Information Security
SECJUR Digital Compliance Office (ISMS)
EU-Made Report an errorPanel rating · 6 judges · How to read the stars
Category median
Sovereignty: 2 of 4 dimensions proven
0–5 in half steps. 5 means the rubric's top anchor is met on the evidence.
by secjur GmbH · www.secjur.com
Compare with Vanta → Compare with DataGuard ISMS → Report an error on this page Is this your product? →
Read this page as one judge. Each weighs the same scores by what they care about.
The panel's verdict
SECJUR's Digital Compliance Office, the ISMS side of a Hamburg-based compliance automation platform, is read by this bench as a maintained framework library wrapped around task management, not a risk backbone. Its strength is framework & standard coverage at 6-8: 10+ standards including ISO 27001, TISAX, DORA and NIS2 (launched Q2 2023), plus EU AI Act and ISO 9001 added in 2025, with cross-framework mapping claimed. Its weakness is pricing transparency at 0-1: no priced figure appears anywhere, only 'Unlimitierte Beratung zum Festpreis' and savings claims of 50% and 'bis zu 67%' against never-stated baselines. Asset & risk management depth and audit readiness & evidence share that trough: the pages evidence a step-by-step assistant, central task management and a policy generator, while asset inventory, risk methodology, NIS2 24h/72h clocks, revision-safe history and evidence packs are absent; the sole audit figure is a '100% Erfolgsrate' with no denominator. No split between the judges was large enough to flag — persona-weighted totals spread 2.9-4.3 over essentially one reading.
Speaks for it
- Framework breadth with a visible release cadence: 10+ standards including ISO 27001, TISAX, DORA and NIS2 (Q2 2023), with EU AI Act and ISO 9001 added 2025.
- Cross-Mapping between Frameworks and Custom Frameworks are listed product features.
- Central task management with status views, automated e-mail notifications and a policy generator are evidenced on the platform page.
- The imprint documents secjur GmbH, Registergericht Hamburg, HRB 170383, German VAT ID DE316838124, and product pages state 'Hosted in Germany'.
- 'Über 60 API-Anbindungen' are claimed, with Integration mit JIRA named.
Held against it
- No price appears on any page — only 50% and 'bis zu 67%' savings claims against never-stated baselines and an unpriced 'Festpreis' consulting bundle.
- No asset inventory, risk methodology, treatment tracking or incident workflows with NIS2 24h/72h clocks are evidenced anywhere.
- The only audit content is a '100% Erfolgsrate' claim without a denominator; revision-safe history, evidence packs and auditor access are absent.
- No DPA, subprocessor list, TOMs or named data centers appear; the evidence lists data residency and subprocessors as unknown.
- JIRA is the only named connector among the claimed 60+, with no directory import, CMDB, SSO/SCIM or API documentation evidenced.
Best for
- You need current, maintained coverage of German-market regimes — ISO 27001, TISAX, NIS2, DORA, EU AI Act — as framework content.
- Your team runs compliance in spreadsheets and wants a step-by-step assistant, status-tracked tasks and generated policy documents.
- You already have a risk backbone elsewhere and are buying framework breadth, not core ISMS machinery.
- You want a vendor documented as a German GmbH in the Hamburg register with a 'Hosted in Germany' product claim.
Avoid if
- You need an operational ISMS core: asset inventory, risk treatment tracking, incident workflows with NIS2 24h/72h reporting clocks.
- You must hand an auditor defensible proof — revision-safe history, evidence packs, auditor access roles, a date-X answer.
- You need a published price before talking to sales; here every invoice is a sales conversation.
- You require a documented processing chain — DPA, subprocessor list, TOMs, named data centers — before hosting your risk register.
The scores
Asset & risk management depth
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
The ISMS core: asset inventory, risk methodology (identification, assessment, treatment), protection-needs inheritance, incident handling with statutory clocks.
0 — No ISMS substance; "information security" is a chapter in the marketing site.
3 — A flat risk list and an asset spreadsheet import; no treatment tracking, no inheritance, incidents live in the ticket system.
5 — Asset and risk management with configurable matrices and treatment tracking; basic incident handling; inheritance and aggregation need manual work.
8 — A real risk backbone: documented methodology (ISO 27005 or equivalent), inherited protection needs across asset relations, incident workflows with statutory reporting clocks (NIS2 24h/72h), risk acceptance with ownership.
10 — Risk management a certifier works inside: complete asset-risk-treatment chain with inheritance, continuity planning, incident reporting with authority export, and risk reporting the executive level actually reads.
The CISO
The evidence markets '70% schneller zur ISO 27001' and '100% Erfolgsrate', but not one word on risk methodology, asset inventory, treatment tracking, protection-needs inheritance, or incident workflows — and a claim of 'vollständige Abdeckung aller NIS2-Anforderungen' with zero evidence of 24h/72h reporting clocks is exactly the checklist theater I reject. What is evidenced is a step-by-step assistant, central task management and a policy generator: more than a marketing chapter, less than a flat risk list with asset import. 1 3 4
The GRC Consultant
The evidence is silent on every ISMS core: no asset inventory, no risk methodology or treatment tracking, no protection-needs inheritance, no incident workflows with NIS2 clocks. The ISMS page is certification badges and a hosting claim, and the product substance evidenced is task management and a policy generator — an ISO wrapper, not a risk backbone. 1 2 4
The Drafted IT Officer
What's evidenced for the ISMS side is a step-by-step self-service assistant, central task management and a policy generator — but the evidence is completely silent on asset inventory, risk methodology, treatment tracking, protection-need inheritance and any incident workflow with NIS2 clocks. For an ISMS product, that silence on the risk backbone is the information, so I can't place it above the checklist tier. 1 2 4
The Lead Auditor
The ISMS product page presents SECJUR's own certifications, not the customer's ISMS: no asset inventory, risk methodology, treatment tracking, protection-needs inheritance, or incident workflows with NIS2 24h/72h clocks appear anywhere in the evidence. The deepest operational capability evidenced is task management and a policy generator — ticket-system level, not a risk backbone; NIS2/DORA exist only as framework content claims. 2 3 4
The Evidence Integrator
The evidence shows a step-by-step assistant, central task management and a blanket 'complete NIS2 and DORA coverage' claim, but not one word on asset inventory, risk methodology, treatment tracking, protection-needs inheritance or incident clocks — the ISMS core is unevidenced, and that absence is the finding. 1 4 5
The Skeptic
The ISMS product page is three trust badges (ISO 27001 certified, Hosted in Germany, DSGVO Standards) and a phone number — nowhere does the evidence evidence an asset inventory, a risk register, treatment tracking, or a single incident workflow, let alone NIS2 24h/72h clocks. What exists is a step-by-step assistant, a task list with status, and a policy generator: an ISMS-shaped to-do app, not a risk backbone. 1 2 4
Controls, SoA & measures
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Control catalogs, statement of applicability, measure tracking and internal audit — whether the control side of the ISMS is operable or a checklist.
0 — A static control checklist; applicability, implementation status and evidence are the consultant's spreadsheet.
3 — Control catalogs with status fields, but no SoA generation, no measure ownership, no link between controls and risks.
5 — Controls linked to risks and measures with owners and due dates; SoA producible with manual assembly; internal audit supported by checklists.
8 — SoA on demand from live control status, measure tracking with delegation and escalation, internal audit workflows with findings management, controls carrying their own evidence.
10 — The control fabric as a living system: catalog updates versioned, SoA always current, audit programs with recurring schedules, and every control answerable with linked evidence at any moment.
The CISO
Controls exist as mappable objects ('Control-Cross-Mapping', custom frameworks) and measures live in a central task list with status and automated notifications — that is a catalog with status fields. No SoA generation, no measure ownership or delegation, no internal audit workflow or findings management appears anywhere in the evidence, which caps it at the checklist tier. 1 3 4
The GRC Consultant
Control cross-mapping and custom frameworks are claimed and central task management provides status tracking, but nothing evidences SoA generation, measure ownership, internal audit workflows, or controls carrying their own evidence. That is rubric level 3 almost verbatim: catalogs with status fields, SoA still assembled by hand. 1 3 4
The Drafted IT Officer
Cross-mapping between frameworks and custom frameworks are real features and the central task management with status tracking gives controls status fields, but nothing on SoA generation, measure owners with due dates, control-to-risk linkage or internal audit findings. That's a control catalog with checkboxes, not an operable control side. 1 3 4
The Lead Auditor
Control cross-mapping across frameworks is evidenced and tasks carry status and team ownership, so this is more than a static checklist. But nothing evidences SoA generation from live status, internal-audit or findings workflows, or controls carrying their own evidence — the exact tests I apply, all silent. 1 3 4
The Evidence Integrator
Control cross-mapping, custom frameworks and a policy generator plus task management with status views give a control layer with rough ownership, but there is no SoA generation, no control-to-risk linkage and no internal audit or findings workflow anywhere in the evidence. 3 4
The Skeptic
Status-tracked central task management plus a step-by-step ISO 27001 assistant suggest catalog content with status fields, but SoA generation, measure ownership and due dates, internal audit workflows, and any control-to-risk linkage are absent from every captured page. 'Control-Cross-Mapping' is asserted as a feature line, never demonstrated as an operable control fabric. 1 3 4
Framework & standard coverage
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Which regimes the product actually operationalizes — ISO 27001, NIS2, TISAX/VDA ISA, DORA, BSI IT-Grundschutz, SOC 2 — and whether one control maps across them or each framework is a fresh island.
0 — One framework, hard-coded; anything else is "on the roadmap".
3 — Two or three frameworks as separate checklists; the same control is answered once per framework.
5 — The major regimes for its market with partial cross-mapping; newer regimes (NIS2, DORA) present as content packs of varying depth.
8 — Broad current coverage including NIS2/TISAX/DORA where relevant, one-control-many-frameworks mapping, and visible maintenance as regimes evolve.
10 — Framework coverage as a living product: dozens of regimes, genuine multi-compliance mapping on one data basis, per-industry profiles, and documented update cadence when the standard moves.
The CISO
Coverage is genuinely broad and current: 10+ standards including ISO 27001/27002/27018, TISAX, DSGVO; NIS2 launched Q2 2023 as one of the first; DORA, NISG, EU AI Act and ISO 9001 shipped as late as 2025 — visible maintenance as regimes move, with cross-mapping on one data basis. It stops short of rubric level 8 for me because the mapping is a slogan, no BSI IT-Grundschutz appears despite serving KRITIS customers, and 'vollständige Abdeckung aller DORA-Anforderungen' is bravado no vendor can cash. 1 3 5
The GRC Consultant
10+ standards including NIS2, TISAX, DORA and German-specific regimes NISG, Hinweisgeberschutzgesetz, GwG, with NIS2 launched Q2 2023 and EU AI Act/ISO 9001 added 2025 — real breadth and visible maintenance. Docked because cross-mapping is asserted without evidence it answers a control once across frameworks, and BSI IT-Grundschutz and SOC 2 appear nowhere as operationalized content. 1 3 5
The Drafted IT Officer
10+ standards including NIS2 (launched Q2 2023, among the first), TISAX, DORA, plus EU AI Act and ISO 9001 added in 2025, with cross-mapping so one control feeds several frameworks. Regimes are clearly being maintained as they move — missing only per-industry profiles and sheer breadth for a 10. 1 3 5
The Lead Auditor
The German-market regimes are all present and visibly maintained: ISO 27001, TISAX, NIS2 (launched Q2 2023, early), DORA, plus EU AI Act and ISO 9001 in 2025, with cross-mapping on one data basis. Held below 8: no BSI IT-Grundschutz, SOC 2 appears only as SECJUR's own certificate rather than a supported framework, and '10+' is a marketing count with no documented update cadence. 1 3 5
The Evidence Integrator
10+ frameworks with ISO 27001/TISAX/DSGVO, NIS2 and DORA named, cross-framework mapping, and a visible cadence (NIS2 launched 2023, EU AI Act and ISO 9001 in 2025) — real breadth, though '10+' is a marketing count, not dozens with per-industry control profiles. 1 3 5
The Skeptic
Breadth and upkeep are genuinely evidenced: TISAX, an early NIS2 framework (Q2 2023), DORA, EU AI Act and ISO 9001 launched 2025, with cross-framework mapping claimed. But '10+ standards' pads the count with DSGVO and AML regimes, and 'vollständige Abdeckung aller NIS2- und DORA-Anforderungen' is an absolute claim I discount without depth evidence — content packs, not demonstrated one-control-many-frameworks mapping. 1 3 5
Audit readiness & evidence
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the system produces defensible proof: revision-safe history, evidence collection, reports for auditors, authorities and management.
0 — Exports are screenshots; history is overwritten in place.
3 — PDF reports exist but evidence is attached ad hoc and changes leave no reliable trail.
5 — Versioned records, standard report generators, evidence attachments per control; assembling a full audit file still takes days.
8 — Revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs on demand, management reports current at a click, auditor access roles.
10 — Audit readiness as a standing state: continuous evidence status per framework and scope, exportable proof packs an external auditor accepts as-is, and a defensible answer to "show me the state on date X".
The CISO
The only audit-readiness substance is a marketing success rate ('100% Erfolgsrate in vergangenen Audits') and a policy generator that pushes out documents. The evidence is entirely silent on revision-safe history, evidence attachment per control, audit-scoped packs, auditor access roles and management reporting — I cannot defend a certificate recertification to a TÜV auditor with a slogan. 3 4
The GRC Consultant
The '100% audit success rate' is a marketing figure with nothing behind it: no revision-safe history, no evidence packs, no auditor access, no management reporting evidenced. With unlimited fixed-price consulting in the offer, passing audits may be consultant labor rather than system-generated defensible proof. 3 4
The Drafted IT Officer
The only audit evidence on the evidence is the marketing claim of a 100% success rate in customers' ISO 27001 audits — nothing on revision-safe history, evidence packs, auditor access roles or management reports. When the auditor asks me to show the state on date X, this sheet gives me a slogan, not a mechanism. 2 3
The Lead Auditor
The 100% audit success rate is an outcome testimonial, not evidence of revision-safe change history, audit-scoped evidence packs, auditor access roles, or a date-X answer — none of those appear anywhere in the evidence. A policy generator produces documents, not defensible proof; as evidenced here, the audit file is assembled before the audit, which is precisely what I reject. 3 4
The Evidence Integrator
The only audit evidence is a self-reported '100% success rate' marketing line; the evidence is silent on revision-safe history, evidence packs, auditor access roles and even export formats, so I cannot credit defensible proof production at all. 3
The Skeptic
The only audit-adjacent content on any page is '100% Erfolgsrate bei ISO 27001 Audits unserer Kunden' — a poster number with no denominator, methodology, or selection criteria, exactly the claim I exist to discount. Revision-safe history, evidence collection, auditor reports, date-X state queries: the evidence is completely silent, which anchors this near zero. 3
Integrations & automation
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether the platform feeds from the real IT estate — directory import, CMDB, ticketing, scanners, API — and automates evidence collection instead of re-typing it.
0 — A closed island: manual entry in, PDF out, no API.
3 — CSV/Excel import and export; no live connections, no API worth the name.
5 — Directory import (AD/Entra), a documented REST API for core objects, a handful of native connectors (ticketing, CMDB or SSO); automation is reminders and recurrence.
8 — Real connector set (Jira/ServiceNow-class ticketing, CMDB, cloud and endpoint sources), webhooks, SSO/SCIM, automated evidence tests with human review.
10 — The platform behaves like infrastructure: API parity for the data model, event streams, continuous control monitoring against the live estate, and automation that measurably removes the recurring toil rather than renaming it.
The CISO
'Über 60 API-Anbindungen' with Jira named gives a real ticketing connector at claim level, and automated e-mail notifications plus a step-by-step assistant are the automation on offer. Nothing on directory import, CMDB, cloud/endpoint feeds, SSO/SCIM or automated evidence tests — this is reminders and guided workflows, not feeding from the live IT estate. 4
The GRC Consultant
'Über 60 API-Anbindungen' with Jira explicitly named is a real connector posture, but the only automated behavior evidenced is email notifications and task status — reminders and recurrence. No directory import, CMDB, SSO/SCIM, webhooks, or automated evidence tests appear anywhere in the evidence. 4
The Drafted IT Officer
60+ API integrations with Jira named, automated email notifications and an on-demand policy generator get this off the island floor, but there's no evidenced AD/Entra directory import, no CMDB or scanner feeds, no documented REST API for core objects and no automated evidence collection. Automation here reads as reminders and recurring tasks, not my real IT estate flowing in. 4 5
The Lead Auditor
JIRA is named and 'über 60 API-Anbindungen' is claimed, which clears CSV-import level, but the evidence names no directory import, CMDB, scanner or SSO/SCIM connector and shows no REST API documentation. The only automation evidenced is automated e-mail notifications and task tracking — reminders, not automated evidence collection. 4
The Evidence Integrator
'Über 60 API-Anbindungen' with Jira named and automated notifications is more than a CSV drawbridge, but no directory, CMDB, cloud or endpoint source is identified, no SSO/SCIM, no API documentation, and — the thing that decides for me — zero evidence of continuous control checks or automated evidence collection against the live estate. 4
The Skeptic
'Über 60 API-Anbindungen' with exactly one connector named — Jira — is a count, not a catalog; no API documentation, SSO/SCIM, directory or CMDB import, scanners, or automated evidence tests are evidenced anywhere. The only demonstrated automation is automated e-mail notifications, i.e., reminders. 4
European sovereignty
panel opinion
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Where the security posture of the whole company actually lives and under whose law — entity, hosting, subprocessors, DPA. The risk register is itself a target.
0 — Non-EU entity, non-EU-default hosting, no public DPA or subprocessor list — for the system holding your risk register.
3 — A DPA exists and an EU region is available on request or on top tiers; subprocessor exposure to US CLOUD Act reach is broad or undocumented.
5 — EU hosting is the default, DPA and subprocessor list published; the vendor or a critical subprocessor is still within non-European jurisdictional reach.
8 — EU entity, EU hosting with named data centers, published subprocessor list free of content-touching non-EU processors, DPA and TOMs public.
10 — Jurisdictionally clean end to end: European ownership, EU-only hosting and subprocessors, on-premises or sovereign-cloud options, and the whole chain documented publicly.
The CISO
The entity is solidly German — secjur GmbH, Registergericht Hamburg, HRB 170383, DE VAT — with a 'Hosted in Germany' claim, and the named investors are Berlin and Lisbon, not US. But hosting is an unnamed claim, and the evidence contains no published DPA, no TOMs and no subprocessor list whatsoever; an undocumented subprocessor chain for the system holding my risk register does not reach rubric level 5. 2 6 5
The GRC Consultant
The imprint nails a German GmbH — Registergericht Hamburg, HRB 170383, German VAT ID — and 'Hosted in Germany' is the default product claim, which beats most vendors. But there is no published DPA, no subprocessor list, and no named data centers; for the system holding the risk register, that is an undocumented exposure. 2 3 6
The Drafted IT Officer
The imprint confirms a German GmbH (Hamburg register court, HRB 170383, German VAT ID) and the product pages claim 'Hosted in Germany' and GDPR conformance. But no published DPA, no subprocessor list and no named data centers — the evidence itself flags residency and subprocessor exposure unknown — so my risk register would sit somewhere in an undocumented processing chain. 2 3 6
The Lead Auditor
The imprint confirms a German GmbH under the Hamburg registry, hosting is claimed in Germany, and the investors on record are European (Berlin, Lisbon) — no US reach surfaces. But 'Hosted in Germany' names no data centers, and the evidence contains no published subprocessor list, DPA or TOMs, so the chain around the customer's risk register is only half-documented. 2 6 5
The Evidence Integrator
secjur GmbH is Hamburg-registered with a German VAT ID and 'Hosted in Germany' is stated as the default, but no DPA, no subprocessor list, no TOMs and no named data centers appear anywhere — the chain that would hold the risk register is undocumented past two marketing lines and an imprint. 2 6 5
The Skeptic
The imprint is affirmative on entity — secjur GmbH, Hamburg register court, German VAT — and 'Hosted in Germany' beats an on-request EU region, with only European investors (Visionaries Club Berlin, Alea Portugal) evidenced. But the hosting claim is a badge, not a named data center, and there is no DPA, no TOMs, and no subprocessor list on any captured page — undocumented subprocessor exposure for the system holding your risk register. 2 6 5
Pricing transparency
Show reasoningHide reasoning
How this is scored
Whether a buyer can compute the real invoice — per module, per entity, per year, with consulting unbundled — from public pages alone. Unpublished pricing is the B2B norm in this market, so this criterion describes rather than condemns; the benches weight it accordingly.
0 — No public prices at all; every configuration is a sales conversation.
3 — An entry price exists, but module add-ons, scale steps or bundled consulting make the real total incomputable.
5 — Most editions carry real numbers with billing period stated and software separated from services; at least one commonly needed module or scale step is unpriced.
8 — Every edition and module priced publicly with entity/user boundaries and setup fees stated; only genuine corporate-group contracts are custom.
10 — Complete price computability: modules, scale steps, service packages and renewal rules public, so the invoice for a 100-employee company and a certification project is a two-minute exercise.
The CISO
Not a single euro figure anywhere — only percentage-savings slogans ('50% günstiger', 'bis zu 67% günstiger') and an unquantified 'unlimitierte Beratung zum Festpreis'. A buyer cannot compute any part of the invoice from these pages; the disclosed flat-fee consulting model is the one point above pure zero. 1 3 4
The GRC Consultant
Not one price figure anywhere in the evidence — only percentage claims ('50% günstiger', 'bis zu 67% günstiger') and 'unlimited consulting at fixed price' with no amount stated. Every invoice is a sales conversation, which is what rubric level 0 describes. 1 3 4
The Drafted IT Officer
Not a single number anywhere: what's public is 'unlimited consulting at a fixed price' and percentage-savings claims against unnamed baselines. The fixed-fee, no-hourly-billing model is the one structural hint, but the actual invoice for a 100-person company is still a sales conversation. 1 3 4
The Lead Auditor
No price appears anywhere: only relative claims ('50% günstiger', 'bis zu 67% günstiger') and an unquantified 'Festpreis' with consulting bundled in. The real invoice is a sales conversation; the disclosed fixed-price, all-inclusive model shape is the only thing keeping this off absolute zero. 1 3 4
The Evidence Integrator
Not one euro figure on any captured page — only 'unlimited consulting at fixed price' and savings percentages of 50-67%; the invoice for any real configuration is a sales conversation, which fits the bottom anchor with a single point for at least stating the billing model. 1 3 4
The Skeptic
Not one price with a currency sign appears on any page; the only pricing statements are 'unlimitierte Beratung zum Festpreis' — consulting bundled and unpriced — and savings percentages that disagree between pages (50% vs 'bis zu 67%') against a baseline that is never stated. Every invoice is a sales conversation. 1 3 4
European sovereignty — proven facts
2 of 4 dimensions provenBuilt only from facts shown on the vendor's own pages. A dimension we could not prove is left open, not scored as zero.
| Legal entity | Incorporated in DE ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 6 Report an error |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ownership | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
| Data residency | EU only ⚠ unverified | 3/3 pts | 1 Report an error |
| Subprocessors | Not determined | — | uncited Report an error |
Where this could be wrong
- Evidence ages. The oldest capture behind this page is from 24 Aug 2026. Vendors change pricing and policies without notice; every fact reflects its source as of the capture date shown in the registry.
- Weak sourcing — Legal entity. The imprint never spells out the country name; DE is derived from the Hamburg register court and German HRB number.
- Weak sourcing — Data residency. Residency appears only as a marketing bullet on the homepage and product pages; none of the available terms, privacy policy, or DPA excerpts confirm where the product's customer data is stored, and the privacy policy covers only the marketing website.
- AI can misread a source. Extraction and judgement are automated; a citation guarantees traceability, not infallibility. If something here is wrong, say so — no account needed, every report is decided within 5 business days, and accepted corrections are published.
What we left out
A claim that does not survive our checks costs us the claim, not the page. This is what was taken off this one.
- 20 product facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 10 subprocessors facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 9 legal facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 5 compliance facts could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and were left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 1 pricing fact could not be confirmed on the vendor’s page as captured and was left out of this page and of the panel’s material. Know more? Tell us
- 6 of the readings below were written against an earlier fact sheet — a fact has been corrected, added or pulled since. Until the panel next runs on this product you are reading the older judgement. Know more? Tell us
Sources (10)
The pages every claim on this page was read from — each one checked, dated, and kept verifiable.
- 1 Vendor homepage www.secjur.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 2 ISMS product page www.secjur.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 3 ISO 27001 product page www.secjur.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 4 Platform page www.secjur.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 5 About page www.secjur.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 +1 earlier capture: 24 Aug 2026 Details →
- 6 Imprint www.secjur.com Checked 15 Sep 2026 Details →
- 7 Privacy policy www.secjur.com Checked 30 Sep 2026 Details →
- 8 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.secjur.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 9 Framework & standard coverage — found from sitemap www.secjur.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →
- 10 Integrations & automation — found from sitemap www.secjur.com Checked 1 Oct 2026 Details →