Compliance that reads the code, not just the config.
Zairen's static analysis checks the codebase itself, then maps findings to the controls your audit asks about across ISO 27001, SOC 2, and PCI DSS.
Why config checks only cover half the surface
Config-level checks catch the perimeter: MFA turned on, buckets locked, policies attached. They miss what happens inside the application - a hardcoded secret, a weak cryptographic call, an authorization check missing on one route, cardholder data logged where it shouldn't be. That's the half that code-level analysis surfaces.
Evidence that reflects what the system does
Because Zairen reads the code directly, the evidence it generates describes how the system actually behaves - not just what it has been told to allow. Findings are mapped to the relevant control, timestamped, and kept current as the code changes.
One control library, three frameworks
A single finding - a passing check that every API route requires authentication - can satisfy overlapping controls across ISO 27001, SOC 2, and PCI DSS at once. You map evidence once, not three times in three spreadsheets.
From finding to fix
When a control fails, Zairen generates a specific, plain-language suggestion tied to the actual code: which file, which function, what the change looks like, and why it satisfies the control. An engineer can act on it without first reading the framework document.
Does Zairen store my raw source code?
No. Static analysis runs against the artifacts you connect and maps findings to control evidence rather than retaining a full copy of your source.
How is code-level compliance different from config checks?
Config checks see the perimeter; static analysis reads the application logic, catching what actually happens in code such as weak crypto, hardcoded secrets, and missing authorization checks.