Hubbry Logo
System and Organization ControlsSystem and Organization ControlsMain
Open search
System and Organization Controls
Community hub
System and Organization Controls
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
System and Organization Controls
System and Organization Controls
System and Organization Controls
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

System and Organization Controls (SOC; also sometimes referred to as service organizations controls) as defined by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), is the name of a suite of reports produced during an audit. It is intended for use by service organizations (organizations that provide information systems as a service to other organizations) to issue validated reports of internal controls over those information systems to the users of those services.

The reports focus on controls grouped into five categories called Trust Service Criteria.[1] The Trust Services Criteria were established by the AICPA through its Assurance Services Executive Committee (ASEC) in 2017 (2017 TSC). These control criteria are to be used by the practitioner/examiner (Certified Public Accountant, CPA) in attestation or consulting engagements to evaluate and report on controls of information systems offered as a service. The engagements can be done on an entity wide, subsidiary, division, operating unit, product line or functional area basis.

The Trust Services Criteria were modeled in conformity to The Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) Internal Control – Integrated Framework (COSO Framework). In addition, the Trust Services Criteria can be mapped to NIST SP 800 – 53 criteria and to EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) Articles. The AICPA auditing standard Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements no. 18 (SSAE 18), section 320, "Reporting on an Examination of Controls at a Service Organization Relevant to User Entities' Internal Control Over Financial Reporting", defines two levels of reporting, type 1 and type 2. Additional AICPA guidance materials specify three types of reporting: SOC 1, SOC 2, and SOC 3.

Trust service criteria

[edit]

Trust Services Criteria were designed such that they can provide flexibility in application to better suit the unique controls implemented by an organization to address its unique risks and threats it faces. This is in contrast to other control frameworks that mandate specific controls whether applicable or not. Trust Services Criteria application in actual situations requires judgement as to suitability. The Trust Services Criteria are used when "evaluating the suitability of the design and operating effectiveness of controls relevant to the security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality or privacy of information and systems used to provide product or services" – AICPA – ASEC.

Organization of the Trust Services Criteria are aligned to the COSO framework's 17 principles with additional supplemental criteria organized into logical and physical access controls, system operations, change management and risk mitigation. Further, the additional supplemental criteria are shared among the Trust Services Criteria – Common Criteria (CC) and additional specific criteria for availability, processing integrity, confidentiality and privacy.

Common criteria are labeled as, Control environment (CC1.x), Information and communication (CC2.x), Risk assessment (CC3.x), Monitoring of controls (CC4.x) and Control activities related to the design and implementation of controls (CC5.x). Common criteria are suitable and complete for evaluation security criteria. However, there additional category specific criteria for Availability (A.x), Processing integrity (PI.x), Confidentiality (C.x) and Privacy (P.x). Criteria for each trust services categories addressed in an engagement are considered complete when all criterial associated with that category are addressed.

SOC 2 reports focus on controls addressed by five semi-overlapping categories called Trust Service Criteria which also support the CIA triad of information security:[1]

  1. Security – information and systems are protected against unauthorized access and disclosure, and damage to the system that could compromise the availability, confidentiality, integrity and privacy of the system.
  2. Availability – information and systems are available for operational use.
    • Performance monitoring
    • Disaster recovery
    • Incident handling
  3. Confidentiality – information is protected and available on a legitimate need to know basis. Applies to various types of sensitive information.
    • Encryption
    • Access controls
    • Firewalls
  4. Processing Integrity – system processing is complete, valid, accurate, timely and authorized.
    • Quality assurance
    • Process monitoring
    • Adherence to principle
  5. Privacy – personal information is collected, used, retained, disclosed and disposed according to policy. Privacy applies only to personal information.
    • Access control
    • Multi-factor authentication
    • Encryption

Reporting

[edit]

Levels

[edit]

There are two levels of SOC reports which are also specified by SSAE 18:[2]

  • Type 1, which describes a service organization's systems and whether the design of specified controls meet the relevant trust principles. (Are the design and documentation likely to accomplish the goals defined in the report?)
  • Type 2, which also addresses the operational effectiveness of the specified controls over a period of time (usually 9 to 12 months). (Is the implementation appropriate?)

Types

[edit]

There are three types of SOC reports.[3]

  • SOC 1 – Internal Control over Financial Reporting (ICFR)[4]
  • SOC 2 – Trust Services Criteria[5][6]
  • SOC 3 – Trust Services Criteria for General Use Report[7]

Additionally, there are specialized SOC reports for Cybersecurity and Supply Chain.[8]

SOC 1 and SOC 2 reports are intended for a limited audience – specifically, users with an adequate understanding of the system in question. SOC 3 reports contain less specific information and can be distributed to the general public.

Audits

[edit]

Only licensed CPA firms or audit firms certified to perform SOC assessments can conduct your SOC 2 audit. These auditors must be independent and adhere to AICPA standards.

The SOC 2 Audit provides the organization’s detailed internal controls report made in compliance with the five trust service criteria. It demonstrates how well the organization safeguards customer data and reassures customers that it provides services securely and reliably. SOC 2 reports are therefore intended to be made available only to customers and other stakeholders. A SOC 2 Readiness Assessment is a critical step before the audit. It helps identify gaps in controls, documentation, or evidence early, reducing surprises during the audit. Strong preparation includes completing documentation, validating system configurations, involving cross-functional teams, and ensuring continuous monitoring.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

System and Organization Controls

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
System and Organization Controls (SOC) is a suite of attestation report frameworks developed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) to enable certified public accountants (CPAs) to examine and report on the internal controls of service organizations that impact their clients' financial reporting or operations. These reports provide user entities—such as companies outsourcing functions like or IT services—with independent assurance regarding the design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of those controls over defined periods. Originating from earlier auditing standards like SAS 70 in the 1990s, the SOC framework was formalized in 2010 under Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements (SSAE) No. 16 and later updated in to address evolving needs in service organization auditing. The core SOC reports include SOC 1, which specifically targets controls relevant to a user entity's internal control over financial reporting (ICFR), making it essential for organizations handling financial transactions such as payroll processors or claims administrators. In contrast, SOC 2 reports assess controls against the AICPA's Trust Services Criteria, which cover five key principles: security (protection against unauthorized access), availability (system accessibility), processing integrity (accurate and complete processing), confidentiality (protection of sensitive information), and privacy (handling of personal data). These reports are particularly vital for technology and cloud service providers, helping them demonstrate compliance to customers concerned about data security and operational reliability. SOC 3 reports build on SOC 2 by providing a publicly distributable summary without detailed descriptions of controls or test results, suitable for marketing purposes to build trust with prospective clients. Beyond these foundational reports, the SOC suite has expanded to include specialized offerings like SOC for Cybersecurity, which focuses on an organization's cybersecurity program, and SOC for Supply Chain, aimed at controls in supplier relationships within product and service delivery. Each SOC report can be Type 1 (evaluating control design at a specific point in time) or Type 2 (assessing both design and operating effectiveness over a review period, typically six to twelve months). Conducted by independent CPAs following AICPA standards, these reports enhance transparency, mitigate risks associated with third-party dependencies, and support in industries like finance, healthcare, and SaaS.

Overview

Definition and Purpose

System and Organization Controls (SOC) refers to a suite of service offerings and audit reports developed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) to examine and report on system-level controls at service organizations. These controls are relevant to financial reporting, , and operational , enabling certified public accountants (CPAs) to provide assurance on how service organizations manage risks associated with their systems and processes. The primary purposes of SOC reports are to deliver independent assurance to user entities—such as customers or stakeholders—about the suitability of and operating of controls at service organizations. This framework addresses key risks in outsourcing arrangements and environments by helping user entities evaluate the reliability of third-party providers. Additionally, SOC standardizes reporting for service organizations, promoting consistency and transparency in demonstrating compliance with control objectives. At its core, the SOC framework emphasizes system-level controls over broader entity-wide , distinguishing it from traditional financial audits. It places particular attention on internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR) for certain reports, while also encompassing non-financial risks like data privacy and . This structured approach evolved from the SAS 70 auditing standard to a comprehensive framework in the post-2000s period, driven by regulatory developments such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which amplified the need for robust controls in outsourced financial processes.

Scope and Applicability

System and Organization Controls (SOC) reports apply primarily to service organizations that provide outsourced services impacting the internal controls of user entities, such as data centers managing , software-as-a-service (SaaS) providers handling application , and payroll processors managing financial transactions. For example, in SOC 2 reports, organizations are evaluated based on the Trust Services Criteria, which define controls relevant to , , integrity, , and , ensuring that their systems support user entities' compliance needs. SOC reports primarily apply to service organizations but can also address entity-level controls for other organizations; they are not intended for conducting internal audits within a single entity. Industries commonly leveraging SOC reports include technology, where SaaS and cloud providers demonstrate data handling security; finance, for processors ensuring accurate transaction reporting; and healthcare, involving entities managing protected health information amid outsourcing. In these sectors, outsourcing often entails sensitive data or financial transactions, making SOC attestation essential for risk mitigation. Unlike direct regulatory frameworks such as the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX), which mandates financial reporting controls for public companies, or the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which enforces EU privacy laws, SOC reports focus on voluntary assurance of service provider controls and can support compliance with these regulations without replacing them. SOC reports are utilized in scenarios like vendor during selection, where user entities review controls to assess risks; contractual requirements stipulating annual SOC attestations for ongoing relationships; and providing assurance for sustained partnerships involving . They are particularly relevant for SOC 1 reports, which scope financial reporting impacts, versus SOC 2 reports addressing broader operational controls. While originating from the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) and primarily U.S.-based, SOC reports enjoy international recognition, with mappings available to standards like ISO 27001 for systems and EU frameworks, facilitating global vendor assessments. In early 2025, the AICPA updated the SOC 1 Guide to provide enhanced guidance on reporting and controls.

Historical Development

Early Frameworks

The Statement on Auditing Standards No. 70 (SAS 70), issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) in April 1992, marked the first standardized framework for reporting on controls at service organizations. This standard emerged as proliferated in the sector following and technological advancements in the , prompting auditors to seek reliable assurances on third-party processing of financial transactions. By the early 1990s, heightened regulatory scrutiny after financial institution failures, including congressional hearings on practices, underscored the need for greater transparency in evaluating service providers' internal controls. SAS 70's primary purpose was to address user auditors' concerns about relying on service organizations' internal controls during financial statement audits, focusing specifically on controls relevant to financial reporting. It enabled service auditors to issue reports—either Type I, assessing the design of controls at a point in time, or Type II, evaluating both design and operating effectiveness over a period—that user auditors could incorporate into their . This framework provided a structured basis for user auditors to opine on the impact of service organizations' on clients' , reducing the need for redundant on-site audits at service providers. Despite its innovations, SAS 70 exhibited key limitations that hampered its effectiveness over time. Reports often lacked uniformity in format and content, leading to inconsistencies that made them challenging for user auditors to interpret and apply. Additionally, the standard did not require a written assertion from service organization management regarding the fairness of their control descriptions, nor did it mandate comprehensive testing protocols, which sometimes blurred distinctions between and operational . During the 1990s and 2000s, SAS 70 saw widespread adoption as the for service organization s, particularly in where expanded rapidly. However, growing criticisms highlighted its narrow scope, as it inadequately addressed emerging IT-related risks and non-financial controls, such as and operational resilience, amid the rise of technology-driven service models. These shortcomings fueled calls for , eventually leading to its supersession by Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements (SSAE) No. 16 in 2010, which introduced the SOC 1 report and incorporated elements like the Trust Services Criteria to bridge gaps in coverage.

Modern Evolution

The issuance of Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements No. 16 () by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) in April 2010 marked a significant advancement in service organization reporting. This standard superseded the longstanding Statement on Auditing Standards No. 70 (SAS 70), which had been in use since 1992, and introduced the modern System and Organization Controls (SOC) framework, including SOC 1 reports for financial reporting controls and SOC 2 reports for broader trust services. SSAE 16 emphasized a principles-based approach to control descriptions and aligned U.S. attestation standards more closely with international equivalents, such as the International Standard on Assurance Engagements 3402 (), to enhance global consistency and comparability for service organizations. Concurrently, the introduction of the Trust Services Criteria in 2010 expanded the scope of SOC reporting beyond traditional financial controls to encompass non-financial aspects critical for IT service organizations, such as , , integrity, , and . Developed by the AICPA's Assurance Services Executive Committee, these criteria provided a structured framework for evaluating controls relevant to data protection and operational reliability, enabling service providers to demonstrate compliance in an era of increasing digital reliance. This shift addressed the limitations of prior frameworks by focusing on technology-driven risks, thereby supporting SOC 2 and SOC 3 reports as key tools for building stakeholder trust. In 2016, the AICPA further refined the framework with SSAE 18, which integrated and clarified all relevant attestation standards, superseding and related guidance. This update introduced enhanced requirements for addressing subservice organizations, mandating detailed disclosures about how controls are managed across vendor ecosystems, and strengthened vendor management controls to mitigate third-party risks. SSAE 18 also promoted greater transparency in system descriptions and risk assessments, ensuring reports better reflected complex supply chains and outsourced operations. The 2020s have seen continued innovation in SOC frameworks to tackle evolving threats. In April 2017, the AICPA launched SOC for Cybersecurity, a dedicated reporting option that evaluates an organization's cybersecurity program, including threat detection and response capabilities, to provide assurance on defenses against cyber incidents. Similarly, the SOC for framework, introduced in March 2020, focuses on managing vendor and supply chain risks, offering attestations on controls that safeguard against disruptions in product or service delivery. The AICPA maintains an active role in SOC evolution through annual revisions to the criteria and points of focus, ensuring relevance amid technological and regulatory changes, while continuing harmonization efforts with international standards like to facilitate cross-border assurance. These ongoing updates reflect the AICPA's commitment to adapting SOC reports for contemporary challenges, such as and geopolitical risks.

Trust Services Criteria

Security

The Security criterion within the Trust Services Criteria for SOC 2 reports focuses on protecting the system and its information from unauthorized access (both physical and logical), use, disclosure, modification, or destruction, thereby mitigating risks that could compromise or . This criterion forms the foundational and mandatory category for all SOC 2 engagements, applicable to service organizations handling , as it directly addresses prevalent threats such as cyberattacks, data breaches, and insider risks by evaluating the effectiveness of implemented controls. Unlike optional criteria like , Security emphasizes preventive measures against unauthorized interference rather than operational continuity. The Security criterion is structured around the (CC series), a set of nine foundational sub-criteria spanning CC1.1 through CC9.2 in the AICPA , which provide a comprehensive framework for assessing internal controls. The criteria, with points of focus revised in 2022, remain the current standard. These include CC1 (Control Environment), establishing a commitment to integrity and ethical values through mechanisms such as a Code of Conduct and providing oversight; CC2 (Communication and Information), ensuring relevant data flows for control effectiveness; CC3 (), identifying and analyzing potential threats; CC4 (Monitoring Activities), ongoing of control performance; CC5 (Control Activities), specific policies and procedures to mitigate risks; CC6 (Logical and Physical Access Controls), restricting access to authorized users; CC7 (System Operations), maintaining daily operations and incident detection; CC8 (), managing updates to prevent disruptions; and CC9 (Risk Mitigation), handling vendor and third-party risks. These criteria, derived from COSO principles, ensure a holistic of posture without overlap into other Trust Services Categories. Under CC1, a key demonstration of commitment to integrity and ethical values is the establishment of a Code of Conduct, often integrated into the Employee Handbook. This Code of Conduct is typically reviewed annually by management or the board of directors, with employees required to acknowledge it through sign-off during onboarding and upon significant updates. Best practices for SOC 2 compliance include requiring employee sign-off and training; covering ethical behavior, conflicts of interest, and data protection; integrating risk mapping and measurable controls; and ensuring continuous monitoring with clear roles and accountability. Typical sections in a SOC 2-aligned Code of Conduct include:
  • Purpose and Scope
  • Ethical Standards and Principles
  • Conflicts of Interest
  • Confidentiality and Data Protection
  • Acceptable Use of Resources
  • Whistleblower/Reporting Procedures
  • Non-Retaliation Policy
  • Sanctions/Disciplinary Actions
  • Acknowledgment and Compliance
These sections help map to SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria, particularly those related to security and privacy. Key controls under the Security criterion often include (MFA) to strengthen user verification and prevent unauthorized logical access (aligned with CC6); data encryption for information at rest and in transit to safeguard against disclosure (CC6 and CC7); formalized incident response plans to detect, respond to, and recover from security events (CC4 and CC7); and processes involving regular scanning, patching, and remediation to address system weaknesses (CC3 and CC7). These controls are tailored to the organization's risk profile and must demonstrate design and operating effectiveness during audits, with examples like MFA reducing unauthorized access incidents by up to 99% in controlled environments.

Availability

The availability criterion within the Trust Services Criteria for SOC 2 examinations addresses the operational performance and of a service organization's systems and , ensuring they are available for use to meet the entity's specified objectives. This includes protections against environmental threats and mechanisms for recoverability to minimize disruptions. The criterion emphasizes that systems should operate continuously as committed, without focusing on data content or usability beyond accessibility. Common criteria under include monitoring and evaluating processing capacity to manage demand (A1.1), implementing environmental safeguards such as physical protections against hazards like fire or weather, along with data backups and recovery infrastructure (A1.2), and establishing processes for events. Additionally, organizations develop and test disaster recovery plans to ensure recoverability, including offsite storage for backups and procedures for restoring operations. Capacity monitoring involves forecasting usage trends and scaling resources accordingly to prevent performance degradation. Key controls for achieving often feature measures, such as systems and alternate processing sites, to maintain service during component failures. agreements (SLAs) commonly define commitments for uptime, with organizations monitoring adherence to these terms. integrates these elements, outlining strategies to resume operations after disruptions like hardware failures or . While there may be brief overlap with criteria for caused by threats, availability focuses on inherent operational resilience. The criterion is optional for SOC 2 reports but is frequently selected by and hosting service providers to assure clients of system reliability. It applies particularly to environments vulnerable to physical or infrastructural disruptions, helping organizations demonstrate proactive for continuity. Representative metrics include uptime targets of 99.9% or higher in SLAs, recovery time objectives (RTO) specifying the maximum allowable for restoration, and recovery point objectives (RPO) defining acceptable intervals. These metrics establish the scale of commitment but are tailored to the service's commitments rather than universal benchmarks.

Processing Integrity

Processing integrity, one of the Trust Services Criteria in SOC 2 reports, refers to the assurance that system processing is complete, valid, accurate, timely, and authorized, thereby enabling the entity to meet its objectives without errors, delays, omissions, or unauthorized manipulation. This criterion focuses on the reliability of handling throughout the processing lifecycle, from input to output, ensuring that outputs are dependable for decision-making or operational purposes. Common criteria under encompass several key areas, including the generation and use of quality information to support objectives (PI1.1), controls over internal and external inputs to ensure completeness, accuracy, and validity (PI1.2), maintenance of activities that detect and correct errors to meet objectives (PI1.3), delivery of outputs that are accurate, complete, and timely (PI1.4), and secure storage of inputs, results, and outputs according to defined specifications (PI1.5). Key controls to achieve these include rules at the input stage to verify completeness and , error-checking mechanisms during such as automated and , checks to confirm totals and sequences in high-volume operations, and trails that log all transactions for and . These controls help monitor for deviations, such as anomalies, through ongoing reviews and automated alerts. Processing integrity is an optional criterion in SOC 2 examinations, applicable primarily to service organizations where data accuracy directly impacts customer trust or , such as payment processors that must ensure transaction calculations are error-free or data analytics firms relying on precise computations for insights. It supports adherence to operational standards like those in financial reporting or fulfillment, where incomplete or inaccurate could lead to financial discrepancies. In SOC 2 Type II reports, these controls are tested over a period to verify operational effectiveness. Implementing processing integrity controls presents challenges, particularly in environments with high-volume transactions where even minor errors can propagate across systems, requiring robust in validation processes. Integration with legacy systems often complicates enforcement, as older infrastructure may lack built-in error detection, necessitating custom bridging solutions or phased upgrades to maintain accuracy without disrupting operations. Processing integrity also intersects briefly with by safeguarding the accuracy of sensitive data during handling, preventing integrity breaches that could expose or alter protected information.

Confidentiality

The confidentiality criterion within the Trust Services Criteria addresses an entity's ability to protect information it has designated as —from its collection or creation through final disposition—against unauthorized access, use, disclosure, modification, or destruction, in accordance with management's objectives, applicable contracts, and regulatory requirements. This protection encompasses limiting access, retention, and sharing to authorized parties only, ensuring that sensitive data remains secure throughout its lifecycle. Key criteria under this principle include data classification to identify and document confidential information (C1.1), which involves establishing policies for categorizing based on sensitivity levels, such as or customer records, to guide appropriate handling. Access restrictions are enforced through logical and physical controls (CC6.1–CC6.4), such as role-based access controls that grant permissions based on job functions and the principle of least privilege, preventing unauthorized viewing or manipulation. Secure disposal procedures ensure confidential information is irretrievably destroyed when retention periods end (C1.2 and CC6.5), using methods like data wiping or physical shredding to eliminate recovery risks. Transmission security further safeguards in motion (CC6.7), typically via protocols like TLS for networks and secure mechanisms to protect against during sharing. Common controls supporting these criteria encompass non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to legally bind employees and third parties to obligations, as well as secure data sharing protocols that incorporate and logging to track and verify access. These measures are implemented alongside monitoring for unauthorized attempts (CC6.6 and CC6.8), such as intrusion detection systems and tailored to confidential data environments. In SOC 2 reports, is an optional criterion, included when a service organization handles sensitive non-personal information like trade secrets or proprietary business data, making it particularly critical for sectors such as and . It aligns with regulations like HIPAA, which mandates similar protections for confidential health information, though SOC 2 focuses broadly on organizational commitments rather than individual privacy rights. This criterion builds on foundational access controls from the principle to emphasize secrecy for designated confidential assets, including , financial records, and strategic plans.

Privacy

The Privacy criterion within the SOC 2 framework addresses the responsibilities of service organizations in managing personal information throughout its lifecycle, ensuring that collection, use, retention, disclosure, and disposal align with the organization's stated privacy notices and commitments to individuals. This criterion is grounded in the AICPA's Generally Accepted Privacy Principles (GAPP), which provide a structured approach to protecting personal data while respecting user rights and expectations. Unlike broader data protection measures, the Privacy criterion emphasizes transparency and accountability in how personal information—defined as data that identifies or could reasonably identify an individual—is handled, particularly when organizations act as data controllers or processors. The under GAPP encompass several key areas to operationalize commitments: and communication, which requires clear disclosure of practices and objectives to individuals before or at the time of ; and , ensuring individuals have options to opt in or out of and that affirmative is obtained where required; collection, limiting data gathering to what is necessary and relevant; use, retention, and disposal, governing how data is applied, stored only as long as needed, and securely eliminated afterward; quality, maintaining accuracy, completeness, and timeliness of ; and monitoring and enforcement, involving ongoing oversight, internal audits, and mechanisms to address complaints or incidents. These criteria help organizations demonstrate compliance with user-centric principles, fostering trust in data handling practices. Key controls supporting the Privacy criterion include conducting privacy impact assessments (PIAs) to evaluate risks associated with new activities, implementing management tools to track and document user permissions in real-time, and applying data minimization practices to collect and retain only essential information, thereby reducing exposure to risks. For instance, organizations might deploy automated systems to anonymize data where possible or enforce role-based access tied to policies. These controls are designed to be scalable, allowing service providers to tailor them to their operations while meeting expectations. In SOC 2 examinations, the criterion is optional but becomes essential for service organizations that are consumer-facing or process directly from individuals, such as in or SaaS platforms handling user profiles. It particularly aids compliance with regulations like the (CCPA), which mandates rights to know, delete, and opt out of data sales, and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), requiring lawful basis for processing and data protection by design. By aligning SOC 2 controls with these laws, organizations can streamline audits and demonstrate global applicability.

Report Types

SOC 1

SOC 1 reports provide assurance on the design and operating effectiveness of controls at a service organization that are relevant to a user entity's over financial reporting (ICFR). These reports, developed under the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) standards in Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements (, enable service organizations to demonstrate to their clients—known as user entities—that their systems and processes adequately safeguard financial . Primarily intended for financial statement auditors and management, SOC 1 reports address risks associated with outsourced financial , helping to mitigate potential misstatements in user entities' . The scope of SOC 1 reports centers on controls based on established frameworks, such as the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) framework, which emphasizes control environment, , control activities, information and communication, and monitoring. These controls typically focus on processing activities, including processing, billing and collections, , and maintenance, where inaccuracies could directly impact financial reporting. Unlike broader assurance frameworks, SOC 1 engagements do not require adherence to the Trust Services Criteria but may incorporate them as supplements if relevant to financial controls. A SOC 1 report's structure includes four main components: a written assertion from the service organization's management describing the controls and their suitability for the intended purpose; the independent service expressing an opinion on the controls; a detailed description of the service organization's system, including control environment, policies, and procedures; and, for Type II reports, the results of the auditor's tests of controls over a specified period to evaluate operating effectiveness. Type I reports assess only the design of controls at a point in time, while Type II provides deeper assurance through substantive testing. SOC 1 reports are commonly used by financial service providers, such as banks, payroll processors, and data centers handling transaction data, to assure clients of reliable financial controls. They play a critical role in supporting Section 404 compliance for public companies by allowing user auditors to leverage the service auditor's work, reducing duplication in testing and enhancing efficiency in financial reporting audits. In contrast to SOC 2 reports, which emphasize controls under the Trust Services Criteria for operational aspects like and , SOC 1 is narrower in scope, exclusively targeting financial reporting impacts without mandatory inclusion of non-financial criteria. This focus makes SOC 1 particularly suited for scenarios where financial integrity is the primary concern, rather than broader or issues.

SOC 2

SOC 2 reports offer independent assurance on the design and operating effectiveness of controls at a service organization that are relevant to one or more of the Trust Services Criteria (TSC), specifically , , integrity, , and privacy. Developed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA), these reports address non-financial reporting risks associated with outsourced services, enabling user entities to assess the suitability of the service organization's system for their needs. Unlike financial-focused audits, SOC 2 emphasizes operational controls to build trust in data handling practices. The scope of a SOC 2 report requires evaluation against the criterion as a mandatory component, while the inclusion of , Processing Integrity, , and criteria is optional and determined by the services provided and the risks identified by management. These criteria, defined in the AICPA's TSC framework, provide a structured basis for assessing controls that protect integrity and . Service organizations tailor the scope to align with their operations, ensuring the report covers relevant aspects without unnecessary breadth. A SOC 2 report is structured to include management's assertion about the and control , a detailed of the service organization's (including , software, people, procedures, and ), the applicable TSC, and the with results from tests of controls. For Type II reports, this incorporates substantive testing of control operating over a specified period, typically 6 to 12 months, to verify ongoing compliance. The auditor's findings detail any deviations, providing transparency into control performance. SOC 2 reports are particularly ideal for technology and software-as-a-service (SaaS) providers, as they demonstrate robust data protection and security measures to clients and stakeholders, facilitating compliance with contractual requirements and enhancing market competitiveness. By validating controls against TSC, these reports help mitigate risks in cloud-based and data-intensive environments.

SOC 3

SOC 3 reports, part of the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) System and Organization Controls (SOC) framework, provide a high-level, publicly available summary confirming a service organization's compliance with the Trust Services Criteria (TSC), particularly focusing on , , , , and . Unlike more detailed reports, SOC 3 documents are designed for unrestricted distribution, offering prospective clients assurance of effective controls without revealing sensitive information about specific control activities or testing results. Derived from the SOC 2 examination process, a SOC 3 report is typically issued only after a successful SOC 2 Type II audit, summarizing its findings in a general-use format. The scope of a SOC 3 report aligns directly with the TSC used in SOC 2, evaluating the service organization's system for the same principles without customization for individual clients. It encompasses an overview of the system's boundaries, , software, personnel, , processes, and interactions with third parties, but omits in-depth descriptions of controls or exceptions. Often, organizations display a SOC 3 seal on their websites as a visual emblem of compliance, enhancing credibility for audiences. Structurally, a SOC 3 includes three main components: management's written assertion affirming the effectiveness of controls in meeting TSC objectives; the independent auditor's on that assertion, confirming the examination was conducted in accordance with AICPA standards such as SSAE 18; and a brief of the , highlighting key commitments and components without detailing test procedures or results. This streamlined format ensures the remains concise and suitable for broad dissemination. Service organizations use SOC 3 reports primarily as a tool to demonstrate commitment to robust practices, allowing prospects to review compliance evidence without requiring nondisclosure agreements. They are particularly valuable in sales cycles for service providers or SaaS companies seeking to build trust with potential customers. However, SOC 3 reports offer limited assurance compared to SOC 2, as they do not include evidence of control testing, making them unsuitable for purposes or in-depth risk assessments by user entities.

Specialized Variants

Specialized variants of SOC reports extend the core framework to address specific emerging risks, such as cybersecurity threats and vulnerabilities, by applying tailored subsets of the Trust Services Criteria (TSC). These reports are designed for organizations facing niche challenges, often integrating with SOC 2 examinations to provide focused assurance without duplicating general controls. The SOC for Cybersecurity, introduced by the AICPA in 2017, evaluates an organization's enterprise-wide cybersecurity program, emphasizing , , detection, response, and recovery processes. It uses description criteria aligned with established standards like the to enable management assertions and independent CPA examinations, resulting in a report that communicates the effectiveness of controls to stakeholders such as investors and regulators. This variant is particularly valuable for public companies and entities under regulatory scrutiny, helping demonstrate compliance with requirements like SEC disclosures on cybersecurity risks. Similarly, the SOC for , launched by the AICPA in 2020, assesses controls relevant to , , integrity, confidentiality, and privacy within supply chain ecosystems. It focuses on third-party , vendor oversight, and resilience against disruptions, using a subset of TSC adapted for , distribution, and activities. Organizations in global supply networks, such as those in or pharmaceuticals, utilize this report to build trust with partners and mitigate risks exposed by events like post-pandemic disruptions. Beyond these, SOC reports are increasingly applied in mergers and acquisitions (M&A) due diligence to evaluate target organizations' control environments, providing buyers with assurance on operational and compliance risks. As of 2025, discussions within the AICPA and related bodies highlight potential future variants addressing AI ethics and governance, though no formal framework has been issued yet. These specialized reports are common in regulated sectors like defense and healthcare, where they support compliance with standards such as CMMC or HIPAA by tailoring assurance to sector-specific threats.

Reporting Levels

Type I

A Type I SOC report evaluates the suitability of the design of a service organization's controls relevant to specified objectives as of a particular point in time, providing the auditor's opinion on whether the controls are appropriately designed to achieve those objectives. This assessment focuses solely on the design and implementation of controls, without examining their operating effectiveness over a period. As a result, Type I reports are generally quicker to complete and less costly than Type II reports, which include testing of operational effectiveness. The structure of a Type I report typically includes management's assertion regarding the of the controls, a detailed of the service organization's (encompassing policies, procedures, and control activities), and the independent expressing an opinion on the fairness of the system and the suitability of the control . These elements ensure transparency for user entities evaluating potential risks from arrangements. Type I reports apply to both SOC 1 (focused on financial reporting controls) and SOC 2 (addressing trust services criteria like and ). Type I reports are particularly useful for initial compliance demonstrations, such as when a service organization launches a new system or seeks to establish a baseline for control design before pursuing more comprehensive audits. However, their limitations include providing only limited assurance, as they do not verify whether controls operate effectively over time or identify any deviations that might occur post-assessment. In contrast to Type II reports, which test ongoing effectiveness, Type I offers a snapshot suitable for early-stage assessments but requires follow-up for sustained confidence.

Type II

A Type II report, also known as a SOC Type 2 , is a comprehensive attestation engagement that evaluates both the suitability of the design and the operating effectiveness of a service organization's controls relevant to the engagement's objectives (e.g., financial reporting for SOC 1 or one or more Trust Services Criteria for SOC 2) over a specified review period, typically a minimum of six months and often extending to twelve months. This assessment provides assurance to user entities about the reliability of controls in areas relevant to the report type, such as financial reporting controls for SOC 1 or , , , , and privacy (Trust Services Criteria) for SOC 2. The scope of a Type II report involves in-depth testing of controls to determine their operational throughout the review period, including procedures such as walkthroughs, inquiries of personnel, observations of processes, inspections of , and substantive sample testing of transactions or activities. These tests aim to identify deviations, exceptions, or control deficiencies that occurred during the period, offering a more robust than a design-only . The structure of a Type II report incorporates all core elements of a Type I report—such as the independent service auditor's on the fairness of the system's and the suitability of control design—augmented by a dedicated section detailing the specific tests of controls performed, the results of those tests, and any identified exceptions or other matters. Management's assertion regarding the of the service organization's system and the effectiveness of controls is also included, along with applicable complementary user entity controls. Type II reports are particularly suited for high-risk outsourcing relationships where user entities require evidence of sustained control performance, and they are frequently mandated in service contracts with large enterprises or regulated industries to mitigate ongoing risks. Building on the point-in-time focus of Type I reports, they are integral to SOC examinations, including SOC 2 for verifying Trust Services Criteria compliance over time. As of early 2025, the AICPA updated the SOC 1 Guide, but the fundamental structure of Type I and Type II reports remains consistent with SSAE No. 18. The primary advantages of Type II reports include providing a higher degree of assurance through of control operation, which enhances stakeholder confidence, and their suitability for annual renewal to support continuous compliance monitoring without full re-s each year.

Audit Procedures

Preparation Phase

The preparation phase for a SOC involves service organization management taking proactive steps to establish a foundation for the external examination, ensuring that internal controls align with relevant criteria such as the Trust Services Criteria (TSC) for SOC 2 reports. Management is responsible for developing a detailed that outlines the organization's services, , processes, and boundaries, which must be accurate and fairly presented to provide a clear picture for auditors and user entities. Additionally, management asserts that the controls are suitably designed to meet the organization's service commitments and requirements, selecting appropriate criteria like the TSC categories of , , , , or based on the scope of services provided. For SOC 2 reports specifically, Security is the mandatory common criterion, while Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, and Privacy are optional and selected based on the organization's business needs and service commitments. A key component of preparation is conducting a through internal readiness assessments to evaluate existing controls against the chosen criteria, identifying deficiencies that could impact compliance. For SOC 2, this involves assessing controls against the selected Trust Services Criteria. Remediation efforts follow, where addresses these gaps by implementing or enhancing controls aligned with the TSC, such as updating access procedures or strategies, and may engage external consultants to provide expertise in complex areas like control design or TSC alignment. This process helps mitigate risks before the formal audit begins. Documentation is essential during this phase, with management preparing comprehensive records including policies, procedures, control matrices that map controls to criteria, and risk assessments detailing identified threats and mitigation plans. These materials serve as of control implementation and must be organized to facilitate auditor review. The preparation phase typically spans 1–3 months, allowing sufficient time for thorough assessment and remediation while minimizing disruptions, though durations vary based on organizational readiness, size, complexity, and report type. For SOC 2 Type II reports, which evaluate operating effectiveness over a period of time, the overall process often takes 6–18 months, including preparation, an observation period of 3–12 months, and the examination phase. Timelines and costs for the overall SOC audit process vary considerably depending on the report type (SOC 1 or SOC 2), subtype (Type I or Type II), organizational size, complexity, number of Trust Services Criteria selected (for SOC 2), readiness level, and the auditor selected. Approximate estimates for 2025/2026 are:
  • SOC 1: Timeline typically 2–3 months (longer for first-time or Type II audits); costs $10,000–$50,000+ (audit fees sometimes $15,000–$100,000 in complex cases).
  • SOC 2 Type I (point-in-time design): Timeline 2–6 months (preparation 1–3 months + audit/report 4–11 weeks); audit fees $5,000–$20,000; total including preparation often $10,000–$50,000+.
  • SOC 2 Type II (operating effectiveness over 3–12 months): Timeline 6–18 months (preparation 1–3 months + observation 3–12 months + audit/report); audit fees $20,000–$50,000+; total including preparation/tools $30,000–$150,000+ (higher for complex scopes).
These figures are estimates and actual amounts can vary widely. In the United Kingdom, SOC 2 compliance timelines generally align with these estimates, typically taking 6-12 months for a Type 2 report (including preparation and an observation period of 3-12 months). Accelerated options, often involving automation tools and expert guidance, can achieve Type 1 attestation in as little as 4 weeks and enable faster readiness for Type 2 reports. Timelines vary based on organizational maturity, scope, and the use of automation tools. It requires collaboration across cross-functional teams, including IT for technical controls, compliance for policy alignment, and operations for integration, often led by a designated project coordinator to ensure cohesive progress. For organizations relying on subservice providers, must consider their inclusion in the scope, deciding between methods like the inclusive approach—where subservice controls are directly examined—or the carve-out method, where complementary subservice controls are described, and the relies on the subservice organization's own reports or evidence without directly testing them, to accurately reflect the overall . This evaluation ensures the system description encompasses all relevant dependencies, setting the stage for the subsequent examination and reporting phase.

Examination and Reporting Phase

Service organizations select independent certified public accountants (CPAs) from firms licensed to perform attestation engagements under AICPA standards to conduct SOC examinations, ensuring objectivity and expertise in Trust Services Criteria. For SOC 2 reports, these are attestation reports issued by the CPA firm evaluating controls against the TSC, not formal certifications. During planning, auditors perform risk assessments to identify potential control weaknesses and determine materiality thresholds, which guide the scope and depth of testing while building on outputs from the preparation phase. Auditors employ a range of testing procedures to evaluate control design and operating effectiveness, including inquiries with personnel to understand control processes, observations of activities in real-time, inspections of documents and records for evidence of compliance, and re-performance of controls to verify independent execution. For SOC 2 Type II reports, testing focuses on operating effectiveness over the specified period. Sample sizes for testing are determined based on the assessed control risk, with higher-risk areas requiring larger samples to achieve sufficient evidence under AICPA attestation standards like AT-C Section 205. The duration of the examination and reporting phase varies by report type; Type I examinations are typically shorter (often 4–11 weeks including fieldwork and reporting) as they assess design at a point in time, while Type II examinations involve testing over the observation period plus additional time for analysis and reporting. Upon completing testing, auditors issue the SOC report, which includes their opinion on whether controls meet the Trust Services Criteria: an unqualified opinion indicates effective design and operation, while a qualified opinion highlights material exceptions or deviations. Exceptions are documented in the report's test results section, detailing the nature, impact, and any compensating controls, with management often providing unaudited responses in an optional Section 5 to explain remediation plans. For Type II reports, distribution is typically restricted to specified user entities under nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) to protect sensitive system descriptions. SOC examinations, particularly Type II, are conducted annually to demonstrate ongoing compliance over a review period of at least six to twelve months, with bridge letters occasionally used to cover interim periods between full audits for continuous assurance needs. For SOC 2 Type II, organizations maintain compliance through continuous monitoring of controls and annual re-examinations. Post-report, service organization management reviews findings and develops remediation plans for any identified control deficiencies, often incorporating follow-up testing in subsequent annual audits to confirm resolution and maintain compliance.

Applications

For Service Organizations

Service organizations, particularly those in technology and cloud services, obtain SOC 2 reports based on the Trust Services Criteria to demonstrate the effectiveness of their controls in areas such as , , and . These reports provide independent assurance that helps differentiate providers in competitive markets by enhancing marketability and facilitating contract wins through recognized assurance seals that build stakeholder trust. For instance, SOC 2 compliance signals robust protection practices, enabling easier negotiations with clients who require evidence of third-party . SOC 2 examinations aid by identifying control weaknesses and gaps in system design or operations, thereby improving overall operational resilience. Through the , service organizations gain insights into potential vulnerabilities related to outsourced services, allowing them to proactively address risks and enhance oversight of internal controls. This identification of improvement areas not only mitigates exposure to security incidents but also supports better alignment with client expectations for reliable service delivery. The cost implications of SOC 2 compliance involve initial and ongoing audit expenses, typically ranging from $20,000 to $100,000 annually for small to midsize service organizations, depending on the scope and complexity of controls examined. However, these investments yield ROI through efficiencies such as reduced time on vendor questionnaires and multiple client audits, as a single SOC 2 report can satisfy numerous stakeholders. Additionally, compliance often leads to lower cybersecurity insurance premiums by demonstrating a lower risk profile to insurers. Implementation challenges include significant resource allocation for documentation, control mapping, and readiness assessments to align with Trust Services Criteria, which can strain smaller organizations without dedicated compliance teams. Ongoing maintenance requires continuous monitoring and updates to controls, ensuring sustained effectiveness amid evolving threats and regulatory changes, which demands integrated tools and cross-functional coordination. Strategically, SOC 2 compliance supports scalability for global operations by providing a standardized framework that facilitates expansion into international markets with varying data protection requirements.

For User Entities

User entities, such as companies relying on third-party service providers for financial reporting or data processing, derive significant assurance from SOC reports by leveraging them to verify the effectiveness of vendor controls without duplicating extensive testing efforts. Specifically, SOC 1 reports enable auditors of user entities to place reliance on the service organization's processes, thereby reducing the scope of the user entity's own financial statement audits, often through the use of bridging letters that outline complementary user entity controls (CUECs). This reliance is particularly valuable in financial audits, where SOC 1 provides evidence on controls relevant to internal control over financial reporting (ICFR). The AICPA's SOC 1 Guide, updated in early 2025, provides enhanced guidance on service provider definitions and report usability, further supporting user entities in assessing reliance and conducting due diligence. Type II reports, which assess operating effectiveness over a period, offer deeper assurance compared to Type I reports, which are limited to design at a point in time. In vendor management, SOC reports facilitate thorough by providing standardized, independent assessments of a service provider's controls, allowing user entities to evaluate risks associated with and ensure alignment with regulatory requirements like Sarbanes-Oxley. These reports support informed risk assessments, helping organizations identify potential control gaps early and integrate them into broader compliance strategies for filings or oversight. SOC reports also inform decision-making during contract negotiations, where user entities can use findings—especially from Type II examinations—to establish or refine agreements (SLAs) that address specific control commitments, such as or processing integrity. For instance, evidence of strong controls in a SOC 2 report can reduce negotiation friction and expedite deal closures by demonstrating compliance with contractual data protection terms. Despite these benefits, SOC reports have limitations that user entities must consider: they provide reasonable assurance rather than absolute guarantees, and the user entity remains responsible for its own controls, including any CUECs needed to complement the service provider's system. Exceptions or deviations noted in the report may necessitate further inquiry or additional testing by the user entity to mitigate residual risks. For integration into , user entities incorporate SOC reports to map outsourced risks against their overall frameworks, often sharing them securely via non-disclosure agreements or portals to maintain while enabling stakeholder reviews. This approach enhances ongoing monitoring and supports proactive adjustments to vendor relationships.

References

  1. https://www.aicpa-cima.com/resources/landing/system-and-organization-controls-soc-suite-of-services
  2. https://www.journalofaccountancy.com/newsletters/2016/jun/3-face-of-soc/
  3. https://www.aicpa-cima.com/topic/audit-assurance/audit-and-assurance-greater-than-soc-1
  4. https://www.aicpa-cima.com/topic/audit-assurance/audit-and-assurance-greater-than-soc-2
  5. https://secureframe.com/hub/soc-2/soc-1-vs-soc-2-vs-soc-3
  6. https://linfordco.com/blog/soc-1-vs-soc-2-audit-reports/
  7. https://www.pwc.com/us/en/services/audit-assurance/digital-assurance-transparency/soc-reporting.html
  8. https://www.aicpa-cima.com/resources/article/aicpa-system-and-organization-controls-communications-guidelines
  9. https://www.schgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/SCH-Group-A-Comprehensive-Guice-to-SOC-Reports-eBook.pdf
  10. https://www.aprio.com/understanding-soc-report-types-a-comprehensive-guide-for-businesses-ins-article-ia/
  11. https://auditboard.com/blog/sox-vs-soc
  12. https://www.ncontracts.com/nsight-blog/vendor-due-diligence-soc-2-report-mistake
  13. https://secureframe.com/blog/soc-2-vs-iso-27001
  14. https://www.bdo.com/events/soc-1-updates
  15. https://www.gao.gov/assets/aimd-96-98.pdf
  16. https://linfordco.com/blog/deconstructing-sas-70-soc-1/
  17. http://archives.cpajournal.com/old/13856815.htm
  18. https://kirkpatrickprice.com/blog/guide-to-ssae-16-vs-sas-70/
  19. https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/audit/178388/the-death-of-sas70-the-birth-of-ssae16-standards
  20. https://www.claconnect.com/en/resources/tools/frequently-asked-questions-about-sas-70-now-ssae-16
  21. https://www.schellman.com/blog/soc-examinations/ssae-16-introduction
  22. https://scytale.ai/glossary/ssae-16/
  23. https://www.truvantis.com/blog/the-meaning-of-soc-from-the-aicpa
  24. https://www.mossadams.com/articles/2017/march/aicpa-updates-soc-engagements-with-ssae-no-18
  25. https://www.ispartnersllc.com/blog/ssae-16-vs-ssae-18/
  26. https://www.compassitc.com/blog/moving-from-ssae-16-to-ssae-18
  27. https://www.aicpa-cima.com/topic/audit-assurance/audit-and-assurance-greater-than-soc-for-cybersecurity
  28. https://www.claconnect.com/en/resources/articles/2022/a-soc-for-supply-chain-report-can-help-reveal-a-businesss-vulnerabilities
  29. https://www.aicpa-cima.com/topic/audit-assurance/audit-and-assurance-soc-for-supply-chain
  30. https://www.aicpa-cima.com/resources/download/2017-trust-services-criteria-with-revised-points-of-focus-2022
  31. https://linfordco.com/blog/trust-services-critieria-principles-soc-2/
  32. https://secureframe.com/hub/soc-2/trust-services-criteria
  33. https://www.cbh.com/insights/articles/soc-2-trust-services-criteria-guide/
  34. https://www.sans.org/blog/soc-2-trust-services-categories
  35. https://www.designcs.net/soc-2-assessments-common-criteria-related-to-the-control-environment/
  36. https://linfordco.com/blog/coso-principles/
  37. https://cybersierra.co/blog/aicpa-soc-2-controls-2025/
  38. https://panorays.com/blog/5-key-security-controls-that-should-be-in-your-soc-2/
  39. https://www.isms.online/soc-2/availability/
  40. https://linfordco.com/blog/processing-integrity/
  41. https://blog.rsisecurity.com/what-are-the-soc-2-processing-integrity-controls/
  42. https://linfordco.com/blog/soc-2-vs-hipaa-reports-security-rule-compliance/
  43. https://linfordco.com/blog/confidentiality-vs-privacy-in-a-soc-2/
  44. https://www.schellman.com/blog/soc-examinations/soc-2-trust-services-criteria-with-tsc
  45. https://drata.com/blog/trust-services-criteria
  46. https://www.brightdefense.com/resources/soc-2-trust-services-criteria/
  47. https://www.qovery.com/blog/soc-2-compliance-checklist
  48. https://secureprivacy.ai/blog/what-is-soc-2-compliance
  49. https://linfordco.com/blog/gdpr-soc-2/
  50. https://socreports.com/white-papers/educational/soc-1-vs-soc-2-aicpa-understanding-the-key-differences-a-similarities-and-what-you-need-to-know
  51. https://www.aprio.com/soc-1-vs-soc-2-understanding-the-key-differences-for-compliance-and-security-ins-article-ia/
  52. https://linfordco.com/blog/what-is-soc-1-report/
  53. https://www.linfordco.com/blog/soc-1-vs-soc-2-audit-reports/
  54. https://www.barradvisory.com/resource/what-is-soc-1/
  55. https://www.aicpa-cima.com/resources/download/illustrative-soc-2-r-report-with-description-and-assertion
  56. https://www.aicpa-cima.com/topic/audit-assurance/audit-and-assurance-greater-than-soc-3
  57. https://linfordco.com/blog/soc-3-reports-when-do-they-make-sense/
  58. https://www.schellman.com/blog/soc-examinations/soc-3-reports-explained
  59. https://www.aicpa-cima.com/resources/download/learn-about-the-key-distinctions-between-a-soc-2-examination-and-a-soc-for-cybersecurity-examination
  60. https://www.schellman.com/blog/soc-examinations/what-is-soc-for-cybersecurity
  61. https://www.wipfli.com/insights/articles/ra-soc-for-cybersecurity-vs-soc-2-5-key-differences
  62. https://www.it-cisq.org/2020/06/aicpa-introduces-soc-for-supply-chain-promotes-software-quality-standards-for-certification/
  63. https://calvettiferguson.com/soc-reporting-after-pe-acquisition/
  64. https://files.nitrd.gov/90-fr-9088/AICPA-AI-RFI-2025.pdf
  65. https://www.armanino.com/articles/service-organization-control-reporting-risk-assurance/
  66. https://www.thoropass.com/blog/soc-2-type-1-vs-type-2
  67. https://linfordco.com/blog/soc-2-type-2-reports-guide/
  68. https://secureframe.com/blog/soc-2-type-ii
  69. https://linfordco.com/blog/management-responsibility-soc-1-soc-2-audits/
  70. https://www.vanta.com/collection/soc-2/soc-2-audit-timeline
  71. https://www.rippling.com/blog/soc-2-compliance-a-step-by-step-guide-to-prepare-for-your-audit
  72. https://atlantsecurity.com/learn/soc-2-compliance-consultant/
  73. https://www.thoropass.com/blog/soc-2-gap-analysis
  74. https://www.vanta.com/collection/soc-2/soc-2-compliance-documentation
  75. https://www.compassitc.com/blog/steps-to-prepare-your-soc-2-compliance-documentation
  76. https://secureframe.com/hub/soc-2/audit-cost
  77. https://www.scrut.io/hub/soc-2/soc-1-vs-soc-2-vs-soc-3
  78. https://cognisys.co.uk/security-compliance/soc2/
  79. https://cypro.co.uk/service/soc-2/
  80. https://www.ampcuscyber.com/blogs/stages-of-soc-2-compliance/
  81. https://linfordco.com/blog/subservice-carve-out-inclusive-audits/
  82. https://linfordco.com/blog/audit-procedures-testing/
  83. https://www.ispartnersllc.com/blog/five-types-testing-methods-used-audits/
  84. https://www.barradvisory.com/resource/sections-of-a-soc-2-report/
  85. https://linfordco.com/blog/soc-2-section-5-unaudited-section-soc-reports/
  86. https://www.pbmares.com/soc-2-reports-frequently-asked-questions/
  87. https://www.ispartnersllc.com/blog/soc-2-audit-frequency/
  88. https://sprinto.com/blog/soc-2-exceptions/
  89. https://www.aicpa.org/soc4so
  90. https://www.ey.com/content/dam/ey-unified-site/ey-com/en-gl/services/consulting/documents/ey-soc-thought-leadership-client-brouchure.pdf
  91. https://drata.com/grc-central/soc-2/how-much-does-a-soc-2-audit-cost
  92. https://rsmus.com/insights/services/risk-fraud-cybersecurity/soc-reports-proving-security-building-trust.html
  93. https://www.ey.com/en_us/insights/technology-risk/five-soc-and-attestation-tips-for-2025
  94. https://www.cbh.com/insights/articles/service-organization-control-soc-reports-explained/
  95. https://www.venminder.com/blog/what-is-vendor-soc-report
  96. https://beaconer.io/resources/blog/what-is-vendor-soc-report-and-how-it-can-help-in-tprm
  97. https://www.brightdefense.com/resources/what-is-a-soc-report-and-why-its-important/
  98. https://panorays.com/blog/soc-due-diligence-tprm/
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.