---
title: "Compliance Automation: NIS2, DORA & EU AI Act"
description: "Continuous monitoring generates compliance evidence as a by-product of operations. Your audit trail is always current, never assembled the night before."
url: https://panop.io/solutions/compliance/
---

# Compliance

NIS2. DORA. EU AI Act. Always audit-ready.

[Book a demo](https://panop.io/demo)

Gap to target

1.8 average across CSF functions

Frameworks

NIS2 · DORA · EU AI Act

Evidence

Continuous, dated

Maturity Model

NIST CSF 2.0 · current profile against target

Current Target profile

Every function is scored from live evidence, not a questionnaire, so the gap to target moves as the estate does.

## Why is continuous compliance evidence hard to produce?

Compliance evidence is assembled by hand from systems that never stop changing. Between audit cycles controls drift out of conformance silently, and overlapping regimes ask for substantially the same proof in different formats.

- ### Evidence Assembled Under Deadline

    Audit packs are collected manually in the weeks before a review, so they describe a posture that has already changed by the time an auditor reads them.

- ### Control Drift Between Audits

    A control verified at audit time degrades quietly as infrastructure changes, and nothing re-tests it until the next review cycle.

- ### Overlapping Framework Requirements

    NIS2, DORA and the EU AI Act ask for substantially the same evidence in different formats, multiplying manual effort across security, risk and legal teams.

## How does Panop generate NIS2, DORA and EU AI Act evidence?

Panop treats compliance evidence as an output of continuous monitoring rather than a separate reporting exercise.

### Map exposures to control requirements

Link each validated finding to the NIS2, DORA, ISO 27001 or EU AI Act control it affects, so scope is explicit rather than reconstructed.

Firewalls & Security Groups

what is actually reachable across each boundary

Three boundaries, one route that actually connects. It is validated, not inferred from configuration.

### Generate evidence continuously

Produce dated, attributable records of what was tested and what was found as operations run, not in the weeks before an audit.

Business Risk Register

likelihood × impact, traced to the exposure driving it

| ID | Business Risk | Band | L | I | Top Driver | Owner | Treatment |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| BR-1 | Data Breach & Confidentiality | High | 5 | 3 | Unrestricted file upload on portal | CISO | Mitigate |
| BR-2 | Operational Disruption | High | 5 | 3 | Unrestricted file upload on portal | CTO | Mitigate |
| BR-3 | Fraud & Financial Loss | High | 5 | 3 | Unrestricted file upload on portal | CFO | Accept |
| BR-4 | Regulatory & Legal Exposure | High | 5 | 3 | Deprecated TLS 1.0 on gateway | CLO | Mitigate |
| BR-5 | Reputational & Brand Damage | High | 5 | 3 | Deprecated TLS 1.0 on gateway | CMO | Mitigate |
| BR-6 | Intellectual Property Theft | High | 5 | 3 | Unrestricted file upload on portal | CISO | Mitigate |

Every band traces back to a specific, validated exposure, so the treatment decision is defensible.

### Detect control drift as it happens

Re-test controls whenever the underlying infrastructure changes and flag those that have fallen out of conformance since the last review.

Risk Evolution

exploitable chains, critical chokepoints & assets at risk over 30 days

Exploitable chains Critical chokepoints Assets at risk

Daily snapshots accrue over time, and the trend fills in as history is recorded.

### Report once, satisfy several regimes

Reuse one evidence set across overlapping frameworks instead of rebuilding a separate pack for each auditor.

**+3**26/06 to 21/08

Critical 27 High 203 Medium 259 Low 99

## Which frameworks does Panop help you evidence?

Panop continuously tests controls, validates security posture and generates audit-ready evidence across four groups of requirements.

Frameworks, regulations and benchmarks Panop generates evidence for
| Category | Frameworks and standards |
| --- | --- |
| Security frameworks and standards | ISO/IEC 27001:2022, ISO/IEC 27017:2015, ISO/IEC 27018:2019, NIST, CSA CCM |
| Regulatory and compliance requirements | PCI DSS 4.0, NIS2, DORA, GDPR, FedRAMP, FINMA |
| Best practices and benchmarks | OWASP Top 10, CIS benchmarks for AWS, Azure, GCP and M365 |
| Custom requirements | Organisation-specific security policies and tailored control frameworks |

## What changes when evidence is generated continuously?

Audit evidence that is current on the day it is requested

- Evidence packs drawn from live monitoring data rather than manual collection
- Control drift surfaced between audit cycles instead of at the next review
- One evidence set reused across NIS2, DORA and ISO 27001 reporting
- Scope gaps identified before an auditor finds them
- Faster coordination between security, risk and legal teams during a review

With Panop, walk into an audit with **evidence that reflects your posture today**, not the quarter you collected it.

[Book a demo](https://panop.io/demo)

## Explore other use cases

- [Risk Prioritisation Know the 10 things to fix today.](https://panop.io/solutions/risk-prioritisation)
- [AI-SPM Every AI asset, known and shadow.](https://panop.io/solutions/ai-spm)
- [Autonomous Pentest Continuous validation, not annual exercises.](https://panop.io/solutions/autonomous-pentest)
- [Cloud Security Private Cloud under control.](https://panop.io/solutions/cloud-security)
- [Supplier Security Managing Third-Party & Supplier Risk](https://panop.io/solutions/third-party-risk)

[View all solutions](https://panop.io/use-cases)