The framework stack we deliver against.
We do not invent frameworks. We deliver against the standards your regulators, auditors, and board already recognise. Below are the security frameworks, each with the services that map to it, then the AI framework stack and the optional layers we add for clients with offshore exposure.
Security frameworks
The security standards, and the services that map them.
Standard
ISO/IEC 27001:2022
Jurisdiction
International (ISO)
Where our services map it
- Security Posture Assessment: findings mapped to ISO/IEC 27001 Annex A.
- Penetration Testing: structured to satisfy the typical ISO 27001 audit evidence expectation.
- Fractional CISO: one of the frameworks the role operates against.
Standard
NIST CSF 2.0
Jurisdiction
United States (NIST)
Where our services map it
- Security Posture Assessment: findings mapped to NIST CSF 2.0.
- Fractional CISO: one of the frameworks the role operates against.
Standard
ASD Essential Eight
Jurisdiction
Australia (ASD)
Where our services map it
- Security Posture Assessment: findings mapped to its maturity levels, and maturity scoring with evidence.
- Fractional CISO: one of the frameworks the role operates against.
ASD published ASD Essentials on 15 October 2026 as an evolution of the Essential Eight. ASD maintains both during the transition, and says organisations should keep meeting their current obligations until regulators communicate changes. The services here map the Essential Eight, not ASD Essentials.
Standard
APRA CPS 234
Jurisdiction
Australia (APRA-regulated)
Where our services map it
- Security Posture Assessment: findings mapped to CPS 234.
- Penetration Testing: structured to satisfy CPS 234 paragraph 27, regular vulnerability assessment.
- AI Governance Posture Assessment: findings mapped to CPS 234.
- Fractional CISO: one of the frameworks the role operates against.
Standard
APRA CPS 230
Jurisdiction
Australia (APRA-regulated)
Where our services map it
- Penetration Testing: structured to satisfy CPS 230 scenario testing.
- AI Governance Posture Assessment: findings mapped to CPS 230.
- Fractional CISO: one of the frameworks the role operates against.
Standard
Australian Privacy Principles, Privacy Act 1988
Jurisdiction
Australia (OAIC)
Where our services map it
- Security Posture Assessment: findings mapped to the Australian Privacy Principles, where applicable.
- AI Governance Posture Assessment: findings mapped to the Australian Privacy Principles.
- Fractional CISO: one of the frameworks the role operates against.
AI frameworks
The AI framework stack.
Layer
AI risk taxonomy
Standard
NIST AI RMF 1.0 and Generative AI Profile (NIST AI 600-1)
Purpose
Organising backbone for our AI assessments and reports. Function-based structure: govern, map, measure, manage.
Jurisdiction
United States, internationally adopted
Layer
Management system
Standard
ISO/IEC 42001:2023
Purpose
Structure for ongoing AI management system implementation. The certifiable management standard for AI.
Jurisdiction
International (ISO)
Layer
Privacy
Standard
Australian Privacy Principles, Privacy Act 1988
Purpose
Data handling for AI inputs and outputs. APP 6, 8, and 11 are the heart of AI data governance.
Jurisdiction
Australia (OAIC)
Layer
Prudential, information security
Standard
APRA CPS 234
Purpose
Information security obligations for regulated financial entities. Mandatory.
Jurisdiction
Australia (APRA-regulated)
Layer
Prudential, operational risk
Standard
APRA CPS 230
Purpose
Operational risk management, including material service providers. AI tooling falls in scope.
Jurisdiction
Australia (APRA-regulated)
Layer
Application threat coverage
Standard
OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications
Purpose
Technical control selection at the application layer. Prompt injection, sensitive disclosure, supply chain.
Jurisdiction
International (OWASP)
Layer
Adversarial threat modelling
Standard
MITRE ATLAS
Purpose
Attacker tactics and techniques targeting AI systems. The MITRE ATT&CK equivalent for ML.
Jurisdiction
International (MITRE)
Layer
Foundational endpoint and identity
Standard
ASD Essential Eight
Purpose
Baseline controls where AI deployment touches identity, endpoint, or admin tooling.
Jurisdiction
Australia (ASD)
Optional layers
Add-on frameworks for offshore exposure.
For clients with users, employees, or operations outside Australia, additional regimes are layered on top of the core stack.
Risk classification
EU AI Act
Risk classification of AI systems. Applies to organisations with EU-resident users or operations.
Consumer protection
Colorado AI Act
Consequential decision systems. Applies to organisations with Colorado-resident users.
Employment AI
NYC Local Law 144
Automated employment decision tools. Applies to organisations with New York City employees.
Service control attestation
SOC 2 Type II
Service organisation controls for AI providers and AI-enabled SaaS. Increasingly expected by enterprise buyers.
Where formal legal review is required (for example contracts, regulator correspondence, statutory interpretation), we flag this and continue producing the technical artefact in parallel. We do not provide legal advice.
AI security
How the AI security services map to the stack.
Testing an AI system is only useful if the findings arrive in a language your existing risk process already speaks. Each service classifies its output against published frameworks for that reason.
AI Offensive Security Review
- OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications
- OWASP Top 10 for Agentic Applications
- MITRE ATLAS
- CVSS v3.1
Findings are classified against OWASP and mapped to ATLAS techniques, so AI findings sit alongside your ATT&CK-based reporting rather than in a separate document nobody reconciles.
Secure AI Enablement
- NIST AI RMF
- ISO/IEC 42001
- Australian Privacy Principles
Control objectives are written from the RMF measure and manage functions before configuration begins, so the deployment produces its own evidence.
AI Defence and Agent Containment
- CISA and ASD ACSC agentic AI guidance
- ASD Essential Eight
- NIST CSF 2.0
Containment controls map to Essential Eight mitigations and CSF functions, so agent security is reported through the frameworks you already report against.
Digital CISO Agent
- ASD Essential Eight
- OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications
In pilot: InlineScan narrates the security evidence you supply against the Essential Eight, and red teams an AI endpoint you nominate against the OWASP Top 10 for LLM Applications. Reporting mapped to CPS 234 obligations is intent, described in the section below.
APRA
The AI letter, in five lines.
APRA wrote to industry on artificial intelligence on 30 April 2026. It is short, and it changed what regulated entities are expected to show.
- AI is not a separate governance regime. AI-enabled IT services are managed under CPS 230 and CPS 234.
- Boards are expected to hold enough AI literacy to set direction and provide effective challenge.
- Vendor concentration among a small number of dominant AI providers is named as a risk to manage.
- Change management built for static systems does not fit systems whose behaviour moves.
- The expectation is continuous monitoring across the AI lifecycle, not point-in-time assessment.
Roadmap
How Digital CISO Agent reporting is intended to map.
InlineScan, the first product of the Digital CISO Agent, is in pilot. The reporting below is the model we are designing towards, published early so pilots can tell us where it is wrong.
| Reporting area | Intended mapping | Note |
|---|---|---|
| Control drift detection | CPS 234 paragraph 27, regular testing of control effectiveness | Continuous checks rather than an annual test cycle. |
| Configuration baseline review | Essential Eight mitigation strategies | Live: a daily passive review of verified, approved domains whose owners have published consent, read against user application hardening without scoring a maturity level. In pilot: a daily read-only review of the configuration of a connected Amazon Web Services account or Microsoft 365 tenant, through access the customer's administrator grants, also without scoring a maturity level. Coming: Google Workspace, Oracle Cloud and Google Cloud. |
| Incident and exposure surfacing | CPS 234 paragraph 35, notification obligations | Material issues surfaced with the timeline needed to meet notification windows. |
| Monthly governance reporting | CPS 510 board oversight, CPS 230 operational risk reporting | Drafted from evidence, reviewed and signed by the accountable human. |
Only the daily domain review in the second row is live. The rest of this table describes intent, and a named human reviews and signs any reporting before it reaches a board or a regulator.
Get started
Talk to the security lead who would do the work.
A thirty-minute discovery call costs nothing. We confirm fit, scope, and timing, then issue a fixed-fee statement of work within two business days.