Frameworks
Prioritize and track cyber-defense safeguards with evidence-backed workflows aligned to CIS Controls Implementation Groups.
Understand where CIS Controls fits, what execution requires, and how to move from planning to audit-ready delivery.
Controls move through one auditable flow with evidence-linked decisions at each stage.
Orient, diagnose, operate, and assure in one structured framework execution path.
18 controls and 153 safeguards organized across 3 Implementation Groups (IG1, IG2, IG3).
Framework reference last reviewed: 2026-07-27
Use this boundary to align expectations before planning controls, evidence, and assurance commitments.
Select a role to view ownership focus, delivery responsibilities, and assurance expectations.
Focus on governance approvals, risk acceptance decisions, and escalation readiness across the program lifecycle.
Takes charge at: Governance approval and risk acceptance
Execution responsibility: Validate enterprise posture, approve critical transitions, and own escalation decisions.
Teams typically progress from documentation-driven preparation to governed execution and continuous assurance.
Ad-hoc
Documented
Managed
Governed
Continuous Assurance
Most teams start around Level 2 or 3.
Characteristics
Common problems
How QULDEX helps
Characteristics
Common problems
How QULDEX helps
Characteristics
Common problems
How QULDEX helps
Characteristics
Common problems
How QULDEX helps
Characteristics
Common problems
How QULDEX helps
Delivery quality differs by team and cycle.
Remediation and approvals regularly miss target dates.
Stakeholders do not share a single execution view.
Proof and decisions are disconnected across tools.
Program leaders need predictable assurance outcomes.
Owner: Program Lead
Governance setup
Map framework obligations, owners, and review checkpoints.
Owner: Control Owners
Operational proof
Submit and validate evidence against mapped control requirements.
Owner: Audit Team
Assurance readiness
Manage findings, CAPA deadlines, and closure approval flow.
Owner: Governance Office
Compliance confidence
Issue governed status reports for leadership and external stakeholders.
These impact indicators show how execution discipline translates into measurable readiness outcomes.
As of February 2026
Overdue findings index
BeforeClosure velocity gain
Cycle-time reduction
20-35%Faster movement from planning to report closure with governed workflows.
Overdue finding reduction
25-40%Early escalation and ownership controls reduce pending critical items.
CAPA closure velocity
1.6x fasterStructured ownership and evidence-backed sign-off improve closure rates.
Evidence completeness
90%+ readinessControl-linked evidence templates reduce missing or invalid submissions.
Approval turnaround
<48 hoursGovernance approvals and stage transitions remove bottlenecks.
User actions, approvals, and lifecycle transitions are logged for accountability.
RBAC controls enforce who can edit plans, approve closures, and access reports.
Evidence is tagged, linked to controls, and governed through structured review states.
Plan approvals, rejection comments, and closure approvals are retained for verification.
Report delivery supports controlled URL access and enterprise-safe distribution.
Yes. Control mapping and evidence reuse can support multiple concurrent framework efforts.
Yes. Programs can be coordinated while keeping framework-specific reporting outputs.
Yes. Evidence can be mapped to controls and findings so reviewers can validate relevance quickly.
Yes. Upload, review, and approval actions are captured in audit-trail style activity records.
Current focus includes ISO 27001, ISO 22301, ISO 27701, ISO 42001, SOC 2, NIST CSF 2.0, GDPR, and DPDP.
Framework pages cross-link to platform modules and role-based solutions relevant to execution.
Schedule a tailored walkthrough to align owners, evidence strategy, and readiness milestones.
