The compliance management tool that links every framework to one set of controls

Governance, risk and compliance. Governance sets roles, decision rights and trade-offs; risk management identifies what could prevent the organisation from meeting its objectives and decides how to treat it; compliance checks that applicable obligations are met and can be evidenced. IT GRC is the same discipline narrowed to IT systems and cybersecurity. The three are not separate lanes: a risk that governance accepts becomes a decision to justify in an audit, and a requirement nobody covers becomes a risk.

Integrated GRC means one control library, one risk register and one evidence base shared across every obligation you track, instead of one silo per framework. An access management control is described once, linked to each requirement it covers, and its evidence counts for all of them. The alternative, a file per framework, produces contradictory statements: the same control reads as compliant on one side and as a gap on the other, depending on which sheet was updated last.

No regulation mandates software. NIS2, DORA and the GDPR set outcomes: measures defined, implemented, kept current and demonstrable on request, and ISO/IEC 27001 works the same way. It is that duty to demonstrate, rather than any rule about tooling, that makes a platform necessary past a certain volume. With a single framework and a stable scope, well-kept documentation can hold. Once several regimes overlap, deadlines multiply and evidence has to stay current, manual upkeep costs more than the tool.

No. Only an accredited certification body can issue an ISO/IEC 27001 certificate, and only after a two-stage initial audit; surveillance audits follow, then a recertification audit three years on. No software vendor issues that certificate. What a platform provides is the file behind it: scope, risk assessment, statement of applicability, dated evidence and tracked gaps. The auditor judges that file and the way you actually work, not your software.

Yes, and that is where most of the effort is saved. Supplier management, access control, incident handling and business continuity all appear in some form in ISO/IEC 27001, in NIS2 and in DORA. The control is reusable; the evidence rather less so, because each regime keeps its own requirements, such as the incident reporting deadlines to the authority under NIS2, or the register of information on ICT third-party providers under DORA. Good mapping separates what is shared from what stays specific.

The day someone asks what was in place at a past date. An auditor or a supervisory authority is not satisfied with today's snapshot: they want to know what was running when an incident happened, or across the whole period under review, and who signed it off. A workbook overwrites that history on every save. It also has no notion of one control serving several frameworks, so the control is re-entered once per framework and the copies drift apart. On a narrow scope that holds. Beyond it, rebuilding the file becomes the real audit budget.

You do, and the regulation leaves no room for doubt: NIS2 and DORA both put approval and oversight of the risk management framework at management body level, with the CISO and the business preparing the decisions. Vailor works upstream. In risk assessment, the AI reads your documents and prefills fields from excerpts. In compliance, the Vailor Control Framework links each control to the frameworks that ask for it and to its evidence. Accepting a risk or settling a treatment plan stays human, recorded and dated.