Linux Identity and Compliance Evidence for Regulated Industries
Whatever frameworks you answer to, the Linux underneath them has the same problem. Years of sudo rules, SSH keys and service accounts have built paths to root that are hard to see from any single tool, and automation and AI agents now find and use them faster than any review. LinuxGuard maps every one, flags every change as it happens, and scores the same inventory against every framework you select — so you collect the evidence once, not once per auditor.
Sample console. Every figure shown is illustrative, not from a live estate.
Where the duplication comes from — and where it stops
Entitlement spread is what every framework is really asking about: can you show who holds privilege? On Linux the answer lives in the same few files whatever the framework, so one collection can serve them all.
The non-human identities a directory-based review doesn’t reach
Machine identities, including AI agents, outnumber human identities 109 to 1 (Palo Alto Networks, 2026 Identity Security Landscape). Service accounts, CI credentials and machine identities cut across every framework’s access-control clause and rarely appear in a directory-based review. LinuxGuard classifies every account as human or non-human and attaches the keys and sudo grants each one holds.
Automation that authenticates as a service account
Batch jobs, integration tooling and, increasingly, AI agents in the delivery pipeline log in as service accounts and inherit whatever reach those accounts have built up. LinuxGuard shows what each service account can do on each host, ranks the ones with a path to root, and flags the moment that reach changes — the same finding, credited against every framework it satisfies.
Remediation sequenced by risk, not by whichever audit is next
Every account carries a risk score from 0 to 100 with the factors driving it shown inline. Because one fix often satisfies several frameworks at once, the remediation plan is ordered by exposure removed, and the framework mappings follow.
Evidence that is stale before the auditor reads it
A snapshot starts ageing the moment it is produced. LinuxGuard tracks sudoers, SSH and PAM configuration against an approved baseline, surfaces changes in near-real-time and attributes them to the identity that made them, so the evidence describes the estate as it is now. You can show control across the year, not one good day inside the audit window.
Four auditors, one set of artefacts
Whatever the framework, the Linux evidence is sudo rules, SSH keys, service accounts and group memberships. LinuxGuard reads them once and maps every finding to each framework you have selected: SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS, NIS2, DORA, NIST 800-53, CIS and HIPAA among them.
Where file content goes when we scan it
Where personal data or secrets sit in files on a host, LinuxGuard detects them on the host itself. File content never leaves your server; only the finding does. That is the data-residency answer for GDPR-scoped and sovereignty-sensitive estates.
If one framework dominates your year — DORA, NIS2, SOC 2, HIPAA — there is a focused sector page and a focused pilot for it.
All industriesAssess once
Assess once, evidence many.
frameworks scored from one collection
read-only collection of the estate
non-human to human identities
days, fixed scope, four phases
Non-human ratio: Palo Alto Networks, 2026 Identity Security Landscape
NIS2, DORA and the EU AI Act evidence guideWhat changes in the business
LinuxGuard is the control plane for Linux identity. Across several frameworks at once, that means:
- Evidence collection stops being a project. One continuously updated inventory, exported per framework, instead of a collection exercise per auditor.
- One remediation backlog, not one per framework. Findings ranked once by risk; each fix credited against every control it satisfies.
- A defensible answer to "who has root" at any moment. Not the state on collection day — the state now, with every change since attributed to the identity that made it.
- Frameworks you pick up later need no new collection. Win a customer that needs ISO 27001, or fall into scope for NIS2: select the framework and the same inventory is scored against it.
Where the evidence lands
A representative selection: you choose the frameworks in scope, and one evidence set answers every auditor, assessor and certification body among them.
| Article / Requirement | What It Mandates | How the Founding Pilot Covers It |
|---|---|---|
| NIS2 Article 21(2)(i) | Identity and access management | Inventory of users, sudo rules, SSH keys, PAM configuration, and service accounts with privilege path mapping across in-scope Linux hosts |
| DORA Articles 8–10 & 28 | ICT risk management and third-party risk | Access-control and service-account evidence for financial-sector systems where DORA applies |
| PCI DSS 4.0.1 Req 7 & 8 | Least privilege and unique authenticated access | Detection of excessive privilege, shared accounts, and weak authentication on cardholder-data systems |
| ISO 27001:2022 A.5.15 & A.8.2 | Access control and privileged access rights | Governance state of access control and privileged accounts, risk-scored for remediation |
| SOC 2 CC6 | Logical access controls (provisioning, de-provisioning, privileged-access review) | Evidence of joiner/leaver de-provisioning and privileged-access review across Linux fleets |
| NIST SP 800-53 (AC) / CIS Benchmarks | Access control family and hardening baselines | Mapping of Linux access-control findings to the AC family and CIS access-control benchmarks |
| HIPAA Security Rule §164.312 | Access control and audit controls (where PHI systems are in scope) | Assessment of access control and audit-trail coverage on Linux systems handling protected health information |
Frequently Asked Questions
We answer to several frameworks. Can one pilot cover all of them?
Which page should we read if one framework dominates?
Does it reduce risk, or only evidence it?
Does LinuxGuard certify us against these frameworks?
How do you keep the evidence current between audits?
How long does the pilot take?
Sectors we serve
The frameworks differ by sector. The Linux artefacts behind them do not. If one sector dominates your world, start with the page written for it.
Banks, payment processors and insurers, where DORA, PCI DSS 4.0.1 and SOX ITGC all land on the same core banking and payments hosts.
Explore Finance
Operators of essential services, answering to converging regimes on estates where an access-control gap is an operational risk.
Explore Critical National Infrastructure
SaaS companies where SOC 2 and ISO 27001 are revenue gates, and the evidence has to arrive before the deal closes.
Explore SaaS & Technology
Life-sciences and healthcare estates, where attribution on validated systems is itself a compliance requirement.
Explore Pharma & Healthcare
Framework deep-dives
NIS2 Article 21 on its own, in more depth — identity and access-control evidence for the systems in scope.
Explore the NIS2 Pilot
DORA on its own, in more depth — ICT risk and third-party access evidence for financial entities.
Explore the DORA Pilot
The product behind the pilot — least-privilege access control and compliance posture for Linux infrastructure.
View Security & Compliance
Further reading: Linux access control evidence under NIS2, DORA and the EU AI Act.
Ready to map every path to root once, and evidence it for every framework?
Start the pilot on the Linux estate in scope: every identity and privilege mapped, every change flagged — and the evidence for every framework you select produced from the same inventory, rather than another collection exercise.