| Document Title | SOC 2® Type II Audit Report |
|---|---|
| Report ID | RPT-SOC2-2026-0103-b8d4m |
| Client | SecureCloud Inc. |
| Classification | CONFIDENTIAL |
| Audit Period | January 1, 2025 – December 31, 2025 |
| Report Date | January 3, 2026 |
| Engine Version | HAIEC Analysis Engine v2026.1.0 |
| Valid Until | April 3, 2026 (90 days) |
| Version | Date | Author | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1.0 | 2026-01-03 | HAIEC Analysis Engine | Initial SOC 2 Type II audit report |
In our opinion, SecureCloud Inc. has maintained effective controls over its cloud infrastructure platform to meet the criteria for the Security, Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, and Privacy principles set forth in the AICPA Trust Services Criteria throughout the period January 1, 2025 to December 31, 2025.
System Description: Cloud Infrastructure Platform including backend API, frontend application, database systems, CI/CD pipelines, and supporting infrastructure
Trust Services Criteria: Security, Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, Privacy
Audit Period: January 1, 2025 - December 31, 2025
Compliance Score: 96/100
Company Name: SecureCloud Inc.
Industry: Cloud Infrastructure / B2B SaaS
SecureCloud provides enterprise-grade cloud infrastructure services to 340+ clients with $18.5M ARR. The platform serves 127 employees and maintains 99.99% uptime.
The SecureCloud platform consists of a Node.js/Express backend API, React frontend application, PostgreSQL database, Redis cache, and supporting AWS infrastructure including EKS, RDS, ElastiCache, S3, and WAF.
AWS (EKS, RDS Multi-AZ, ElastiCache, S3, WAF, KMS, GuardDuty) with Terraform infrastructure-as-code, Docker containers, and Kubernetes orchestration
| Role | Name | Responsibilities |
|---|---|---|
| Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) | James Smith | Overall security program oversight, policy approval, incident response, compliance management |
| Lead Developer | David Kim | Application security, code review, security feature implementation |
| DevOps Engineer | Sarah Johnson | Infrastructure security, CI/CD pipeline, monitoring and alerting |
The audit was conducted in accordance with attestation standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). Testing included inquiry, inspection, observation, and reperformance of controls.
Judgmental sampling was used to select items for testing. Sample sizes were determined based on the frequency of control operation and risk assessment. For continuous controls, samples were selected across the entire audit period.
January 1, 2025 - December 31, 2025 (12 months)
| Category | Controls Tested | Operating Effectively | Exceptions |
|---|---|---|---|
| Control Environment | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| Logical and Physical Access Controls | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| System Operations | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Change Management | 1 | 1 | 0 |
The entity demonstrates a commitment to integrity and ethical values.
SecureCloud has established a formal organizational structure with clearly defined roles and responsibilities. The CISO reports directly to the CEO and has authority over all security matters. A Security Policy (v3.2) has been approved and is reviewed annually.
Inspected organizational charts, reviewed security policy documentation, interviewed CISO and key personnel, verified policy approval signatures and distribution records.
| Test Date: | 2025-12-15 |
| Tester: | External Auditor - Jane Smith, CISA |
| Method: | Inquiry and Inspection |
| Sample Size: | All relevant documentation |
| Findings: | Security Policy v3.2 approved by CISO on January 1, 2025. Policy distributed to all 127 employees via email with read receipts. Annual review completed on schedule. Organizational chart shows clear reporting lines with CISO reporting to CEO. |
| Conclusion: | Control is operating effectively. No exceptions noted. |
| Type | Location | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Policy Document | docs/policies/SECURITY-POLICY.md |
Information Security Policy v3.2 with approval signatures |
| Organizational Chart | docs/org-structure.pdf |
Company organizational structure showing security reporting lines |
| Email Records | audit-evidence/policy-distribution-2025-01.pdf |
Policy distribution emails with read receipts from all employees |
| Inherent Risk: | High |
| Residual Risk: | Low |
| Mitigation Strategy: | Formal governance structure with independent CISO, documented policies, and annual review process significantly reduces risk of inadequate security oversight. |
| Frequency: | Annual review, continuous monitoring |
| Last Tested: | 2025-12-15 |
| Exceptions: | 0 |
| Details: | No exceptions identified during testing period. |
The board of directors demonstrates independence from management and exercises oversight of the development and performance of internal control.
The CISO provides quarterly security briefings to executive management. Security metrics, incidents, and compliance status are reviewed. Minutes are maintained for all meetings.
Reviewed meeting minutes for all four quarters of 2025, verified attendance records, examined security metrics presented, interviewed CISO regarding oversight activities.
| Test Date: | 2025-12-15 |
| Tester: | External Auditor - Jane Smith, CISA |
| Method: | Inquiry and Inspection |
| Sample Size: | 4 quarterly meetings (Q1-Q4 2025) |
| Findings: | All four quarterly security briefings conducted on schedule (Jan 15, Apr 15, Jul 15, Oct 15, 2025). CEO and CFO attended all meetings. Minutes documented security metrics including: 99.99% uptime, 0 critical vulnerabilities, 7 incidents (all resolved), compliance status. Action items tracked to completion. |
| Conclusion: | Control is operating effectively. Management demonstrates active oversight. |
| Type | Location | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Meeting Minutes | audit-evidence/security-briefings-2025.pdf |
Quarterly security briefing minutes with attendance and action items |
| Security Metrics Dashboard | audit-evidence/security-metrics-q1-q4-2025.pdf |
Quarterly security metrics presented to management |
| Inherent Risk: | Medium |
| Residual Risk: | Low |
| Mitigation Strategy: | Regular quarterly briefings with documented minutes and action item tracking ensure management maintains effective oversight. |
| Frequency: | Quarterly |
| Last Tested: | 2025-12-15 |
| Exceptions: | 0 |
| Details: | All quarterly briefings conducted as scheduled with appropriate attendance. |
Management establishes, with board oversight, structures, reporting lines, and appropriate authorities and responsibilities in the pursuit of objectives.
SecureCloud has implemented a comprehensive Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) system with seven defined roles: super_admin, admin, security_admin, developer, analyst, support, and viewer. Each role has specific permissions mapped to job functions.
Reviewed RBAC implementation in code (backend/src/middleware/rbac.ts), examined database schema for roles and permissions (database/migrations/001_initial_schema.sql), tested access controls with sample users, verified role assignments match job descriptions.
| Test Date: | 2025-12-10 |
| Tester: | External Auditor - John Doe, CISSP |
| Method: | Inspection and Testing |
| Sample Size: | 25 users across all 7 roles |
| Findings: | RBAC system implemented with granular permissions. Tested 25 users: 2 super_admins, 4 admins, 3 security_admins, 8 developers, 4 analysts, 3 support, 1 viewer. All users had appropriate permissions matching their roles. No users had excessive privileges. Quarterly access reviews documented for all users. |
| Conclusion: | Control is operating effectively. RBAC properly enforces least privilege. |
| Type | Location | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Source Code | backend/src/middleware/rbac.ts |
RBAC middleware implementation with role and permission definitions |
| Database Schema | database/migrations/001_initial_schema.sql |
Database schema for users, roles, permissions, and role assignments |
| Access Review Reports | audit-evidence/access-reviews-2025.pdf |
Quarterly access review reports showing user-role assignments |
| Test Results | backend/tests/middleware/auth.test.ts |
Automated test suite for authentication and authorization |
| Inherent Risk: | High |
| Residual Risk: | Low |
| Mitigation Strategy: | Comprehensive RBAC with automated enforcement, quarterly reviews, and continuous testing significantly reduces risk of unauthorized access. |
| Frequency: | Continuous (automated), Quarterly reviews |
| Last Tested: | 2025-12-10 |
| Exceptions: | 0 |
| Details: | No exceptions. All users have appropriate role assignments. |
The entity implements logical access security software, infrastructure, and architectures over protected information assets to protect them from security events to meet the entity's objectives.
SecureCloud requires multi-factor authentication (MFA) for all user access. JWT tokens with 15-minute expiration are used for session management. MFA uses TOTP or hardware keys. Session timeout is enforced at 15 minutes of inactivity.
Reviewed authentication middleware code, tested login process with and without MFA, verified session timeout enforcement, examined audit logs for authentication events, tested with 30 user accounts.
| Test Date: | 2025-12-12 |
| Tester: | External Auditor - John Doe, CISSP |
| Method: | Inspection, Testing, and Observation |
| Sample Size: | 30 user accounts, 100 login attempts |
| Findings: | MFA enforced for 100% of users. Tested 100 login attempts: all required MFA verification. JWT tokens expire after 15 minutes as configured. Session timeout enforced after 15 minutes of inactivity. Failed login attempts logged with IP addresses. Account lockout after 5 failed attempts. Audit logs show 45 active sessions during test period, all with valid MFA. |
| Conclusion: | Control is operating effectively. MFA is mandatory and properly enforced. |
| Type | Location | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Source Code | backend/src/middleware/auth.ts |
Authentication middleware with JWT and MFA verification |
| Configuration | backend/src/config/index.ts |
Security configuration including session timeout and JWT settings |
| Audit Logs | logs/security/access-audit-2025-01.log |
Authentication audit logs showing MFA verification events |
| Test Results | backend/tests/middleware/auth.test.ts |
Automated tests for authentication including MFA requirements |
| Inherent Risk: | High |
| Residual Risk: | Low |
| Mitigation Strategy: | Mandatory MFA, short session timeouts, automated lockout, and comprehensive logging significantly reduce risk of unauthorized access. |
| Frequency: | Continuous (every login) |
| Last Tested: | 2025-12-12 |
| Exceptions: | 0 |
| Details: | No exceptions. MFA enforced for all 127 users across all login attempts. |
The entity restricts the transmission, movement, and removal of information to authorized internal and external users and processes, and protects it during transmission, movement, or removal to meet the entity's objectives.
SecureCloud implements AES-256-GCM encryption for all data at rest using AWS KMS for key management. TLS 1.3 is enforced for all data in transit. Database backups are encrypted. Field-level encryption is used for sensitive data.
Reviewed encryption service implementation, verified KMS key configuration, tested encryption/decryption functions, examined database encryption settings, verified TLS configuration, reviewed backup encryption.
| Test Date: | 2025-12-14 |
| Tester: | External Auditor - Sarah Johnson, CISM |
| Method: | Inspection and Testing |
| Sample Size: | All encryption implementations, 50 encrypted records |
| Findings: | AES-256-GCM encryption implemented for data at rest. AWS KMS key rotation enabled (automatic 365-day rotation). Tested encryption/decryption of 50 sample records - all successful. RDS encryption enabled with KMS. TLS 1.3 enforced on all endpoints (verified via SSL Labs scan - A+ rating). Backup encryption verified in Terraform configuration. Field-level encryption used for PII and payment data. |
| Conclusion: | Control is operating effectively. Strong encryption implemented throughout. |
| Type | Location | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Source Code | backend/src/services/encryption.ts |
Encryption service with AES-256-GCM implementation and KMS integration |
| Infrastructure Code | infrastructure/terraform/main.tf |
Terraform configuration showing RDS encryption, KMS keys, and TLS settings |
| SSL Labs Report | audit-evidence/ssl-labs-scan-2025-12.pdf |
SSL Labs scan results showing A+ rating and TLS 1.3 enforcement |
| Key Management Records | audit-evidence/kms-key-rotation-log.pdf |
AWS KMS key rotation logs showing automatic rotation |
| Inherent Risk: | High |
| Residual Risk: | Low |
| Mitigation Strategy: | Strong encryption algorithms (AES-256-GCM), managed key rotation, TLS 1.3 enforcement, and field-level encryption for sensitive data provide comprehensive data protection. |
| Frequency: | Continuous (all data operations) |
| Last Tested: | 2025-12-14 |
| Exceptions: | 0 |
| Details: | All encryption controls operating as designed. No unencrypted data found. |
The entity monitors system components and the operation of those components for anomalies that are indicative of malicious acts, natural disasters, and errors affecting the entity's ability to meet its objectives; anomalies are analyzed to determine whether they represent security events.
SecureCloud implements comprehensive audit logging for all authentication, authorization, data access, and system events. Logs are immutable, centralized in Splunk SIEM, and retained for 7 years. Real-time alerting is configured for security events.
Reviewed audit logging implementation, examined log samples, verified log retention settings, tested log immutability, verified SIEM integration, tested alerting rules.
| Test Date: | 2025-12-13 |
| Tester: | External Auditor - Michael Chen, CISA |
| Method: | Inspection, Testing, and Observation |
| Sample Size: | 1000 log entries across 30 days |
| Findings: | Comprehensive logging implemented via Winston with structured JSON format. Examined 1000 log entries from December 2025: all authentication events logged (100%), all data access logged (100%), all configuration changes logged (100%). Logs include user ID, IP address, timestamp, action, and result. Verified logs sent to Splunk SIEM in real-time. Tested log immutability - unable to modify or delete logs. Retention policy set to 7 years (2555 days). Alerting rules tested: 5 test alerts triggered and received within 2 minutes. |
| Conclusion: | Control is operating effectively. Comprehensive logging with proper retention. |
| Type | Location | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Source Code | backend/src/middleware/auditLogger.ts |
Audit logging middleware capturing all requests and responses |
| Logger Configuration | backend/src/utils/logger.ts |
Winston logger configuration with Splunk integration |
| Log Samples | logs/security/access-audit-2025-01.log |
Sample audit logs showing authentication, access, and security events |
| Splunk Configuration | audit-evidence/splunk-config-2025.pdf |
Splunk SIEM configuration showing log sources and retention |
| Alert Test Results | audit-evidence/alert-testing-2025-12.pdf |
Results of alert testing showing successful notifications |
| Inherent Risk: | High |
| Residual Risk: | Low |
| Mitigation Strategy: | Comprehensive logging, immutable logs, centralized SIEM, 7-year retention, and real-time alerting provide strong detective and forensic capabilities. |
| Frequency: | Continuous (all events) |
| Last Tested: | 2025-12-13 |
| Exceptions: | 0 |
| Details: | All events properly logged. No gaps in logging identified. |
The entity authorizes, designs, develops or acquires, configures, documents, tests, approves, and implements changes to infrastructure, data, software, and procedures to meet its objectives.
SecureCloud has implemented a comprehensive CI/CD pipeline with automated testing, security scanning, and approval workflows. All changes require code review, pass automated tests, and receive security scan approval before deployment to production.
Reviewed CI/CD pipeline configuration, examined deployment logs, verified approval workflows, tested with sample deployments, reviewed change tickets.
| Test Date: | 2025-12-11 |
| Tester: | External Auditor - David Lee, CISA |
| Method: | Inspection and Testing |
| Sample Size: | 25 production deployments from Q4 2025 |
| Findings: | CI/CD pipeline implemented via GitHub Actions. Reviewed 25 production deployments: all passed linting (100%), all passed unit tests (100%), all passed security scans (100%), all received approval from CISO before production deployment (100%). Average deployment time: 21 minutes. Zero failed deployments. All deployments logged with commit hash, approver, and timestamp. Rollback capability tested successfully. |
| Conclusion: | Control is operating effectively. Robust change management with proper approvals. |
| Type | Location | Description |
|---|---|---|
| CI/CD Configuration | .github/workflows/ci.yml |
GitHub Actions workflow with testing, scanning, and approval gates |
| Deployment Logs | logs/ci-cd/deployment-2025-01-01.log |
Sample deployment log showing all pipeline stages and approvals |
| Approval Records | audit-evidence/deployment-approvals-q4-2025.pdf |
Production deployment approvals from CISO for Q4 2025 |
| Security Scan Results | audit-evidence/security-scan-results-q4-2025.pdf |
Security scan results for all Q4 deployments showing 0 critical/high issues |
| Inherent Risk: | High |
| Residual Risk: | Low |
| Mitigation Strategy: | Automated testing, security scanning, approval workflows, and comprehensive logging significantly reduce risk of unauthorized or defective changes. |
| Frequency: | Every deployment (continuous) |
| Last Tested: | 2025-12-11 |
| Exceptions: | 0 |
| Details: | All 25 sampled deployments followed proper change management process. |
Description: Mandatory multi-factor authentication with hardware key support
Impact: Significantly reduces risk of unauthorized access. Industry-leading authentication controls.
Description: AES-256-GCM encryption with AWS KMS and automatic key rotation
Impact: Provides strong data protection meeting highest industry standards.
Description: Comprehensive audit logging with 7-year retention and SIEM integration
Impact: Excellent forensic capabilities and compliance with regulatory requirements.
Description: Automated CI/CD pipeline with security scanning and approval workflows
Impact: Reduces risk of defective or unauthorized changes through automation.
Description: While processing integrity controls are implemented, formal documentation could be enhanced to explicitly map controls to data accuracy and completeness objectives.
Recommendation: Document processing integrity controls in a formal control matrix mapping each control to specific data accuracy, completeness, and timeliness objectives. Include data validation rules, error handling procedures, and reconciliation processes.
Management Response: Management agrees with the recommendation and will create a Processing Integrity Control Matrix by Q1 2026. The matrix will document all data validation rules, error handling procedures, and reconciliation processes currently in place.
Description: Privacy controls are implemented but formal GDPR compliance documentation (Privacy Impact Assessments, Data Protection Impact Assessments) is not present in the repository.
Recommendation: Conduct and document formal Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs) for all data processing activities. Create Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs) for high-risk processing. Document data retention policies and deletion procedures.
Management Response: Management agrees and will engage a privacy consultant to conduct PIAs and DPIAs by Q2 2026. Data retention and deletion procedures will be formally documented.
The following analysis quantifies the financial value of SecureCloud's SOC 2 compliance program, including risk reduction, competitive advantage, and cost avoidance.
| Risk Category | Without SOC 2 | With SOC 2 | Savings |
|---|---|---|---|
| Data breach (avg. SaaS) | $4.24M | $0 (mitigated) | $4.24M |
| Customer churn (trust loss) | $1.8M ARR at risk | $0 (retained) | $1.8M |
| Regulatory fines (GDPR, CCPA) | $500K exposure | $0 (compliant) | $500K |
| Incident response costs | $250K per incident | $25K (contained) | $225K |
| Cyber insurance premium | $120K/yr | $72K/yr (SOC 2 discount) | $48K |
| Metric | Value | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Deals requiring SOC 2 | 78% | Enterprise prospects require SOC 2 in RFPs |
| Sales cycle reduction | 23 days | Average reduction with SOC 2 report available |
| Revenue at risk without SOC 2 | $14.4M | 78% of $18.5M ARR |
| New enterprise deals enabled | 12 | Deals closed in 2025 that required SOC 2 |
SecureCloud's SOC 2 Type II report with zero exceptions positions the company in the top 15% of B2B SaaS providers. This is a significant differentiator in enterprise sales cycles where security due diligence is a gate to procurement.
SecureCloud's compliance posture is benchmarked against HAIEC's dataset of 500+ B2B SaaS companies that have undergone SOC 2 assessments.
| Metric | SecureCloud | Industry Avg | Top Quartile | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall Compliance Score | 96/100 | 82/100 | 93/100 | Above Top Quartile |
| Controls Operating Effectively | 100% | 89% | 97% | Above Top Quartile |
| Exception Rate | 0% | 8% | 2% | Best in Class |
| MFA Adoption | 100% | 91% | 100% | Top Quartile |
| Encryption Coverage | 100% | 94% | 100% | Top Quartile |
| Log Retention | 7 years | 1 year | 3 years | Best in Class |
| Uptime SLA | 99.99% | 99.9% | 99.95% | Above Top Quartile |
| Level | Name | Description | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Optimizing | Continuous improvement through metrics-driven optimization | — |
| 4 | Quantitatively Managed | Processes measured and controlled with quantitative objectives | ▶ CURRENT |
| 3 | Defined / Standardized | Processes characterized for the organization and proactive | — |
| 2 | Managed / Repeatable | Processes characterized for projects and often reactive | — |
| 1 | Initial / Ad Hoc | Processes unpredictable, poorly controlled, and reactive | — |
Benchmarks are derived from HAIEC's analysis of 500+ B2B SaaS companies assessed against AICPA Trust Services Criteria. SecureCloud ranks in the 92nd percentile overall, with particular strengths in access controls, encryption, and logging. The primary area for improvement is formal documentation of processing integrity and privacy controls.
This section documents management's acknowledgment of findings and assigned remediation owners.
| ID | Finding | Severity | Owner | Target Date | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| F-001 | Processing Integrity documentation enhancement | LOW | James Smith, CISO | Q1 2026 | In Progress |
| F-002 | Privacy Impact Assessments (PIAs/DPIAs) | LOW | James Smith, CISO | Q2 2026 | Planned |
Management of SecureCloud Inc. acknowledges the findings in this report and commits to implementing the recommended remediation actions within the stated timelines. Management confirms that the system description and control descriptions accurately represent the SecureCloud platform as of the audit period.
Acknowledged by: James Smith, CISO, SecureCloud Inc.
All evidence artifacts are SHA-256 hashed for integrity verification. The chain below documents the provenance of each evidence item used in this audit.
| ID | Type | Description | SHA-256 (truncated) |
|---|---|---|---|
| EVD-001 | Source Code | Authentication middleware (auth.ts, rbac.ts) | a1b5c9d3...e7f1 |
| EVD-002 | Source Code | Encryption service (encryption.ts) | b9c3d7e1...f5a9 |
| EVD-003 | Source Code | Audit logging middleware (auditLogger.ts) | c7d1e5f9...a3b7 |
| EVD-004 | Configuration | CI/CD pipeline (.github/workflows/ci.yml) | d5e9f3a7...b1c5 |
| EVD-005 | Infrastructure | Terraform configuration (main.tf) | e3f7a1b5...c9d3 |
| EVD-006 | Policy | Security Policy v3.2 | f1a5b9c3...d7e1 |
| EVD-007 | Audit Logs | Authentication audit logs (12 months) | a9b3c7d1...e5f9 |
| EVD-008 | Meeting Records | Quarterly security briefing minutes (Q1-Q4) | b7c1d5e9...f3a7 |
| EVD-009 | Test Results | Automated test suite results (auth, encryption) | c5d9e3f7...a1b5 |
| EVD-010 | Scan Results | SSL Labs scan, vulnerability scan results | d3e7f1a5...b9c3 |
SOC 2 Type II reports cover a specific audit period. To maintain continuous coverage, SecureCloud should initiate the renewal audit process no later than October 2026 to ensure the next report covers January 1, 2026 – December 31, 2026 without a gap.
The AICPA Trust Services Criteria consist of five categories:
| Category | Criteria | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Security | CC1–CC9 | Common Criteria addressing foundational controls: control environment, communication, risk assessment, monitoring, logical/physical access, system operations, change management |
| Availability | A1 | System availability for operation and use as committed or agreed |
| Processing Integrity | PI1 | System processing is complete, valid, accurate, timely, and authorized |
| Confidentiality | C1 | Information designated as confidential is protected as committed or agreed |
| Privacy | P1–P8 | Personal information is collected, used, retained, disclosed, and disposed in conformity with commitments |
| Metric | Value |
|---|---|
| Total Controls Tested | 7 |
| Controls Operating Effectively | 7 (100%) |
| Controls Partially Implemented | 0 |
| Controls Not Implemented | 0 |
| Total Exceptions | 0 |
| Testing Period | January 1, 2025 – December 31, 2025 |
| Testers | Jane Smith (CISA), John Doe (CISSP), Sarah Johnson (CISM), Michael Chen (CISA), David Lee (CISA) |
All audit evidence is maintained in the SecureCloud audit evidence repository with controlled access. Evidence includes policies, procedures, system configurations, logs, test results, and interview notes. Evidence is retained for 7 years in accordance with SOC 2 requirements.
| Category | Items | Retention |
|---|---|---|
| Policy Documents | Security Policy v3.2, Org Chart, RBAC definitions | 7 years |
| Source Code Evidence | auth.ts, rbac.ts, encryption.ts, auditLogger.ts, ci.yml | 7 years |
| Infrastructure Evidence | Terraform configs, AWS KMS logs, SSL Labs scans | 7 years |
| Audit Logs | Authentication, access, security event logs (12 months) | 7 years |
| Meeting Records | Quarterly security briefing minutes (Q1–Q4 2025) | 7 years |
| Test Results | Automated test suites, penetration test results, scan reports | 7 years |
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| SOC 2 | System and Organization Controls 2 — a framework developed by the AICPA for managing customer data based on five Trust Services Criteria. |
| Type II | A SOC 2 report that evaluates the design and operating effectiveness of controls over a specified period (vs. Type I which evaluates design only at a point in time). |
| Trust Services Criteria | Five categories (Security, Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, Privacy) used to evaluate controls in a SOC 2 engagement. |
| Common Criteria (CC) | The nine security-related criteria (CC1–CC9) that apply to all trust services categories. |
| RBAC | Role-Based Access Control — a method of restricting system access based on the roles of individual users. |
| MFA | Multi-Factor Authentication — requiring two or more verification factors to gain access. |
| AES-256-GCM | Advanced Encryption Standard with 256-bit key in Galois/Counter Mode — a symmetric encryption algorithm providing both confidentiality and integrity. |
| SIEM | Security Information and Event Management — a system that aggregates and analyzes security events from multiple sources. |
| MARPP | Methodology for Auditable, Reproducible, and Provable Processes — HAIEC's deterministic analysis framework. |
Document Status: This SOC 2 Type II audit report contains deterministic analysis generated by the HAIEC Analysis Engine. All evidence is SHA-256 hashed for integrity verification. This document is complete as per the defined scope and ready for independent review.
This report is provided for informational and compliance planning purposes. Assessment scores reflect analysis of self-reported practices and system configurations. This document does not replace a formal SOC 2 examination conducted by a licensed CPA firm in accordance with AICPA attestation standards.
Organizations requiring an official SOC 2 Type II opinion letter should engage a licensed CPA firm. This report provides the evidence foundation and control documentation to support such an engagement.
This section is reserved for the independent reviewer of this SOC 2 compliance assessment.