Tenant isolation, SSO, and access you can evidence — not just trust
Soft tenant boundaries are a reportable event, not a UX flaw
When one platform holds the records for several legal entities, the first thing an auditor probes is who can see what. If tenant boundaries are soft, a single misconfigured role exposes another company's processing activities — a reportable event, not a UX flaw.
Identity is the second exposure. Users provisioned by hand drift out of sync with your IdP, and a leaver keeps access because off-boarding never reached the compliance tool. When leadership then asks for an AI assistant inside the platform, a single hard-wired provider becomes a data-residency and procurement decision you never got to make.
You need isolation, provisioning, and access you can evidence on demand — not configuration you have to take on faith.
What you can do with the platform backbone
- Isolate each entity with company-based collection prefixing, so tenants never share data stores.
- Sign in via SAML2 or Azure AD / Entra ID, federating against your existing identity provider.
- Provision and de-provision users via SCIM2, with group-to-role sync from your IdP.
- Scope visibility with audience-based RBAC — control which data a role sees, not only which screens.
- Reconstruct any change from a log of the acting user, IP address, and old-versus-new values.
- Run a multi-provider AI assistant — Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, or AWS Bedrock — selected per company.
What it delivers to your program
- Tenant boundaries you can demonstrate, not just assert — each entity's records stay in isolated stores.
- Access that tracks your IdP automatically — leavers lose access as SCIM2 de-provisions them, closing the off-boarding gap.
- An audit trail ready on demand — who changed what, from where, and the before-and-after values.
- No AI vendor lock-in — pick the model provider that fits each company's data-residency and procurement rules.
- Less translation overhead — multilingual records stay current without manual re-keying across locales.
Built for compliance
This backbone supports the controls auditors ask about most: identity and access management, logging, and the security of processing.
| What DPMS does | Maps to | How |
|---|---|---|
| Federates authentication and provisions identities | ISO 27001:2022 Annex A 5.16 | SSO via SAML2 and Azure AD / Entra ID; SCIM2 user, group and role sync |
| Enforces role- and audience-based access | ISO 27001:2022 Annex A 5.15, 5.18 | Granular RBAC scoping both feature and data visibility |
| Logs all changes with attribution | ISO 27001:2022 Annex A 8.15 | Per-change capture of acting user, IP, and old/new values |
| Isolates and secures tenant data | GDPR Art. 32 | Company-based collection prefixing; explicit, controlled group sharing |
| Maintains integrity and confidentiality of records | GDPR Art. 5(1)(f) | Tenant separation enforced at the data store, not the UI |
Why Priverion
Unlike general-purpose GRC tools that bolt security onto each module, this backbone is the platform itself. Tenant isolation, RBAC, audit logging, and SSO apply uniformly to ROPA, DPIA, risk, and vendor records — so a permission you set, or a user you de-provision, takes effect everywhere at once, with nothing to re-configure module by module.
The audience-based RBAC scopes what data a role can see, not just which buttons it can click. And the AI assistant is provider-neutral by design — you pick the model per company, rather than inheriting ours.
Questions CISOs ask before a demo
Does it work with our existing identity provider?
How are different legal entities kept separate?
Which AI provider does the assistant use?
What does the audit log capture?
Explore related capabilities
Ready to see the backbone in action?
