Accutive ADM Platform

by Accutive Security in Data Masking & Test Data Management

Listing tier Get Listed Last evaluated June 2026 Methodology CL v4.0

Strong fit on GDPR & HIPAA, Moderate on PCI DSS & CCPA, Supporting on DORA & NIS2

Accutive ADM Platform is a data masking and test data management solution for non-production environments, contributing to applicability under six regulations covered by Compliance Labs without, by itself, making your organisation compliant.

Regulatory fit

Strong on 2 of 6 regulations

Category fit

83% 5 of 6 capabilities

Sector stakes

USD 7.42M avg breach, healthcare

What Accutive ADM Platform covers, and what remains with your organisation to operate or decide.

Covered by the software ?

44 requirements across 6 regulations

Supported by Accutive ADM Platform through its own mechanisms: masking, encryption, de-identification. Nothing to run on your side.

See the requirements

Operated by your organisation ?

8 processes across 6 regulations

Your team runs these; Accutive ADM Platform does the heavy lifting inside them.

See the processes

Decided by your organisation ?

4 decisions across 6 regulations

These stay your call. Accutive ADM Platform gives you the evidence to make them.

See the decisions

Top 3 Findings

HIPAA Safe Harbor de-identification pre-built for all 18 PHI identifiers, direct §164.514(b)(2) contribution.
CDE perimeter reduction on PCI DSS Req. 3.4 documented in vendor materials, estimated audit scope reduction up to 40% on customer references.
MITRE M1041 + M1057 mitigations addressed via format-preserving masking and pre-production sanitization, touching T1078, T1199, T1530.

Top 3 Caveats

Get Listed tier: all signals are Vendor-Stated. Security efficacy metrics, the full management dimension and operating certifications are not assessable at this tier. Outcome verification (median time-to-patch, masking effectiveness on edge cases) requires Get Proven or Get Scale.
4 capabilities in the Data Masking and TDM reference list are Not in Vendor Documentation, including dynamic masking and runtime DLP integration.
DORA Art. 26-27 (Threat-Led Penetration Testing) is not directly addressed, only an indirect TLPT scope reduction is achievable.

1.2

Software profile

Technically, Accutive ADM Platform provides discovery, static masking with format-preserving algorithms, and subsetting across major DBMS. It is not a SIEM, IAM/PAM, runtime DLP, encryption (KMS) or GRC tool.

Category coverage

Accutive ADM Platform documents 5 of the 6 capabilities Compliance Labs defines for Data Masking & Test Data Management (83%). See breakdown

DeploymentSaaS, On-Prem, Hybrid EnvironmentInformation Technology (IT) RegionAmerica, Europe IndustryFinancial Services, Healthcare, Technology & Communications

Accutive ADM Platform addresses non-production data protection. To build a complete posture, plan adjacent categories: Data Security Posture Management & DLP, Encryption & Key Management, Privacy Management, Identity & Access Management, Integrated Risk Management / GRC.

1.3

Sectoral briefing teaser

Healthcare

USD 7.42M / breach

Healthcare is the costliest sector for data breaches — the financial stake behind any gap in protecting patient data is concrete and quantified.

IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025

Financial Services

USD 5.56M / breach

Financial services is the second-costliest breach sector — the loss magnitude behind a data-protection gap is material.

IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025 (Figure 3)

Government

USD 2.86M / breach

Public sector has the lowest average breach cost of any industry — the direct financial stake is smaller, but the targeting and exposure are not.

IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025 (Figure 3)

Technology & Communications

USD 4.79M / breach

Technology carries a 4.79M average breach cost — the financial baseline for a data-protection gap in the sector.

IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025 (Figure 3)

Accutive ADM Platform reduces one recurring source of these breaches: live production data left in non-production environments. See sector insights

1.4

Reading paths for other roles

For CRO / Board

Sector exposure, breach costs, insurer expectations and board accountability, sourced.

See the sector briefing

For DPO

GDPR Art. 25 by-design, Safe Harbor de-identification, minimum necessary on PHI.

See GDPR & HIPAA detail

For Procurement

Vendor responsibilities under each regulation: SLA, sub-processors, right-to-audit.

See vendor responsibilities

For Auditor / Consultant

Methodology, source sampling, triple traceability, what was not examined.

See Methodology & Evidence

2.1

Coverage Snapshot ?

19 / 23

capabilities documented, 83% of the Data Masking & TDM reference ?

7 of 19 run out of the box (vendor-stated)

7 out-of-box – 5 config – 7 not specified

7/8

Data Masking & De-identification

5/6

Test Data Management

4/5

Data Discovery & Classification

3/4

Governance & Audit (adjacent)

Not documented (4): dynamic masking, ML-assisted free-text discovery, runtime DLP integration.

Category intelligence

Consolidation is active in the category; data-security vendors keep absorbing masking and TDM specialists. M&A corpus 2026

Data-security budgets keep growing as a share of security spend, driven by regulatory and AI pressure. Security budget corpus 2026

2.2

Capability coverage detail

Each capability signal (Table-Stakes, Out-of-box, Config change, and the rest) is defined in the glossary.

Data Discovery & Classification 5 of 6 documented

Capability	What it does	Audit caveats	Mapping
Sensitive data discovery Table-Stakes Out-of-box	Pattern + dictionary-based discovery of PII, PHI, PAN across structured databases. 200+ built-in classifiers covering GDPR Art. 4, HIPAA 18 identifiers, PCI PAN.	Coverage of unstructured sources (file shares, S3 objects) not documented at the level required for Office of CDO use.	13 obligations
Auto-classification with confidence score Advanced Config change	Each detection comes with a confidence score; threshold configurable per scan job.	Scoring methodology not externalised. Tuning per regulatory profile (HIPAA vs GDPR) requires consulting engagement per vendor.	8 obligations
ML-assisted discovery on free text Emerging Not in Vendor Doc	Capability not documented in vendor sources. CL has flagged this for the next refresh cycle. If important for your use case, request vendor confirmation directly.		n/a

Data Masking & De-identification 15 of 17 documented

Capability	What it does	Audit caveats	Mapping
Static masking Table-Stakes Out-of-box	Irreversible masking of source data in place or on extraction. Replaces sensitive values with masked equivalents matching original format and constraints.	Reversibility for legitimate re-identification scenarios (clinical research, fraud investigation) is not documented in public materials.	19 obligations
Format-preserving encryption (FPE) Advanced Out-of-box	NIST SP 800-38G FF1/FF3 algorithm support documented. Preserves field length and character set; allows applications to accept masked values without schema changes.	FF3-1 has known cryptanalytic concerns for short domains (FF1 recommended for fields < 6 chars). Vendor guidance on algorithm selection per data type not externalised.	10 obligations
HIPAA Safe Harbor template Table-Stakes Out-of-box	Pre-built ruleset removing the 18 PHI identifiers listed in 45 CFR §164.514(b)(2). Direct contribution to Safe Harbor de-identification path.	Safe Harbor adequacy for any specific dataset still requires customer-side validation; ZIP code aggregation rule (3-digit) implementation to verify per customer data distribution.	3 obligations
Dynamic data masking (DDM) Advanced Not in Vendor Doc	Runtime masking on query results based on user role is not documented in vendor public sources. Consider IAM/PAM or Database Activity Monitoring adjacent categories for this requirement.		n/a

Test Data Management 8 of 10 documented

Capability	What it does	Audit caveats	Mapping
Test data subsetting Table-Stakes Config change	Extract a coherent subset of production data while preserving referential integrity across tables and schemas. Subset criteria configurable per business need.	Cross-database subsetting (multi-DBMS sources) effort not quantified in vendor docs, assume PoC scope.	8 obligations
Synthetic data generation Emerging Config change	Rule-based synthetic data generation for empty test environments. Maintains schema integrity and basic distributional properties.	Statistical fidelity for ML training scenarios not documented; not a GAN-based generator.	4 obligations
CI/CD pipeline integration Advanced Config change	REST API + CLI for invoking masking jobs from CI/CD pipelines (Jenkins, GitLab CI, Azure DevOps documented).	Drift detection on schema changes between pipeline runs not documented; assume manual reconciliation on schema-evolving services.	3 obligations

Governance & Audit 5 of 7 documented

Capability	What it does	Audit caveats	Mapping
Masking job audit log Table-Stakes Out-of-box	All masking job executions logged with who/what/when/where. Exportable to SIEM via syslog or REST.	Tamper-evidence of audit log (write-once / signed) not documented, assume application-level controls only.	9 obligations
Role-based access control (RBAC) Table-Stakes Config change	RBAC on masking jobs, policies, and configuration. Integrates with corporate directory via SAML/OIDC.	Fine-grained ABAC (attribute-based) not documented, assume role granularity only.	7 obligations

2.3

Architecture, Deployment & Data Flow

Deployment models

SaaS managed cloud
On-Premise (customer-managed)
Hybrid (control plane SaaS + data plane on-prem)
Customer-managed in customer cloud

Database compatibility

Oracle 11g+, SQL Server 2014+
PostgreSQL 10+, MySQL 5.7+
Db2, MariaDB, MongoDB
AWS RDS, Azure SQL, GCP SQL

OS & Runtime

Linux RHEL, CentOS, Ubuntu
Windows Server 2016+
Docker, Kubernetes (Helm charts)
Java 11+ runtime

Integration & Ecosystem

REST API for CI/CD pipelines
SSO via SAML 2.0 / OIDC
Network access to source DBs
Skills required: DBA + ETL (intermediate)

View enterprise data flow diagram

How Accutive ADM Platform fits in your enterprise data flow

From production data to non-production environments, through the masking layer. Zones of trust and consumers explicit.

2.4

Vulnerability Resilience ?

5 days median time from disclosure to exploitation in the wild. The vendor-stated cadence below reads against that clock. Exploitation intelligence corpus 2026

CVE disclosure policy Stated, not verified

Vendor publishes a security advisory page and a contact channel for coordinated disclosure. No public SLA on advisory publication timing.

Source: Accutive support pages. Verification gap: historical CVE record not examined at Get Listed.

Patch & release cadence Vendor-stated

Quarterly minor releases stated; out-of-band security patches available for high/critical issues. Customer-applied: on-prem deployments require customer-side upgrade window.

Source: vendor release notes (4 quarters reviewed). Verification gap: no measured median time CVE to customer patch.

SBOM & third-party dependencies Stated, not produced

Vendor tracks third-party components and applies updates for known vulnerabilities. Machine-readable SBOM (SPDX / CycloneDX) on request to enterprise customers, not publicly shipped.

Source: vendor security documentation. Verification gap: SBOM not examined; depth of dependency monitoring not assessed.

Customer notification on advisories Vendor-stated

Direct customer notification stated for high/critical CVEs, via support portal and registered security contacts.

Source: support and advisory pages. Verification gap: evidence of past notifications not examined.

Customer-side hardening guidance Vendor-stated

Deployment guides provide a secure-by-default configuration baseline (network segmentation engine to source DB, least-privilege service accounts, audit logging on by default). Customer-side responsibility remains for OS patching, container image refresh and network policy enforcement.

Source: deployment and admin guides. Verification gap: alignment of stated baseline with actual default install settings not verified at Get Listed.

3.2

Regulation Detail

Each regulation is broken down article-by-article with the corresponding software contribution, capability link, relationship (formal control relationship typology), scope impact and evidence reference. At Get Listed, all software contribution signals are Vendor-Stated

Hide verdict and relationship legend

Verdict, what the software does

Covers – Addresses the obligation directly through a documented mechanism it executes.

Contributes – Addresses part of the obligation; your organisation operates the process that completes it.

Supports – Produces outputs that feed a governance decision your organisation makes.

Relationship, how the capability attaches to the obligation

Direct – Fulfils the obligation through a mechanism named in the regulation.

Contributing – Adds value but the obligation is broader.

Supporting – Participates indirectly.

Equivalent – Replaces the obligation's named mechanism.

Full definitions in the glossary.

HIPAA – US Healthcare

Covers Safe Harbor de-identification – Audit & risk stay yours

Strong

Profile & intent

HIPAA protects individually identifiable health information held by covered entities and business associates. The Safe Harbor de-identification path (45 CFR §164.514(b)(2)) removes 18 specific identifiers, after which information is no longer PHI and falls outside the Privacy Rule.

Why this software matters here

Accutive ADM ships a pre-built Safe Harbor ruleset covering the 18 identifiers, plus k-anonymity utilities for the expert determination path. It is one of the few capabilities a CISO can point to that directly maps to a named de-identification path in the regulation.

Sectoral pains 2026

Non-prod environments as recurrent breach vector for PHI
Business Associates handling de-identified data: ~28% audited as non-compliant
Ransomware in healthcare US: highest sector cost-per-record

Evidence at Get Listed. All Software contribution signals below are Vendor-Stated, based on Accutive Security public documentation. Compliance Labs (CL) has organised these claims, mapped them to HIPAA articles and applied formal control relationship typology. Outcome verification is not within Get Listed scope.

How Accutive ADM Platform supports HIPAA, by control nature

Showing the 6 most decision-relevant obligations of the 14 mapped. All contribution signals on this table are vendor-stated.

Obligation	Software contribution	Verdict	Relationship	Scope impact	Evidence ref
TechnicalMechanisms the software executes
§164.514(b)(2) Safe Harbor, removal of 18 identifiers to de-identify PHI	Pre-built Safe Harbor ruleset covering all 18 identifiers: names, geographic subdivisions, dates, telephone, fax, email, SSN, MRN, account numbers, etc.	Covers	Direct	Reduces scope : De-identified data exits HIPAA Privacy Rule scope. BAA chain shortened downstream.	Datasheet: HIPAA section, p.4-6?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).
§164.514(b)(1) Expert determination, statistical de-identification	k-anonymity utility + generalization rules. Vendor states support, specific algorithms not externalised.	Contributes	Contributing	Reduces exposure : Statistical de-identification path requires qualified statistician validation.	Admin guide: Section 7?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).
§164.502(b) Minimum necessary, least PHI exposed for purpose	Field-level masking + subsetting enables persona-based test datasets containing only the minimum PHI needed per testing purpose.	Covers	Direct	Reduces exposure : Organisation-level policy enforcement via tool configuration.	Admin guide: Policy config ch.?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).
OperationalProcesses your organisation operates, software-assisted
§164.312(b) Audit Controls, record and examine information system activity	Masking job audit logs exportable to organisation's SIEM, documenting who masked what, when, with which ruleset.	Contributes	Contributing	Documents control : Software-scope audit, not infrastructure-wide. §164.312 access control still requires IAM/PAM.	Admin guide: Logging chapter?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).
ManagementGovernance decisions your organisation makes
§164.308(a)(1)(ii)(A) Risk Analysis, identify and document PHI inventory	Classification engine produces a PHI inventory (200+ pre-built classifiers) that feeds the organisation's Risk Analysis exercise.	Supports	Contributing	Enables process : Provides starting inventory for Risk Analysis. Organisation must still validate scope and complete remaining process steps.	Datasheet: Discovery section?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).
§164.504(e) Business Associate Agreement, sub-processor chain	Pre-share masking of PHI before sending data to downstream sub-processors. De-identified data exits BAA chain, reducing flow-down complexity.	Supports	Contributing	Reduces scope : BAA chain shortened downstream. Vendor BAA upstream remains required.	Case study: Healthcare US?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).

Vendor Posture for HIPAA

Vendor-level contractual posture, complementary to org-operated coverage. Not scored.

BAA

Signed for SaaS customers with breach notification SLA at 60 days.

Attestations

SOC 2 Type II, annual independent audit. HITRUST not held.

Right-to-audit

Available on enterprise contracts, on request for SaaS.

Sub-processors

Full list published. BAA flow-down on all sub-processors handling PHI.

Compliance scope impact, HIPAA Safe Harbor path

Before Accutive ADM Platform

Full PHI in non-prod : HIPAA Privacy Rule applies, Dev / Test / QA in scope, BAA required for each handler, breach notification applicable.

Safe Harbor §164.514(b)(2)

After Accutive ADM Platform

De-identified non-prod data : No longer PHI, out of HIPAA scope. Production PHI remains in scope (unchanged).

Scope reduction mechanism. Safe Harbor de-identification removes the dataset from HIPAA Privacy Rule scope. Quantified impact on a typical hospital: dev/test/QA environments (a large share of data volume) exit HIPAA-regulated scope. Customer-side verification required: applied ruleset matches the 18 identifiers correctly on actual schemas, no residual quasi-identifiers reconstruct identity.

Not addressed in this regulation

§164.312Technical safeguards, access control, audit, integrity

Not addressed by data masking. Requires IAM/PAM, audit logging at infrastructure layer, encryption at rest.

GDPR – EU Cross-sector

Covers pseudonymisation & by-design – RoPA & consent stay yours

Strong

Profile & intent

GDPR establishes data protection by design and by default (Art. 25), security of processing (Art. 32), and breach notification (Art. 33-34). Pseudonymisation and encryption are specifically named in Art. 32 as technical measures.

Why this software matters here

Accutive ADM provides pseudonymisation via tokenisation and FPE, plus by-design masking templates that align directly with Art. 25 implementation.

Sectoral pains 2026

Average GDPR fine 2025: €8.4M per major enforcement
Breach notification deadline: 72 hours, tight on multi-system breaches
Non-prod environments cited in 41% of major breach actions

Evidence at Get Listed. Software contribution signals are Vendor-Stated.

How Accutive ADM Platform supports GDPR, by control nature

Showing the 6 most decision-relevant obligations of the 13 mapped. All contribution signals on this table are vendor-stated.

Obligation	Software contribution	Verdict	Relationship	Scope impact	Evidence ref
TechnicalMechanisms the software executes
Art. 25 Data protection by design & by default	Default masking templates per data category. Non-prod environments receive masked data by configuration.	Covers	Direct	Reduces exposure : By-design masking lowers exposure of dev/test data.	Datasheet: GDPR section?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).
Art. 32 Security of processing, pseudonymisation	Pseudonymisation via tokenisation + FPE, named explicitly in Art. 32(1)(a).	Covers	Direct	Reduces exposure : Technical safeguard documented at Art. 32(1)(a).	Admin guide: FPE chapter?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).
OperationalProcesses your organisation operates, software-assisted
Art. 33-34 Breach notification	Reduces likelihood that a non-prod breach exposes personal data. Limits breach severity assessment.	Contributes	Contributing	Reduces scope : Reduces 72h notification urgency when only masked data exposed.	Whitepaper: Inference?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).
Art. 32(1)(a) Pseudonymisation evidence for processing record	Masking job reports documenting pseudonymisation applied, exportable as evidence for DPA inquiries.	Contributes	Contributing	Documents control : Provides documentary trail for accountability principle.	Admin guide: Reporting?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).
ManagementGovernance decisions your organisation makes
Art. 30 Records of Processing Activities	Classification engine produces an inventory of personal data found across systems, feeding the RoPA exercise.	Supports	Contributing	Enables process : RoPA needs organisation-side review and validation.	Datasheet: Discovery?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).
Art. 28 Sub-processor chain management	Pseudonymising data before sharing with sub-processors reduces fourth-party flow-down.	Supports	Contributing	Reduces scope : Sub-processor disclosure still required, but personal data exposure reduced.	Case study: EU Bank?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).

Vendor Posture for GDPR

Vendor-level contractual posture, complementary to org-operated coverage. Not scored.

DPA (Art. 28)

Data Processing Agreement available. Standard processor terms.

International transfers

Standard Contractual Clauses (Reg. 2021/914) available for transfers outside EEA.

Sub-processors

Disclosed and notified on change. Right-to-audit on enterprise contracts.

Attestations

SOC 2 Type II annual. ISO 27001 not held at this iteration.

Compliance scope impact, GDPR Art. 25 / pseudonymisation

Before Accutive ADM Platform

Personal data in non-prod : Full GDPR processor obligations apply. Breach in non-prod = full notification to DPA + data subjects.

Pseudonymisation Art. 32(1)(a)

After Accutive ADM Platform

Pseudonymised non-prod data : Still personal data under GDPR (Recital 26) but at reduced risk level. Breach severity assessment lowered.

Mechanism. Pseudonymised data remains personal data but at reduced risk. Anonymised data (irreversibility, no re-identification with reasonable means) exits GDPR scope, this is a higher bar. Customer assessment of anonymisation status required.

PCI DSS – Global Payments

Cuts cardholder-data scope via tokenisation – Key management stays yours

Moderate

Profile & intent

PCI DSS v4.0 requires PAN to be unreadable wherever it is stored (Req. 3.4). Reducing the Cardholder Data Environment (CDE) perimeter directly reduces QSA assessment scope.

Sectoral pains 2026

v4.0 mandatory since March 2025, many requirements still in transition
Non-prod PAN exposure: top finding in QSA reports

Get Listed: signals Vendor-Stated. Tokenisation candidacy for PCI scope reduction does not constitute QSA assessment.

How Accutive ADM Platform supports PCI DSS, by control nature

Showing the 5 most decision-relevant obligations of the 10 mapped. All contribution signals on this table are vendor-stated.

Obligation	Software contribution	Verdict	Relationship	Scope impact	Evidence ref
TechnicalMechanisms the software executes
Req. 3.4 PAN unreadable wherever stored	Tokenisation + FPE applied to PAN in non-prod. PAN replaced with token of same length and Luhn validity.	Covers	Direct	Reduces scope : CDE perimeter reduction on dev/test scope. Vendor claim up to 40%.	Case study: PCI brief?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).
Req. 6.5 Production data not used in non-prod	Masking pipeline refreshes non-prod from production with masked output only.	Covers	Direct	Reduces scope : Compliance with Req. 6.5 mechanism.	Admin guide: Deployment?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).
Req. 3.5 / 3.6 Key management for cryptographic protection	Integration with external KMS/HSM stated for FPE keys. No native key vault.	Contributes	Contributing	Enables process : Customer-managed KMS responsibility remains.	Admin guide: Integration?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).
OperationalProcesses your organisation operates, software-assisted
Req. 3.4 evidence QSA-ready tokenisation evidence	Tokenisation reports exportable for QSA assessment, documenting tokenisation method, key custody, and mapping integrity.	Contributes	Contributing	Documents control : QSA still validates implementation independently.	Datasheet: Reporting?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).
ManagementGovernance decisions your organisation makes
Req. 6.5 usage Non-prod separation from CDE	Using masking pipeline systematically removes non-prod from CDE definition, reducing QSA scope by up to 40% on case studies.	Supports	Contributing	Reduces scope : Validated by customer-side QSA assessment.	Case study: Retail US?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).

Vendor Posture for PCI DSS

Vendor-level contractual posture, complementary to org-operated coverage. Not scored.

Service Provider contract

Available with PCI-specific terms. Vendor positions as part of customer CDE.

Certification

Not certified Service Provider Level 1. Tokenisation product consistent with PCI SSC guidance.

QSA references

Vendor maintains list of QSAs familiar with the product.

P2PE listing

Not pursued, not applicable.

Compliance scope impact, PCI CDE perimeter reduction

Before Accutive ADM Platform

Live PAN in non-prod : Non-prod environments fully in CDE scope. QSA assessment covers dev/test/QA systems and personnel.

Tokenisation Req. 3.4

After Accutive ADM Platform

Tokenised non-prod data : Non-prod environments out of CDE scope (vendor claim, customer-side validation required).

Mechanism. Tokenisation removes PAN from non-production, qualifying these environments for CDE exclusion. Quantified impact: vendor case studies report up to 40% reduction in QSA assessment scope.

CCPA / CPRA – US California

Supports data minimisation & SPI protection – Consumer-rights ops stay yours

Moderate

Profile & intent

CCPA/CPRA grants California consumers rights over their personal information (PI) and imposes data minimisation, security and reasonable security measures on businesses meeting thresholds. CPRA Agency (CPPA) actively enforces since 2023.

Why this software matters here

Masking and subsetting reduce PI volume in non-production, limit breach exposure scope under §1798.150 private right of action, and document data minimisation under §1798.100.

Sectoral pains 2026

CPPA enforcement activity: +45% year-over-year on first-time fines
Private right of action lawsuits: ~30% involve non-prod data exposure
Sensitive PI category (§1798.140(ae)) expansion under CPRA

Get Listed: signals Vendor-Stated.

How Accutive ADM Platform supports CCPA / CPRA, by control nature

Showing the 4 most decision-relevant obligations of the 7 mapped. All contribution signals on this table are vendor-stated.

Obligation	Software contribution	Verdict	Relationship	Scope impact	Evidence ref
TechnicalMechanisms the software executes
§1798.100 Data minimisation, retention limits	Subsetting limits data volume in non-prod, masking limits PI exposure.	Covers	Direct	Reduces exposure : Non-prod data minimisation auditable.	Datasheet: Subsetting?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).
§1798.150 Private right of action, security failures	Reduces likelihood of PI exposure in non-prod environments, reducing private right of action surface.	Contributes	Contributing	Reduces exposure : Litigation surface area reduced.	Whitepaper: Inference?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).
§1798.140(ae) Sensitive PI category protection	Classification engine identifies SPI categories (SSN, financial, health, biometric, geolocation).	Contributes	Contributing	Reduces exposure : SPI handling auditable in non-prod context.	Admin guide: Classification?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).
OperationalProcesses your organisation operates, software-assisted
§1798.100 evidence Service Provider data minimisation evidence	Subsetting reports documenting data minimisation policies applied. Helps Service Provider demonstrate CCPA compliance under §1798.100.	Contributes	Contributing	Documents control : Feeds Service Provider Agreement evidence pack.	Admin guide: Reporting?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).

Vendor Posture for CCPA / CPRA

Vendor-level contractual posture, complementary to org-operated coverage. Not scored.

Service Provider contract

CCPA-specific contract available with required terms.

Data minimisation

Vendor processes only necessary data, documented in DPA.

Right-to-audit

Enterprise contracts only.

Sub-processors

Public list with notification on change.

Not addressed in this regulation

Consumer rightsAccess, deletion, opt-out, Do Not Sell

Consumer rights orchestration requires separate privacy management tooling (DSAR platform).

DORA – EU Financial Services

Contributes to data integrity & third-party risk – TLPT not addressed

Supporting

Profile & intent

DORA establishes uniform ICT risk management requirements for EU financial entities. Applicable since 17 January 2025. Covers ICT risk management, incident reporting, TLPT, and third-party risk.

Sectoral pains 2026

Major ICT-incident reporting now mandatory for EU financial entities under DORA
TLPT readiness in mid-tier banks: fragmented

Evidence at Get Listed. DORA applies to the financial entity, not the software itself. Software contribution is supporting, providing documented technical measures.

How Accutive ADM Platform supports DORA, by control nature

Showing the 5 most decision-relevant obligations of the 7 mapped. All contribution signals on this table are vendor-stated.

Obligation	Software contribution	Verdict	Relationship	Scope impact	Evidence ref
TechnicalMechanisms the software executes
Art. 9(3) Protect availability, authenticity, integrity, confidentiality of data	Confidentiality of non-production data through irreversible masking. Integrity preserved via referential integrity preservation in subsetting.	Contributes	Contributing	Reduces exposure : One technical mechanism among several required by Art. 9(3).	Whitepaper: DORA brief?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).
Art. 8(4) Data classification & protection per risk tier	Classification engine + tiered masking policies enable per-classification protection.	Contributes	Contributing	Enables process : Entity-level classification policy remains customer responsibility.	Admin guide: Classification?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).
Art. 28(3) Third-party ICT risk, data shared with providers	Masking of datasets shared with third-party ICT providers limits residual risk in fourth-party chain.	Contributes	Contributing	Reduces exposure : Blast radius of third-party data handling incidents reduced.	Case study: FS sector?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).
OperationalProcesses your organisation operates, software-assisted
Art. 9(3) evidence Data integrity evidence for ICT risk reporting	Masking and classification reports produced for ICT risk management framework reporting.	Contributes	Contributing	Documents control : Feeds ICT risk reporting cycle.	Datasheet: Reporting?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).
ManagementGovernance decisions your organisation makes
Art. 28 usage ICT third-party scope reduction	Pre-share masking before ICT third-party reduces fourth-party chain risk in DORA scope.	Supports	Contributing	Reduces scope : Critical for DORA Art. 28 third-party risk discipline.	Case study: EU FS?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).

Vendor Posture for DORA

Vendor-level contractual posture, complementary to org-operated coverage. Not scored.

Art. 30 contract

Right of access, audit, exit strategy on enterprise contracts.

CTPP status

Not designated Critical ICT Third-Party Provider by ESAs.

Incident notification

Vendor commits flow-down to customer per DORA timeline.

Sub-contracting

Authorisation clause to be customised per customer.

Compliance scope impact, DORA third-party data perimeter

Before Accutive ADM Platform

Live data shared with ICT providers : Full Art. 28 third-party risk applies to actual customer data. Incident response coverage extends to all ICT providers.

Pre-share masking Art. 28(3)

After Accutive ADM Platform

Masked data shared with ICT providers : Residual risk in fourth-party chain reduced. Incident impact assessment lowered for masked datasets.

Mechanism. Masking reduces sensitive data exposed to third-party ICT providers. DORA Art. 28 documentation can record this technical measure as part of third-party risk treatment.

Not addressed in this regulation

Art. 26-27Threat-Led Penetration Testing (TLPT)

TLPT not addressed by data masking. Indirect scope reduction may apply.

NIS2 – EU Cross-sector

Contributes to supply-chain & encryption measures – Governance not addressed

Supporting

Profile & intent

NIS2 raises cybersecurity baseline across EU essential and important entities. Applicable since 17 October 2024 (national transposition). Covers cybersecurity risk management (Art. 21), incident reporting (Art. 23), and supply chain security.

Why this software matters here

Masking data shared with sub-contractors reduces supply chain residual risk (Art. 21.2(d)). FPE provides a technical measure cited at Art. 21.2(j).

Sectoral pains 2026

~65% essential entities still finalising NIS2 risk management framework
Supply chain attacks targeting essential services: +78% year-over-year
Incident reporting timeliness: 24h initial threshold pressure

Get Listed: all signals Vendor-Stated. NIS2 applies to the entity, not to the software directly.

How Accutive ADM Platform supports NIS2, by control nature

Showing the 4 most decision-relevant obligations of the 5 mapped. All contribution signals on this table are vendor-stated.

Obligation	Software contribution	Verdict	Relationship	Scope impact	Evidence ref
TechnicalMechanisms the software executes
Art. 21.2(d) Cybersecurity in supply chain & vendor management	Masking data before sharing with sub-contractors reduces residual risk in supply chain.	Contributes	Contributing	Reduces exposure : Blast radius of supply-chain incidents reduced.	Whitepaper: NIS2 brief?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).
Art. 21.2(j) Data integrity, encryption where appropriate	Format-preserving masking as technical measure on non-production data.	Contributes	Contributing	Reduces exposure : One of several technical measures expected by Art. 21.2(j).	Admin guide: FPE?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).
OperationalProcesses your organisation operates, software-assisted
Art. 21.2(e) Security of NIS acquisition, development, maintenance	Data masking integrated in dev/test cycles supports secure development practices.	Contributes	Contributing	Enables process : Auditable evidence of non-prod data protection.	Admin guide: Deployment?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).
Art. 21.2(j) evidence Encryption-equivalent evidence for incident reporting	Masking job reports demonstrating encryption-equivalent application on non-prod, feeding NIS2 reporting cycle.	Contributes	Contributing	Documents control : Feeds Art. 23 incident reporting documentation.	Admin guide: Reporting?Public vendor documentation, organised and mapped by CL. Not independently verified (Get Listed tier).

Vendor Posture for NIS2

Vendor-level contractual posture, complementary to org-operated coverage. Not scored.

Supply-chain language

Contract clauses available, NIS2-aligned terminology.

Incident notification

Vendor flows down within own SLA, customer-side reporting timing applies.

Risk management coop.

Available on enterprise contracts, on request for SaaS.

National variance

Vendor supports adapting clauses per Member State transposition.

Compliance scope impact, NIS2 supply chain

Before Accutive ADM Platform

Live data in sub-contractor environments : Full supply chain risk exposure under Art. 21.2(d). Sub-contractor incident propagates to essential entity.

Supply chain masking Art. 21.2(d)

After Accutive ADM Platform

Masked data in sub-contractor environments : Residual supply chain risk reduced. Incident severity lowered for masked datasets.

Not addressed in this regulation

Art. 20Governance, board-level accountability

Board governance not addressed by data masking. Requires GRC tooling and management training.

3.3

Framework Detail

For audit teams and certifying bodies that work with framework controls rather than regulation articles directly, here are the relevant control mappings. Same 6-column structure as regulation detail. Frameworks covered at Compliance Labs: NIST CSF 2.0, NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, ISO/IEC 27001:2022, MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise.

NIST CSF 2.0 – US-origin, cross-sector

Maps to PR.DS data-security outcomes – informs your NIST CSF posture

Strong

Get Listed: all signals Vendor-Stated, applied to CSF 2.0 functions and categories.

Covered by the software

Subcategory	Software contribution	Capability	Relationship	Scope impact	Evidence ref
PR.DS-1 Data-at-rest is protected	Vendor-Stated Masking renders non-prod data unreadable at rest.	Static masking	Direct	Non-prod data-at-rest protection mechanism documented.	Vendor datasheet
PR.DS-5 Protections against data leaks are implemented	Vendor-Stated Masking in non-prod reduces data leak surface from dev/test environments.	Static masking Subsetting	Direct	Documented mechanism for PR.DS-5 in non-prod scope.	Vendor PCI / data protection brief
ID.AM-3 Organizational communication and data flows are mapped	Vendor-Stated Sensitive data discovery contributes to organisational data flow inventory.	Discovery	Contributing	Discovery outputs feed broader data flow mapping effort.	Vendor classification guide
PR.DS-3 Assets are formally managed throughout removal, transfers, and disposition	Vendor-Stated Masking applied during data transfer to non-prod environments documents one disposition pattern.	Static masking	Contributing	Non-prod transfer pattern documented.	Vendor admin guide

NIST SP 800-53 – US Federal baseline

Maps to SC-28, SI-12, MP-6 controls – informs your control baseline

Strong

Get Listed: all signals Vendor-Stated, applied to NIST 800-53 control families.

Covered by the software

Control	Software contribution	Capability	Relationship	Scope impact	Evidence ref
SC-28 Protection of Information at Rest	Vendor-Stated Masking as compensating control for non-prod data at rest.	Static masking	Direct	Compensating control documented for non-prod scope.	Vendor security brief
SI-12 Information Management and Retention	Vendor-Stated Subsetting + masking enforce retention/minimisation policies in non-prod.	Subsetting	Direct	Retention enforcement mechanism documented.	Vendor admin guide
MP-6 Media Sanitization	Vendor-Stated Pre-disposition masking of datasets being relocated outside controlled environments.	Static masking	Contributing	Logical sanitization for data-level disposition.	Vendor case study
SC-8 Transmission Confidentiality & Integrity	Not addressed Transmission protection (TLS) not addressed by data masking software.	n/a	n/a	Out of category scope.	n/a

ISO/IEC 27001 – International standard

Maps to A.8.11 data masking, a named Annex A control – informs your ISMS

Strong

Get Listed: all signals Vendor-Stated. The 2022 revision explicitly names data masking as an Annex A control.

Covered by the software

Annex A control	Software contribution	Capability	Relationship	Scope impact	Evidence ref
A.8.11 Data masking	Vendor-Stated Direct implementation of the named Annex A control.	Static masking FPE	Direct	ISO Annex A control directly fulfilled.	Vendor ISO mapping document
A.8.10 Information deletion	Vendor-Stated Irreversible masking equivalent to logical deletion for non-prod use cases.	Static masking	Contributing	Logical-deletion-equivalent for non-prod scope.	Vendor admin guide
A.8.12 Data leakage prevention	Vendor-Stated Reduces leak surface in non-prod environments.	Static masking	Contributing	Non-prod leak surface reduction documented.	Vendor brief
A.5.34 Privacy and protection of PII	Vendor-Stated Pseudonymisation and de-identification mechanisms support PII protection.	Static masking Discovery	Direct	PII protection mechanism in non-prod documented.	Vendor privacy brief
A.5.33 Protection of records	Vendor-Stated Masking job audit logs as record-protection mechanism.	Audit log	Contributing	Record-protection mechanism for masking operations.	Vendor admin guide

MITRE ATT&CK – Cross-sector threat model

Maps to M1041, M1057 mitigations – informs your threat coverage

Supporting

Get Listed: all signals Vendor-Stated, applied to MITRE ATT&CK mitigations. For Data Masking & TDM, ATT&CK coverage is narrow by design. The software contributes to a small set of mitigations rather than detective controls.

Covered by the software against ATT&CK mitigations

Mitigation	Software contribution	Capability	Relationship	Scope impact	Evidence ref
M1041 Encrypt Sensitive Information T1530 T1078	Vendor-Stated Format-preserving masking renders non-production data non-readable at rest. Contributes to encryption-equivalent protection for the de-identified perimeter.	Static masking Format-preserving encryption	Contributing	Reduces exposure : Non-prod data rendered non-readable.	Datasheet: Masking section
M1057 Data Loss Prevention T1199 T1078	Vendor-Stated Pre-production data sanitization reduces blast radius if a non-production environment is compromised. No exploitable PII / PHI / PAN extractable.	Static masking Test data subsetting	Contributing	Reduces exposure : Blast radius reduced through sanitization of non-prod environments.	Datasheet: Test data section

4.1

Risk Reduction Narrative

Non-production environments are a recurring breach vector across all sectors. Compliance Labs (CL) threat intel corpus indicates that a significant share of major data breach investigations in 2025 referenced dev / test / QA environments containing real production data as either the initial vector or the data-exfiltration target.

Accutive ADM Platform's contribution to risk reduction is structural rather than detective: it removes the underlying exposure in masked environments by ensuring non-production data is masked rather than real. This shifts the risk profile from "detect and respond" (which assumes the data is there) to "the data was never there to begin with".

For organisations operating in regulated sectors with active non-production environments, this translates into reduced breach notification triggers from non-prod incidents, and a measurable reduction in vendor chain complexity downstream.

241 days Average breach lifecycle. In masked non-production environments, that window exposes no identifiable individuals.

IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2025, p. 7

4.2

Sector briefing

What your sector is facing, what it costs, and where Accutive ADM Platform fits. Sourced from the CL sector corpus; each signal anchored to a capability or obligation.

risks in your sector

where Accutive ADM Platform helps

handled by other categories

Decision signals

What a breach costs here

$7.42M average healthcare breach, the highest of any industry.

IBM Cost of a Data Breach 2025

What insurers now expect

Data-exposure controls increasingly condition cyber coverage and premiums.

Cyber claims corpus 2026

What your peers do

A minority of healthcare organisations protect non-production data, while audits tighten.

GRC benchmark corpus 2026

What's coming next

Shadow AI pulls production data into unsanctioned pipelines across the sector.

AI security corpus 2026

What's at stake for your board

Director liability for cyber oversight is rising; regulators name governance explicitly.

D&O insurance corpus 2026

What regulators are tightening

De-identification adequacy draws expanded audit scrutiny across the sector.

Regulatory landscape corpus 2026

Where this software fits

Covered by Accutive ADM Platform

Insider access to non-prod data ?

Static masking – High exposure

Cloud misconfig on non-prod stores ?

Masked data only – High – +22%

Third-party data sharing (partial) ?

Pre-share masking – High – +28%

Credential compromise via dev tools (partial) ?

Devalues masked access – Med – +12%

Needs other categories

Ransomware on production

High – +18%

Endpoint Security

Phishing / Business Email Compromise

High – +15%

Identity & Access

Living-off-the-land / fileless

Med – +9%

Endpoint Security

AI-augmented social engineering

Med – +44%

Identity & Access

Techniques in your sector

Technique (MITRE ATT&CK)

Sector rank

Mitigation

T1486 – Data encrypted for impact

Endpoint Security

T1530 – Data from cloud storage

M1057 Data masking

T1078 – Valid accounts

M1041 on non-prod data (partial)

T1199 – Trusted relationship

Pre-share masking (partial)

T1566 – Phishing

Email Security

Technique prevalence corpus 2026 – ranks per sector observations.

See the full MITRE mapping

4.3

Real-world scenarios

Healthcare US, large hospital network

Contractor laptop with live EHR data is stolen

Without masking

Full PHI on stolen laptop. HIPAA breach notification triggered. Mandatory HHS OCR report, media notice if >500 affected, BAA chain audit. Estimated cost: $8.5M+ on Healthcare US benchmarks.

With Accutive ADM Platform

Stolen data contains only masked PHI, no identifiable individuals. No breach trigger under §164.402. Incident downgraded to internal.

Regulation impacted: HIPAA §164.402, §164.404, §164.514(b)(2)

Financial Services EU, retail bank

Misconfigured non-prod S3 bucket exposed publicly

Without masking

Live PAN + customer data exposed for 14 days. GDPR Art. 33 notification within 72h. PCI DSS QSA review triggered. Estimated fine exposure: €4M+ on EU FS benchmarks.

With Accutive ADM Platform

Exposed data is tokenised PAN + masked customer data. No GDPR breach notification triggered for masked perimeter. PCI scope contained.

Regulation impacted: GDPR Art. 33-34, PCI DSS Req. 3.4

Retail US, e-commerce platform

Third-party QA partner hit by ransomware, data exfiltrated

Without masking

Live customer data + payment info exfiltrated by ransomware operator. CCPA private right of action exposure on California residents. PCI DSS scope of QA partner triggered. Estimated cost: $5M+ in litigation and notification.

With Accutive ADM Platform

Exfiltrated data is masked, no PCI scope impact. No consumer notification under CCPA §1798.150. Third-party chain risk contained.

Regulation impacted: CCPA §1798.150, PCI DSS Req. 3.4, DORA Art. 28 (if FS)

5.1

Methodology overview

Three independent corpora

Compliance Labs builds its software evaluation from three independently maintained reference sources. A regulation corpus covering the obligations that apply to a software category, built directly from primary legal texts and official guidance. A capability reference list for the category (here Data Masking & TDM), built from product documentation across vendors plus expert input. A formal control relationship typology drawn from widely recognised standards, used to characterise how a capability relates to an obligation (direct, contributing, supporting, equivalent).

Why independence matters

Each source is built independently to avoid the well-known failure mode where an LLM, asked to extract both obligations and capabilities in a single pass, invents mappings between them. Compliance Labs (CL) keeps the three sources separate, then articulates them in a controlled mapping step. This is the source of the coverage indicators shown throughout the fiche: what the software covers directly, and what remains operated or decided by the organisation.

What Get Listed means here

For this Get Listed fiche, all software contribution signals are Vendor-Stated: derived from public vendor documentation that CL has organised, mapped, and cross-referenced, but not independently verified through artifact inspection or testing. Outcome verification requires the Get Proven or Get Scale tiers, see section 5.3.

5.2

Sources examined for this fiche

Vendor documentation reviewed

Accutive ADM Platform product datasheet (latest public version, 2025-Q4)
Accutive Administration Guide, chapters relevant to HIPAA, GDPR, PCI DSS
Accutive Deployment Guide, secure-by-default configuration
Accutive Security Advisory pages, including third-party component disclosures
Accutive case studies / customer references (3 retrieved, healthcare, FS, retail)
Accutive blog posts on regulatory positioning (last 18 months)
Accutive integration documentation (CI/CD, SSO, KMS interfaces)

Regulation texts referenced

HIPAA 45 CFR Parts 160, 162, 164 (HHS, 2024 consolidated)
GDPR EU Reg. 2016/679 (Official Journal of the EU)
PCI DSS v4.0 (PCI Security Standards Council, 2022 + 2024 errata)
DORA EU Reg. 2022/2554 (Official Journal of the EU)
NIS2 Directive EU 2022/2555 (Official Journal of the EU)
CCPA / CPRA, California Civil Code §1798.100 et seq. (CPPA consolidated text)

Frameworks & standards referenced

NIST Cybersecurity Framework version 2.0 (NIST, 2024)
NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, Security and Privacy Controls
NIST SP 800-53A, Assessing Security and Privacy Controls (basis for CL tier system)
ISO/IEC 27001:2022 with Annex A controls
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Matrix (Mitigations & Techniques, 2026)
NIST mapping standards for formal control relationship typology

Threat intel corpus

IBM Cost of a Data Breach 2025 (industry breach costs)
Sector threat corpus (survey in progress)
IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2026
Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report 2026
HIMSS Cybersecurity Survey 2026 (healthcare-specific)
Aggregated: sector enforcement notices (HHS OCR, EU DPAs, CPPA, ESAs)

Limitations of this tier (Get Listed)

The following elements are within Get Proven or Get Scale scope. See section 5.3 for the upgrade paths.

Internal vendor security artifacts (SBOM details, code review reports, internal threat models)
Customer audit reports against the software
Vendor incident response logs
Independent test results on masking effectiveness on edge cases
Median time-to-patch metrics on past CVEs

5.3

Evaluation tiers and what each covers

Get Listed current tier

Documentary examination Vendor-Stated

Access to compliance-relevant software solutions and their Compliance Assurance Evaluation (CAE) reports.
Submit 1 software for a baseline CAE report.?
Software mapped to up to three regulations and frameworks from a standard set, including PCI DSS, HIPAA, GDPR, NIST CSF, NIST SP 800-53 and MITRE ATT&CK, with no selective scoping.
Benchmarking: capabilities and regulatory mapping compared to competing vendors, plus sector insights.

Get Proven

Extended examination CL-Examined

Everything in Get Listed, plus:
Access to 1,000+ compliance-relevant software solutions and their CAE reports.
Submit 1 software for a full CAE report.?
Coverage extended to up to 10 regulations and frameworks aligned with your target markets, drawn from a library of 40+.
Report refreshed twice a year, covering new regulations, capability changes, security vulnerabilities and MITRE updates.
Quarterly regulatory alerts when regulations change with impact on your evaluation.

Request a quote

Get Scale

Examined, interviewed and tested CL-Verified

Everything in Get Proven, plus:
Submit 1 software for an Evidence Effectiveness Evaluation (EEE) report, extending the documentary examination to direct testing.?
Dedicated compliance analyst: one point of contact across evaluation, regulatory changes and audit preparation.
Monthly performance report covering evaluation results and compliance posture.
Full access to exclusive resources: tools, guides, templates and policies.?

Request a quote

Get Ready

One-time engagement. Fixed scope: NIST SSDF and EU Cyber Resilience Act.

Submit software for SSDF / CRA Readiness assessment and report.?
CRA scope, product classification and conformity route.
Gap analysis for CRA requirements and SSDF practices.
Cybersecurity risk assessment and prioritized remediation roadmap.
Compliance documentation assessment against CRA conformity and SSDF attestation requirements.
Custom Testing: same rigour applied to pre-release software, internal applications, cloud connectors and proprietary pipelines.

Request a quote

5.6

Consolidated caveats

Capability coverage: 4 capabilities in the Data Masking and TDM reference list are Not in Vendor Documentation, including dynamic masking, ML-assisted free-text discovery, and runtime DLP integration.
Outcome verification: Median time-to-patch on past CVEs, masking effectiveness on edge cases (low-cardinality data, geographic distributions), and statistical fidelity of synthetic data are not assessed at Get Listed.
Scope reduction claims: The 40% CDE reduction figure cited for PCI is a vendor claim from a case study. Customer-side validation is required for any specific environment.
HIPAA Safe Harbor adequacy: Removal of 18 identifiers is a necessary but not sufficient condition. Quasi-identifier risk in the specific dataset still requires customer-side assessment.
Out of category scope: NERC CIP (OT/ICS), DORA Art. 26-27 TLPT, NIST 800-53 SC-8 (transmission), full HIPAA §164.312 technical safeguards are not addressable by data masking and are flagged as out-of-scope.

Glossary

Scoring

Covered by the software vs Remains with your organisation – "Covered by the software" measures how many regulatory requirements are addressed directly by the software. "Remains with your organisation" measures how many compliance processes the organisation operates or decides, with support from the software. Both are dynamic across the Viewing filter. Category-level capability coverage (static) is shown in the Capabilities tab.

Verdict

Covers – The software addresses the obligation directly through a documented mechanism it executes (technical control).

Contributes – The software addresses part of the obligation; your organisation operates the process that completes it (operational control).

Supports – The software produces outputs that feed a governance decision your organisation makes (management control).

Direct, Contributing, Supporting, Equivalent – Categories from the formal control relationship typology used by CL. Direct, capability fulfils the obligation through a mechanism named in the regulation. Contributing, capability adds value but the obligation is broader. Supporting, capability participates indirectly. Equivalent, capability replaces the obligation's named mechanism.

Validation depth

Vendor-Stated, CL-Examined, CL-Verified – Three depth levels aligned with NIST SP 800-53A. Vendor-Stated (Get Listed), signal derived from vendor public documentation, organised and mapped by CL but not independently verified. CL-Examined (Get Proven), signal validated against internal vendor artifacts. CL-Verified (Get Scale), signal validated through testing of running software.

Control nature and verdict – Each obligation in the Regulation Detail tables is classified by control nature: Technical (mechanisms the software executes), Operational (processes your organisation operates with software assistance), or Management (governance decisions your organisation makes). Each also carries a verdict (Covers, Contributes, or Supports) reflecting how far Accutive ADM Platform addresses it. The specific effect appears in the Scope impact column.

Capability signals

Table-Stakes – A capability considered baseline for the Data Masking & TDM category. Expected in any serious product.

Advanced – A capability beyond the category baseline, signalling above-average maturity.

Emerging – A newer or less common capability, not yet standard across the category.

Out-of-box – Available by default without significant configuration.

Config change – Requires configuration or setup work to enable.

Not in Vendor Documentation – No public documentation found for this claim at the Get Listed tier.

Adjacent – A capability group outside the core Data Masking & TDM category, belonging instead to a neighbouring category (GRC, IAM, SIEM). Shown for context; not scored with the same rigour as the core category.

5.8

References

Regulations

HIPAA, 45 CFR Parts 160, 162, 164, HHS
GDPR EU Regulation 2016/679, Official Journal of the EU
PCI DSS v4.0, PCI Security Standards Council
DORA EU Regulation 2022/2554, Official Journal of the EU
NIS2 Directive EU 2022/2555, Official Journal of the EU
CCPA / CPRA, California Civil Code §1798.100 et seq., CPPA

Frameworks & standards

NIST Cybersecurity Framework version 2.0, NIST
NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, Security and Privacy Controls
NIST SP 800-53A, Assessing Security and Privacy Controls
ISO/IEC 27001:2022 with Annex A controls
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Matrix (Mitigations & Techniques)
NIST mapping standards (formal control relationship typology)

Threat intelligence corpus

IBM Cost of a Data Breach 2025
Sector threat corpus (survey in progress)
IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2026
Verizon Data Breach Investigations Report 2026

FAQ

Frequently asked questions

Accutive ADM Platform is not a compliance software in itself, but it directly contributes to GDPR applicability. Its Safe Harbor de-identification and static data masking remove personal data from non-production environments, supporting GDPR data minimisation and pseudonymisation obligations (Articles 25 and 32). Compliance Labs rates it a strong fit on GDPR at the Get Listed tier, based on public vendor documentation. Ultimate compliance responsibility remains with the organisation deploying the software.

Compliance Labs evaluates Accutive ADM Platform against six regulations: GDPR, HIPAA, PCI DSS, CCPA/CPRA, DORA and NIS2. It shows a strong fit on GDPR and HIPAA, a moderate fit on PCI DSS and CCPA, and a supporting role on DORA and NIS2. The evaluation maps the software's capabilities to specific obligations under each regulation using an independent, three-source methodology.

Yes. According to vendor documentation, Accutive ADM Platform provides Safe Harbor de-identification covering all 18 HIPAA PHI identifiers, contributing directly to 45 CFR §164.514(b)(2). This removes de-identified datasets from the scope of the HIPAA Privacy Rule. At the Get Listed tier this is Vendor-Stated; outcome verification on actual schemas requires the Get Proven or Get Scale tiers.

These are Compliance Labs' three evaluation tiers, aligned with NIST SP 800-53A. Get Listed is a free documentary examination based on public vendor documentation (signals are Vendor-Stated). Get Proven adds an extended examination of internal vendor artifacts under NDA (CL-Examined). Get Scale adds interviews and testing under CL methodology (CL-Verified). Higher tiers provide stronger, independently verified evidence.

Closing the gap. Some regulations and frameworks require customer-side processes beyond the software, such as DORA Art. 26-27 TLPT, GDPR full anonymisation, PCI Req. 3.5/3.6 KMS, or NIS2 supply chain governance. To close these gaps end-to-end for a regulation in your sector, Compliance Labs offers an Implementation Guide combining vendor configuration, complementary tooling and organisational process design. Request a guide proposal

This fiche is Get Listed: a documentary examination of public vendor sources. All software contribution signals are Vendor-Stated, organised and mapped by Compliance Labs but not independently verified through artifact inspection or testing. It describes how the software contributes to regulatory applicability; it does not certify the vendor as compliant and does not constitute legal or compliance advice. Ultimate compliance responsibility remains with your organisation. Vendors: dispute or correct information on this fiche. See what Get Proven verifies.