Assess Each Risk Per Standard, Not as One Global Score
One global score hides the risks each framework cares about
You run GDPR, ISO 27001, NIS2 and SOC 2 across the same estate, but most tools collapse them into one global risk score. A confidentiality scenario that is high risk under GDPR may be a moderate control gap under ISO 27001. A single number hides both.
When an auditor asks how you assessed a risk for their framework, a blended score does not answer the question. You re-derive the per-standard view by hand, in spreadsheets that drift apart the moment a control changes.
The evidence problem compounds it. The same scenario maps to different controls under each standard, each needing its own proof, and tracking that mapping manually is where assessments quietly fall out of date.
What you can do with per-standard risk assessment
- Define scenarios per framework: model one risk distinctly under GDPR, ISO 27001, NIS2 or SOC 2.
- Score risk at the asset/standard intersection so each framework keeps its own assessed value.
- Average risk per scenario across every asset it touches, calculated automatically.
- Map scenarios to standard-specific controls with the evidence that supports them.
- Filter scenarios by standard applicability to focus on one framework at a time.
- Create and publish standard-based treatment plans tied to the scenarios they remediate.
- Add external and custom standards for frameworks beyond the built-in set.
What it delivers to your program
- Answer per-framework audit questions directly: each standard has its own assessed, evidenced view, with no manual re-derivation before an inspection.
- Catch risks a global score hides: a scenario flagged high under one framework stays visible even when it reads moderate under another.
- Keep control evidence current: scenario-to-control mappings live in one place per standard, not scattered across spreadsheets.
- Show defensible treatment: published plans trace each remediation back to the standard and scenario it addresses.
Built for compliance
DPMS helps you evidence the specific obligations that govern risk assessment, mapped to the article and control, never to "the GDPR."
| What DPMS does | Maps to | How |
|---|---|---|
| Assesses risk per applicable framework | GDPR Art. 32 | Scenarios scored at the asset/standard intersection against the standard's risk model |
| Documents risk assessment and treatment | ISO 27001:2022 Clause 6.1.2 & 6.1.3 | Per-standard scenarios, control mapping and treatment plans you publish |
| Evidences control selection per standard | ISO 27001:2022 Annex A | Scenario-to-control mapping with attached evidence |
| Supports sector risk-management obligations | NIS2 Art. 21 | Framework-specific scenario tracking across assets |
Why Priverion
Unlike general-purpose GRC tools that reduce everything to one risk number, Priverion assesses each scenario at the asset/standard intersection, so one scenario carries a distinct value under each framework you run.
Because this lives inside a single privacy and InfoSec platform, scenarios, assets, controls and treatment plans share the same data. Map a scenario to a control once and the evidence flows through to the standards that need it, with no re-keying between disconnected risk and compliance modules.
Questions ISOs and DPOs ask before a demo
Can the same scenario have different risk under different standards?
How is risk calculated across multiple assets?
Can I assess frameworks beyond the built-in standards?
Does it handle treatment or just assessment?
Explore related capabilities
Ready to assess risk per framework?
