The workpaper record stays, because it holds nothing of yours and because the opinion has to remain defensible after the files are gone.
Designed by a Lead Auditor to withstand the scrutiny a real audit brings.
Two identical assessments produce identical questions — repeatability an auditor can trust.
Every question ties to a real control. No invented requirements, no generic filler.
Gating rules, evidence caps, and an assurance statement — designed to withstand the scrutiny a real audit brings.
Assessment, audit, evidence, scoring, reporting, and document generation — one platform.
Our own knowledge base goes through the lanes we would apply to your ISMS: mechanical checks, independent review, then a human sample. Preparer is not reviewer, and the database refuses to record otherwise. Content still under review says so on the screen.
Start your first assessment free — no credit card required.
Get Started Free