AI Compliance Mapping for EU AI Act, ISO 42001, NIST, OWASP and MITRE ATLAS
Seven frameworks. Mapped at the control-ID level.
Findings ship pre-mapped to the controls your GRC team already lives in. No re-mapping by hand, no spreadsheet middleware.
EU AI Act, ISO 42001, ISO 27001 Annex A, NIST, OWASP LLM + Agentic, ATLAS.
findings auto-tagged to the rows your GRC already uses.
drop into the binder, or pipe into the GRC system.
Pre-mapped to the frameworks your auditor reads.
Each chip below is a live mapping in the platform - every finding carries the chip plus the specific control ID it satisfies.
A prompt-injection finding doesn't just say LLM01. It also points to NIST AI 600-1 MAP-2.3, ISO 42001 A.8.2, ISO 27001 A.8.26, EU AI Act Art. 15(4), and the ATLAS tactic it executes, so your GRC team copies one row into the audit binder instead of re-mapping it by hand.
What auditors and procurement teams ask.
How is Penaxtra different from a one-shot LLM pentest?
Penaxtra runs scheduled adversarial probes (daily or weekly) instead of one-time engagements. Every finding is mapped to compliance frameworks and scored by deterministic checks that run inside our own infrastructure; a three-judge plus meta-judge panel is built for cases that need model scoring and ships switched off, so a probe without a confident verdict is reported as inconclusive rather than counted as a pass, and model bias does not skew the verdict.
Does Penaxtra sit in my request path?
The scan engine does not. It tests endpoints from the outside on a schedule. The runtime gateway is a separate, optional self-hosted agent that you deploy in your VPC when you want inline DLP enforcement.
Which compliance frameworks are covered?
OWASP LLM Top 10 (2025), OWASP Agentic Top 10 (2026), NIST AI 600-1 + NIST 800-218A, MITRE ATLAS, EU AI Act high-risk provider obligations, ISO/IEC 42001, and the 18 ISO/IEC 27001 Annex A controls an adversarial scan can genuinely evidence. Every finding ships with the control identifier.
Where is my data stored?
Customer data, scan findings, and judge rationales live on EU-based infrastructure (Germany region). Off-site backups stay inside the EU and are encrypted at rest. LLM provider calls cross the Atlantic because the underlying APIs are US-based; only the adversarial prompt and the model response transit - never customer secrets we hold under authenticated public-key encryption.
Can I integrate with Slack, Jira, or our own systems?
Yes. Penaxtra ships HMAC-signed outbound webhooks, native Slack notifications, and Jira issue creation. A bearer-token public API (/api/v2) covers headless workflows with per-scope access tokens.
What does a finding cost?
We use prompt caching and the Batch API where SLA allows; the judging pipeline is amortised across runs.
Every framework cited links back to its publisher.
Auditors verify our control mapping against the same documents we read. Each item below points to the canonical publication.
- OWASP LLM Top 10 2025 edition owasp.org →
- OWASP Agentic Top 10 ASI01-ASI10 genai.owasp.org →
- NIST AI 600-1 Generative AI Profile under the NIST AI RMF nvlpubs.nist.gov (PDF) →
- MITRE ATLAS Adversarial ML tactics + techniques atlas.mitre.org →
- EU AI Act Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 eur-lex.europa.eu →
- ISO/IEC 42001 AI management system iso.org/standard/81230 →
Last reviewed:
Want the control matrix?
The control mapping is on this page. A redacted evidence export from a real scan is available on request.
Request a sample export →Goes to a person, not a sequence. No drip, no sales follow-up unless you ask.