Audit-ready evidence, before the inspector asks.

It assesses an organisation's cybersecurity governance, risk management, security controls, evidence, board reporting and regulator response against the instruments that apply to it, such as RBI, IRDAI, SEBI, UIDAI, ABDM, CERT-In, CEA, NCIIPC, DoT, CCA e-Sign, CICRA and the DPDP Act. It ends with a control-wise compliance status, rated gaps, an action plan, a board summary and validated closure.

A VAPT tests applications, networks and infrastructure for exploitable vulnerabilities. A regulatory audit tests whether the organisation meets its obligations: governance, policies, access, logging, vendors, incident reporting, resilience and evidence. Most regulators expect both, and the audit checks that VAPT findings are being closed. Codec Networks offers VAPT as a separate service.

A certification audit checks an ISMS against the standard so that a certificate can be issued. A regulatory audit checks the specific requirements of Indian regulators and ecosystems, many of which go further than ISO/IEC 27001. Codec Networks maps both to one evidence set, so the work serves each.

Several instruments require an independent or CERT-In empanelled auditor. Even where they do not, an external audit brings specialist technical and regulatory knowledge, a consistent rating method and the independence that boards and regulators look for.

A gap review gives a high-level view against one framework, based mainly on interviews and documents, and suits a first assessment or inspection preparation. A full audit tests evidence, walks through processes, samples operating effectiveness and produces a formal report, checklist, evidence index and board summary.

Test of design checks that a control is defined, approved and owned as the regulation intends. Test of operating effectiveness checks, through samples across the review period, that the control actually worked. Regulators increasingly expect both.

As often as the instruments that apply to you require, which is commonly once a year, and whenever something significant changes: a new direction, a new licence or platform, a major incident or an inspection. Many organisations add quarterly reviews through a retainer.

No audit can guarantee that. It gives reasonable assurance based on its scope, evidence, samples and period, and it greatly reduces the chance of surprises by finding and closing gaps first. Management remains responsible for compliance.

Through a regulatory applicability matrix at the start of the engagement. It considers your legal entities, licences, business activities, systems, data, outsourcing arrangements and regulator communications, and is confirmed with your compliance and legal teams before any control is assessed.

Yes. The Multi-Framework Audit maps one control set across all the frameworks that apply, such as RBI, CERT-In, DPDP and ISO/IEC 27001, so each control is tested once and the evidence reused.

Fifteen areas in five families: governance and risk, technical controls, cloud, vendors and privacy, resilience and response, and audit and reporting. Document 2 describes each one. The scope can cover all fifteen or a selection.

Yes. The applicability matrix shows which obligations apply to which entity, and the audit can cover several entities with consolidated and entity-level reporting.

Your licences and the regulators that cover you; previous audit and inspection reports and their observation trackers; policies and procedures; risk registers; asset and vendor inventories; VAPT and SOC reports; and the names of control owners for each area.

For most controls we review evidence you provide. Where technical validation is in scope, we need approved, time-bound access or supervised sessions for the agreed checks, and testing windows where relevant.

It depends on the frameworks, entities, locations, systems and how ready the evidence is. A focused gap review takes far less time than a multi-framework audit. The schedule is agreed in the proposal before work starts.

The Regulatory Gap Review suits a first view or inspection preparation; the Full Regulatory Audit suits a regulated entity's yearly audit; the Multi-Framework Audit suits entities with several regulators; the Annual Compliance Retainer gives quarterly reviews, closure tracking and board reporting. Pricing is based on scope.

A document request list covering policies, procedures, standards, committee minutes, risk registers, audit and VAPT reports, SOC reports, logs, access lists, change and incident records, vendor contracts and technical evidence, tailored to the scope.

Control owners and teams across IT, security, compliance, risk, business, HR, legal, procurement, vendor management and operations, through structured interviews and walkthroughs agreed in advance.

Samples are chosen by risk, weighted towards privileged users, critical systems and high-risk changes. For each control we record the population, sample size, selection method and period, so the result can be traced and repeated.

Client evidence is the starting point. Where technical validation is in scope, we check selected controls directly, such as access lists, log-source status, patch levels and configurations, because that is where paper and practice most often differ.

It is designed not to. Interviews and walkthroughs are scheduled with control owners, evidence is exchanged securely, and any technical checks follow agreed access, windows and limits.

Yes. Engagements can be on site, remote or hybrid, depending on your requirements, data sensitivity and the regulator's expectations. Many combine remote evidence review with on-site walkthroughs.

Codec Networks is certified to ISO/IEC 27001:2022. Evidence is limited to the named team, exchanged through approved secure channels, minimised to what the scope needs, never submitted to public AI systems without written approval, and returned or deleted at closure as agreed.

The control is recorded as not evidenced, with the reason, and rated for risk. A missing record is itself a finding, because a regulator would treat it the same way.

A regulatory audit report, a compliance checklist, an evidence index, a gap assessment, a risk heatmap, a management action plan, a board summary, a regulator-ready response matrix and, after remediation, a closure validation report. An executive presentation can be added.

On a five-level scale from Critical to Observation. Each rating weighs likelihood, business impact, regulatory criticality, data and asset sensitivity and management urgency, and the method is documented and applied consistently.

A structured table that maps each requirement or observation to the evidence reviewed, its status, the observation, the management response and the target closure. It lets you answer regulator, internal audit or customer queries quickly and consistently.

We recommend specific actions, priorities and target dates, and walk owners through each observation. Remediation itself, such as tool deployment or configuration changes, is your responsibility unless contracted separately.

A follow-up review that checks whether each agreed corrective action has really been implemented, using the closure evidence set in the action plan, and reports closure status, pending items and residual risk.

The responsible business owner can formally accept or defer the risk. A risk-acceptance note records the justification, compensating controls, residual risk and review date.

Reports are for your internal governance, audit and regulatory purposes. You can submit them to a regulator where required. Sharing with other third parties, such as customers, needs Codec Networks' written consent, and many clients share a summary instead.

Use the same framework mapping and rating scale each cycle. The board summary then shows trends: fewer critical gaps, fewer repeat observations and faster closure.

Yes. Codec Networks is empanelled by CERT-In for information security auditing services, and with NICSI for application audit and compliance services in the start-up category. Where an instrument requires an auditor empanelled by another authority, we confirm eligibility in the proposal.

Yes. The audit maps controls to RBI's IT governance, outsourcing and July 2026 entity-specific directions, and to the IRDAI Information and Cyber Security Guidelines 2026, as they apply to your entity.

Yes. The audit is scoped to your entity category under the CSCRF, with governance, protection, detection, response and recovery controls, VAPT linkage and the reporting format SEBI expects.

Yes. For AUAs, KUAs and their sub-entities, the audit follows UIDAI's compliance checklist; for ABDM integrators, the security audit covers the application before production go-live. Both are carried out by CERT-In empanelled auditors as the ecosystems require.

It assesses privacy and data protection controls against the DPDP Act and Rules: security safeguards, breach readiness, retention, consent records and data principal rights, so you can prepare before most obligations apply in May 2027.

No. Codec Networks provides audit and assurance, not legal opinions or regulatory representation, unless separately agreed. Applicability is confirmed with your legal and compliance teams, and Codec Networks does not claim that any regulator endorses or recommends its services.

A year-round engagement with quarterly compliance reviews, closure validation, evidence tracker maintenance, a management dashboard, board reporting and regulatory advisory, so observations are closed before they age.

Book a scoping call. We agree the regulators, frameworks, entities and systems in scope and the engagement model, issue a proposal and statement of work, hold a kickoff meeting and send the evidence request list.