Kareem M.

📋 GRC Education: NIST AI RMF vs. ISO 42001 — which should you pursue first? Both address AI risk management but are designed differently: 🇺🇸 NIST AI RMF • US government-backed, voluntary • Flexible guidance across 4 functions: Govern, Map, Measure, Manage • No external audit or certification — you implement and self-attest • Best for: US organizations wanting an AI risk management methodology 🌍 ISO 42001:2023 • International standard, voluntary • Requires building a formal AI Management System (AIMS) • External certification available via accredited auditor • Best for: organizations wanting a globally recognized, certifiable AI governance credential Key insight: in Vanta, these two frameworks share very high overlap. Pursuing both may add significantly less incremental work than expected — worth checking the Framework Overlap feature before deciding. Which are you exploring and why? 👇

📋 GRC education: If you're pursuing SOC 2 Type II, access reviews are a required periodic control — and most auditors expect them quarterly. Here's what auditors look for: ✅ Evidence that you reviewed who has access to each in-scope system ✅ Documentation of your review decisions (approve, revoke, escalate) ✅ Timely revocation of access for anyone flagged during the review ✅ Consistent cadence — not just a one-time review right before the audit Common gaps we see: ❌ Reviews run once a year instead of quarterly ❌ No documentation of decisions — just informal Slack threads ❌ Terminated employees missed because they had direct app logins outside SSO The good news: when access reviews are run in Vanta, the evidence is captured automatically — no manual screenshots required. How frequently is your team running access reviews? 👇

📋 GRC education: If you're pursuing SOC 2 Type II, access reviews are a required periodic control — and most auditors expect them quarterly. Here's what auditors look for: ✅ Evidence that you reviewed who has access to each in-scope system ✅ Documentation of your review decisions (approve, revoke, escalate) ✅ Timely revocation of access for anyone flagged during the review ✅ Consistent cadence — not just a one-time review right before the audit Common gaps we see: ❌ Reviews run once a year instead of quarterly ❌ No documentation of decisions — just informal Slack threads ❌ Terminated employees missed because they had direct app logins outside SSO The good news: when access reviews are run in Vanta, the evidence is captured automatically — no manual screenshots required. How frequently is your team running access reviews? 👇