Customers define boundaries, exclusions, testing windows and where a human decision is required.
Security engineering backed by assurance discipline.
ThreatCanary is built for sensitive offensive workflows. That requires accurate claims, explicit scope, deliberate approvals and evidence a customer can inspect.
Current assurance position
Accurate claims. Inspectable controls.
ThreatCanary is not currently represented as ISO 27001 certified. The platform and operating model are built with the control thinking, traceability and evidence discipline expected in high-assurance environments.
Request an assurance discussionFindings retain observations and context for technical review, remediation and verification.
Security and procurement teams can evaluate the current design and operating assumptions directly.
We state the present status plainly and do not use a roadmap as a substitute for current evidence.
What this covers
Controls buyers can evaluate today.
ThreatCanary does not currently claim ISO 27001 certification. Its platform and operating model are shaped by direct experience leading ISO 27001 implementations and audits across government and Big Four assurance environments.
Assurance experience
- ThreatCanary's leadership brings direct experience leading ISO 27001 implementation and audit work across government and Big Four assurance environments.
- That experience informs control ownership, evidence requirements, traceability and customer due diligence.
- Certification status is represented accurately rather than implied through vague compliance language.
Security-led engineering
- Security is treated as a software engineering requirement throughout design, change and operation.
- Least privilege, controlled change, review, testing, dependency hygiene and secrets handling shape the development process.
- Architecture and operating decisions are made with traceability, resilience and secure failure in mind.
Bounded offensive capability
- Customers define authorised organisations, domains, assets, APIs and environments.
- Exclusions, testing windows, rate limits and workflow depth establish practical operating boundaries.
- Sensitive or higher-impact actions can remain behind explicit human approval.
Evidence and accountability
- Findings retain observations, validation steps and context for technical review.
- Deterministic validation supports reproduction rather than asking customers to trust an opaque model conclusion.
- Scope, action, ownership, remediation and retest state remain connected to the evidence.
Due diligence
- Customers can request proportionate architecture, data-flow and control discussions.
- Regional, privacy, contractual and operational requirements are reviewed during deployment planning.
- Current evidence is used to answer assurance questions without substituting future roadmap claims.
Common questions
Questions teams ask before they commit.
Direct answers on scope, evidence, safety controls and how ThreatCanary differs from tools you already run.
01Is ThreatCanary ISO 27001 certified?
ThreatCanary is not currently ISO 27001 certified and does not claim to be. Its assurance approach is informed by direct leadership experience across ISO 27001 implementations and audits in government and Big Four assurance environments.
02How is autonomous offensive testing controlled?
Testing operates within customer-authorised scope with defined exclusions, operating windows, rate limits, workflow depth and human approval points for sensitive activity.
03What can customers review during due diligence?
Customers can request proportionate architecture, data-flow, operating-boundary and control discussions alongside published privacy, acceptable-use and responsible-disclosure material.