Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

System and Organization Controls

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.^[1] These reports provide user entities—such as companies outsourcing functions like data processing or IT services—with independent assurance regarding the design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of those controls over defined periods.^[1] 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 SSAE No. 18 to address evolving needs in service organization auditing.^[2] 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.^[3] 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).^[4] These reports are particularly vital for technology and cloud service providers, helping them demonstrate compliance to customers concerned about data security and operational reliability.^[4] 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.^[5] Beyond these foundational reports, the SOC suite has expanded to include specialized offerings like SOC for Cybersecurity, which focuses on an organization's cybersecurity risk management program, and SOC for Supply Chain, aimed at controls in supplier relationships within product and service delivery.^[1] 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).^[6] Conducted by independent CPAs following AICPA standards, these reports enhance transparency, mitigate risks associated with third-party dependencies, and support regulatory compliance in industries like finance, healthcare, and SaaS.^[7]

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, data security, and operational integrity, enabling certified public accountants (CPAs) to provide assurance on how service organizations manage risks associated with their systems and processes.^[1]^[8] The primary purposes of SOC reports are to deliver independent assurance to user entities—such as customers or stakeholders—about the suitability of design and operating effectiveness of controls at service organizations. This framework addresses key risks in outsourcing arrangements and cloud computing 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.^[1]^[4] At its core, the SOC framework emphasizes system-level controls over broader entity-wide financial statements, 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 confidentiality. 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.^[8]^[9]

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 infrastructure, software-as-a-service (SaaS) providers handling application processing, and payroll processors managing financial transactions.^[4] For example, in SOC 2 reports, organizations are evaluated based on the Trust Services Criteria, which define controls relevant to security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy, ensuring that their systems support user entities' compliance needs.^[1] 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.^[10] 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.^[11] SOC reports are utilized in scenarios like vendor due diligence 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 data processing.^[12] 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 information security management systems and EU frameworks, facilitating global vendor assessments.^[13] In early 2025, the AICPA updated the SOC 1 Guide to provide enhanced guidance on reporting and controls.^[14]

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 outsourcing proliferated in the financial services sector following deregulation and technological advancements in the 1980s, prompting auditors to seek reliable assurances on third-party processing of financial transactions.^[15] By the early 1990s, heightened regulatory scrutiny after financial institution failures, including congressional hearings on audit practices, underscored the need for greater transparency in evaluating service providers' internal controls.^[15] 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 audit planning.^[16] This framework provided a structured basis for user auditors to opine on the impact of service organizations' transaction processing on clients' financial statements, reducing the need for redundant on-site audits at service providers.^[17] 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 control design and operational performance.^[18] During the 1990s and 2000s, SAS 70 saw widespread adoption as the de facto standard for service organization audits, particularly in financial services where outsourcing expanded rapidly.^[19] However, growing criticisms highlighted its narrow scope, as it inadequately addressed emerging IT-related risks and non-financial controls, such as data security and operational resilience, amid the rise of technology-driven service models. These shortcomings fueled calls for reform, 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 (SSAE 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 (ISAE 3402), to enhance global consistency and comparability for service organizations.^[20]^[21]^[22] 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 security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy. 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.^[9]^[23] In 2016, the AICPA further refined the framework with SSAE 18, which integrated and clarified all relevant attestation standards, superseding SSAE 16 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.^[24]^[25]^[26] 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 risk management program, including threat detection and response capabilities, to provide assurance on defenses against cyber incidents.^[27] Similarly, the SOC for Supply Chain 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.^[28]^[29] 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 ISAE 3402 to facilitate cross-border assurance. These ongoing updates reflect the AICPA's commitment to adapting SOC reports for contemporary challenges, such as cloud computing and geopolitical risks.^[30]

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 data integrity or confidentiality.^[31] This criterion forms the foundational and mandatory category for all SOC 2 engagements, applicable to service organizations handling customer data, as it directly addresses prevalent threats such as cyberattacks, data breaches, and insider risks by evaluating the effectiveness of implemented controls.^[32] Unlike optional criteria like Availability, Security emphasizes preventive measures against unauthorized interference rather than operational continuity.^[33] The Security criterion is structured around the common criteria (CC series), a set of nine foundational sub-criteria spanning CC1.1 through CC9.2 in the AICPA taxonomy, which provide a comprehensive framework for assessing internal controls. The criteria, with points of focus revised in 2022, remain the current standard as of 2025.^[30] These include CC1 (Control Environment), establishing ethical values and oversight; CC2 (Communication and Information), ensuring relevant data flows for control effectiveness; CC3 (Risk Assessment), identifying and analyzing potential threats; CC4 (Monitoring Activities), ongoing evaluation 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 (Change Management), managing updates to prevent disruptions; and CC9 (Risk Mitigation), handling vendor and third-party risks.^[31] These criteria, derived from COSO principles, ensure a holistic evaluation of security posture without overlap into other Trust Services Categories.^[34] Key controls under the Security criterion often include multi-factor authentication (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 vulnerability management processes involving regular scanning, patching, and remediation to address system weaknesses (CC3 and CC7).^[35] 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.^[36]

Availability

The availability criterion within the Trust Services Criteria for SOC 2 examinations addresses the operational performance and accessibility of a service organization's systems and data, 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.^[30] Common criteria under availability 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 incident management processes for downtime 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.^[30] Key controls for achieving availability often feature redundancy measures, such as failover systems and alternate processing sites, to maintain service during component failures. Service level agreements (SLAs) commonly define commitments for uptime, with organizations monitoring adherence to these terms. Business continuity planning integrates these elements, outlining strategies to resume operations after disruptions like hardware failures or natural disasters. While there may be brief overlap with security criteria for downtime caused by threats, availability focuses on inherent operational resilience.^[30] The availability criterion is optional for SOC 2 reports but is frequently selected by cloud computing 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 risk management for continuity. Representative metrics include uptime targets of 99.9% or higher in SLAs, recovery time objectives (RTO) specifying the maximum allowable downtime for restoration, and recovery point objectives (RPO) defining acceptable data loss intervals. These metrics establish the scale of commitment but are tailored to the service's commitments rather than universal benchmarks.^[4]^[37]

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 data handling throughout the processing lifecycle, from input to output, ensuring that outputs are dependable for decision-making or operational purposes. Common criteria under processing integrity encompass several key areas, including the generation and use of quality information to support processing objectives (PI1.1), controls over internal and external inputs to ensure completeness, accuracy, and validity (PI1.2), maintenance of processing 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, processing results, and outputs according to defined specifications (PI1.5). Key controls to achieve these include data validation rules at the input stage to verify completeness and authorization, error-checking mechanisms during processing such as automated reconciliation and exception handling, batch processing integrity checks to confirm totals and sequences in high-volume operations, and audit trails that log all transactions for traceability and anomaly detection.^[38] These controls help monitor for deviations, such as processing 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 regulatory compliance, such as payment processors that must ensure transaction calculations are error-free or data analytics firms relying on precise computations for insights.^[38] It supports adherence to operational standards like those in financial reporting or e-commerce fulfillment, where incomplete or inaccurate processing could lead to financial discrepancies.^[32] 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 scalability in validation processes.^[39] 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.^[38] Processing integrity also intersects briefly with confidentiality 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 confidential—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.^[30] This protection encompasses limiting access, retention, and sharing to authorized parties only, ensuring that sensitive data remains secure throughout its lifecycle.^[31] Key criteria under this principle include data classification to identify and document confidential information (C1.1), which involves establishing policies for categorizing data based on sensitivity levels, such as intellectual property or customer records, to guide appropriate handling.^[30] 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.^[31] 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.^[30] Transmission security further safeguards data in motion (CC6.7), typically via encryption protocols like TLS for networks and secure file transfer mechanisms to protect against interception during sharing.^[32] Common controls supporting these criteria encompass non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) to legally bind employees and third parties to confidentiality obligations, as well as secure data sharing protocols that incorporate authentication and audit logging to track and verify access.^[31] These measures are implemented alongside monitoring for unauthorized attempts (CC6.6 and CC6.8), such as intrusion detection systems and antivirus software tailored to confidential data environments.^[30] In SOC 2 reports, confidentiality 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 finance and technology.^[32] 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.^[40] This criterion builds on foundational access controls from the security principle to emphasize secrecy for designated confidential assets, including intellectual property, financial records, and strategic plans.^[30]

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.^[4]^[41] The common criteria under GAPP encompass several key areas to operationalize privacy commitments: notice and communication, which requires clear disclosure of privacy practices and objectives to individuals before or at the time of data collection; choice and consent, ensuring individuals have options to opt in or out of data processing and that affirmative consent 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 personal information; and monitoring and enforcement, involving ongoing oversight, internal audits, and mechanisms to address privacy complaints or incidents. These criteria help organizations demonstrate compliance with user-centric principles, fostering trust in data handling practices.^[42]^[43] Key controls supporting the Privacy criterion include conducting privacy impact assessments (PIAs) to evaluate risks associated with new data processing activities, implementing consent 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 privacy risks. For instance, organizations might deploy automated systems to anonymize data where possible or enforce role-based access tied to privacy policies. These controls are designed to be scalable, allowing service providers to tailor them to their operations while meeting audit expectations.^[44]^[45] In SOC 2 examinations, the Privacy criterion is optional but becomes essential for service organizations that are consumer-facing or process personal data directly from individuals, such as in e-commerce or SaaS platforms handling user profiles. It particularly aids compliance with regulations like the California Consumer Privacy Act (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 Privacy controls with these laws, organizations can streamline audits and demonstrate global applicability.^[46]^[47]

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 internal control over financial reporting (ICFR).^[3] These reports, developed under the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) standards in Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements (SSAE) No. 18, enable service organizations to demonstrate to their clients—known as user entities—that their systems and processes adequately safeguard financial data processing.^[1] Primarily intended for financial statement auditors and management, SOC 1 reports address risks associated with outsourced financial services, helping to mitigate potential misstatements in user entities' financial statements.^[48] The scope of SOC 1 reports centers on controls based on established internal control frameworks, such as the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO) framework, which emphasizes control environment, risk assessment, control activities, information and communication, and monitoring.^[49] These controls typically focus on financial transaction processing activities, including payroll processing, billing and collections, accounts payable, and general ledger maintenance, where inaccuracies could directly impact financial reporting.^[50] 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.^[51] 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 auditor's report 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.^[50] Type I reports assess only the design of controls at a point in time, while Type II provides deeper assurance through substantive testing.^[52] 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.^[52] They play a critical role in supporting Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) Section 404 compliance for public companies by allowing user auditors to leverage the service auditor's work, reducing duplication in internal control testing and enhancing efficiency in financial reporting audits.^[11] In contrast to SOC 2 reports, which emphasize controls under the Trust Services Criteria for operational aspects like security and availability, SOC 1 is narrower in scope, exclusively targeting financial reporting impacts without mandatory inclusion of non-financial criteria.^[48] This focus makes SOC 1 particularly suited for scenarios where financial integrity is the primary concern, rather than broader data protection or privacy issues.^[51]

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 security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, 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.^[1] The scope of a SOC 2 report requires evaluation against the Security criterion as a mandatory component, while the inclusion of Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, and Privacy 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 system integrity and data. Service organizations tailor the scope to align with their operations, ensuring the report covers relevant aspects without unnecessary breadth.^[1] A SOC 2 report is structured to include management's assertion about the system's description and control effectiveness, a detailed description of the service organization's system (including infrastructure, software, people, procedures, and data), the applicable TSC, and the service auditor's report with results from tests of controls. For Type II reports, this incorporates substantive testing of control operating effectiveness 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.^[53] 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.^[1]

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 security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy.^[54] 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.^[55] 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.^[56] 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, infrastructure, software, personnel, data, 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 public audiences.^[55]^[54] Structurally, a SOC 3 report includes three main components: management's written assertion affirming the effectiveness of controls in meeting TSC objectives; the independent auditor's opinion on that assertion, confirming the examination was conducted in accordance with AICPA standards such as SSAE 18; and a brief description of the system, highlighting key commitments and components without detailing test procedures or results.^[56] This streamlined format ensures the report remains concise and suitable for broad dissemination.^[55] Service organizations use SOC 3 reports primarily as a marketing tool to demonstrate commitment to robust security practices, allowing prospects to review compliance evidence without requiring nondisclosure agreements. They are particularly valuable in sales cycles for cloud service providers or SaaS companies seeking to build trust with potential customers.^[56] However, SOC 3 reports offer limited assurance compared to SOC 2, as they do not include evidence of control testing, making them unsuitable for internal audit purposes or in-depth risk assessments by user entities.^[55]

Specialized Variants

Specialized variants of SOC reports extend the core framework to address specific emerging risks, such as cybersecurity threats and supply chain vulnerabilities, by applying tailored subsets of the Trust Services Criteria (TSC).^[1] These reports are designed for organizations facing niche challenges, often integrating with SOC 2 examinations to provide focused assurance without duplicating general controls.^[27] The SOC for Cybersecurity, introduced by the AICPA in 2017, evaluates an organization's enterprise-wide cybersecurity risk management program, emphasizing governance, strategy, detection, response, and recovery processes.^[57] It uses description criteria aligned with established standards like the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 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.^[58] This variant is particularly valuable for public companies and entities under regulatory scrutiny, helping demonstrate compliance with requirements like SEC disclosures on cybersecurity risks.^[59] Similarly, the SOC for Supply Chain, launched by the AICPA in 2020, assesses controls relevant to security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy within supply chain ecosystems.^[29] It focuses on third-party risk management, vendor oversight, and resilience against disruptions, using a subset of TSC adapted for manufacturing, distribution, and procurement activities.^[60] Organizations in global supply networks, such as those in electronics or pharmaceuticals, utilize this report to build trust with partners and mitigate risks exposed by events like post-pandemic disruptions.^[28] 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.^[61] 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.^[62] 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.^[1]

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.^[1] This assessment focuses solely on the design and implementation of controls, without examining their operating effectiveness over a period.^[1] As a result, Type I reports are generally quicker to complete and less costly than Type II reports, which include testing of operational effectiveness.^[50] The structure of a Type I report typically includes management's assertion regarding the design of the controls, a detailed description of the service organization's system (encompassing policies, procedures, and control activities), and the independent auditor's report expressing an opinion on the fairness of the system description and the suitability of the control design.^[63] These elements ensure transparency for user entities evaluating potential risks from outsourcing arrangements. Type I reports apply to both SOC 1 (focused on financial reporting controls) and SOC 2 (addressing trust services criteria like security and privacy).^[1] 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.^[64] 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.^[1] In contrast to Type II reports, which test ongoing effectiveness, Type I offers a snapshot suitable for early-stage risk assessments but requires follow-up for sustained confidence.^[1]

Type II

A Type II report, also known as a SOC Type 2 report, 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.^[1] 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 security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy (Trust Services Criteria) for SOC 2.^[4] The scope of a Type II report involves in-depth testing of controls to determine their operational effectiveness throughout the review period, including procedures such as walkthroughs, inquiries of personnel, observations of processes, inspections of documentation, and substantive sample testing of transactions or activities.^[65] These tests aim to identify deviations, exceptions, or control deficiencies that occurred during the period, offering a more robust evaluation than a design-only review.^[1] The structure of a Type II report incorporates all core elements of a Type I report—such as the independent service auditor's opinion on the fairness of the system's description 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 description of the service organization's system and the effectiveness of controls is also included, along with applicable complementary user entity controls.^[53] 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.^[66] 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.^[4] 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.^[14] The primary advantages of Type II reports include providing a higher degree of assurance through empirical evidence of control operation, which enhances stakeholder confidence, and their suitability for annual renewal to support continuous compliance monitoring without full re-audits each year.^[65]

Audit Procedures

Preparation Phase

The preparation phase for a SOC audit 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.^[67] Management is responsible for developing a detailed system description that outlines the organization's services, infrastructure, processes, and boundaries, which must be accurate and fairly presented to provide a clear picture for auditors and user entities.^[67] Additionally, management asserts that the controls are suitably designed to meet the organization's service commitments and system requirements, selecting appropriate criteria like the TSC categories of security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, or privacy based on the scope of services provided.^[67] A key component of preparation is conducting a gap analysis through internal readiness assessments to evaluate existing controls against the chosen criteria, identifying deficiencies that could impact compliance.^[68] Remediation efforts follow, where management addresses these gaps by implementing or enhancing controls, such as updating access management procedures or risk mitigation strategies, and may engage external consultants to provide expertise in complex areas like control design or TSC alignment.^[69] This process helps mitigate risks before the formal audit begins.^[70] 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.^[71] These materials serve as evidence of control implementation and must be organized to facilitate auditor review.^[72] The preparation phase typically spans 3-6 months prior to the audit, allowing sufficient time for thorough assessment and remediation while minimizing disruptions.^[73] It requires collaboration across cross-functional teams, including IT for technical controls, compliance for policy alignment, and operations for process integration, often led by a designated project coordinator to ensure cohesive progress.^[74] For organizations relying on subservice providers, management must consider their inclusion in the system 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 auditor relies on the subservice organization's own reports or evidence without directly testing them, to accurately reflect the overall system.^[75] This evaluation ensures the system description encompasses all relevant dependencies, setting the stage for the subsequent examination and reporting phase.^[67]

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.^[4] 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.^[76] 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.^[77] 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.^[76] 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.^[78] 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.^[79] For Type II reports, distribution is typically restricted to specified user entities under nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) to protect sensitive system descriptions.^[80] 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.^[81] 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.^[82]

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 security, availability, and confidentiality.^[83] 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.^[7] For instance, SOC 2 compliance signals robust data protection practices, enabling easier negotiations with clients who require evidence of third-party risk management.^[84] SOC 2 examinations aid risk management by identifying control weaknesses and gaps in system design or operations, thereby improving overall operational resilience.^[84] Through the audit process, service organizations gain insights into potential vulnerabilities related to outsourced services, allowing them to proactively address risks and enhance oversight of internal controls.^[83] This identification of improvement areas not only mitigates exposure to security incidents but also supports better alignment with client expectations for reliable service delivery.^[7] 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.^[85] 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.^[84] Additionally, compliance often leads to lower cybersecurity insurance premiums by demonstrating a lower risk profile to insurers.^[86] 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.^[7] 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.^[84] 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.^[7]

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.^[50] 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).^[50] This reliance is particularly valuable in financial audits, where SOC 1 provides evidence on controls relevant to internal control over financial reporting (ICFR).^[3] 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.^[14]^[87] 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.^[88] In vendor management, SOC reports facilitate thorough due diligence by providing standardized, independent assessments of a service provider's controls, allowing user entities to evaluate risks associated with outsourcing and ensure alignment with regulatory requirements like Sarbanes-Oxley.^[89] These reports support informed risk assessments, helping organizations identify potential control gaps early and integrate them into broader compliance strategies for filings or oversight.^[88] SOC reports also inform decision-making during contract negotiations, where user entities can use findings—especially from Type II examinations—to establish or refine service level agreements (SLAs) that address specific control commitments, such as data security or processing integrity.^[90] 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.^[91] 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.^[50] Exceptions or deviations noted in the report may necessitate further inquiry or additional testing by the user entity to mitigate residual risks.^[88] For integration into enterprise risk management, 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 confidentiality while enabling stakeholder reviews.^[92] This approach enhances ongoing monitoring and supports proactive adjustments to vendor relationships.^[50]

References

[1]
System and Organization Controls: SOC Suite of Services | Resources
System and Organization Controls (SOC) is a suite of service offerings CPAs may provide in connection with system-level controls of a service organization.
[2]
Explaining the 3 faces of SOC - Journal of Accountancy
Jun 13, 2016 · Five years after the AICPA introduced the Service Organization Control (SOC) reports, I continue to field lots of questions about SOC and ...
[3]
SOC 1® - SOC for Service Organizations: ICFR | AICPA & CIMA
SOC 1 is an examination of controls at a service organization that are likely to be relevant to user entities' internal control over financial reporting.<|control11|><|separator|>
[4]
SOC 2® - SOC for Service Organizations: Trust Services Criteria
A SOC 2 examination is a report on controls at a service organization relevant to security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, or privacy.Illustrative SOC 2® Report with... · 2022) | Resources · Description Criteria
[5]
SOC 1 vs SOC 2 vs SOC 3: What's the Difference? - Secureframe
SOC 1 focuses on financial reporting, SOC 2 on data management, and SOC 3 is a summary for public use. SOC 2 is private, while SOC 3 is public. SOC 3 is always ...
[6]
SOC 1 vs SOC 2: Differences & Choosing the Report You Need
Apr 5, 2023 · SOC stands for “System and Organization Controls.” These were formerly Service Organization Control reports. SOC is a suite of reports from ...What is a SOC Report... · What are SOC Controls/Criteria? · Do Some Service...
[7]
System and Organization Controls (SOC) Reporting - PwC
SOC reporting builds trust by demonstrating controls for protecting data. SOC 1 focuses on outsourced services impacting financial reporting. SOC 2 and 2+ are ...
[8]
AICPA System and Organization Controls communications guidelines
May 28, 2019 · The AICPA introduced the term system and organization controls (SOC) to refer to the suite of services practitioners may provide relating to system-level ...
[9]
[PDF] A Comprehensive Guide to SOC Reports - SC&H Group
With the introduction of the SOC reporting format, the AICPA also established three SOC report types (SOC 1, SOC 2, and SOC 3), each designed to meet a specific ...
[10]
Understanding SOC Report Types: A Guide for Business Owners
Jan 27, 2025 · Businesses operating in sectors like finance, healthcare, and technology often require SOC reports as part of their compliance efforts.
[11]
SOX vs. SOC explained: What every business needs to know about ...
May 14, 2025 · SOX ensures financial reporting integrity for public companies, while SOC reports evaluate a service provider's internal control activities.
[12]
Vendor Due Diligence: Don't Make This SOC 2 Report Mistake
Aug 4, 2020 · A SOC 2 evaluates internal controls to see how well a company identifies, assesses, mitigates, and monitors risks. From the board to everyday ...
[13]
SOC 2 vs ISO 27001: What's the Difference and Which Standard Do ...
Dec 18, 2024 · SOC 2 and ISO 27001 are two of the most rigorous security and compliance standards designed to demonstrate to clients that you can be trusted with their data.
[14]
[PDF] AIMD-96-98 The Accounting Profession: Major Issues - GAO
Sep 24, 1996 · In the 1980s, continued business failures, particularly those involving financial institutions, led to a series of congressional hearings on ...
[15]
Deconstructing SOC 1 (f. SAS 70) Reports | Linford & Co
Oct 27, 2020 · What is SAS 70? This blog will explain how it evolved into today's SOC 1 reports, & how to understand your report's structure and the ...
[16]
SAS 70: Reports on the Processing of Transactions by Service ...
SAS 70 also provides guidelines to auditors engaged by service organizations to report on the internal control policies and procedures that have been adopted.
[17]
SAS 70 Auditing Standard vs. SSAE 16 Report: What's the Difference?
Oct 28, 2016 · SAS 70 is an older auditing standard, while SSAE 16 is an attestation standard requiring a written assertion, unlike SAS 70.
[18]
The Death Of SAS70 - The Birth Of SSAE16 Standards - Audit
May 22, 2012 · SAS No. 70 quickly became a standard for the user organizations to obtain assurance that their data was being protected and managed in a secure ...
[19]
Frequently Asked Questions About SAS 70, SSAE 16, SSAE 18
Find answers to the mostly commonly asked questions about SSAE 16 and SAS 70, which have been replaced by SSAE 18.Missing: introduction 1992
[20]
SSAE 16 - An Introduction - Schellman
May 10, 2010 · In April 2010, the AICPA issued Statement on Standards for Attestation Engagements (SSAE) 16, Reporting on Controls at a Service ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[21]
What is SSAE 16 - Scytale
It was issued in April 2010 and was specifically designed for service organizations that provide outsourced services. SSAE 16 was introduced to enhance the ...
[22]
The Meaning of SOC from the AICPA - Truvantis
Jan 25, 2022 · The acronym SOC currently means System and Organization Controls, but that wasn't always the case. Read on to learn why.
[23]
AICPA Updates SOC Engagements with SSAE No. 18 - Moss Adams
Mar 13, 2017 · The AICPA's SSAE No. 18 redrafts standards for SOC examinations and other attestation engagements and replaces SSAE No. 16.<|control11|><|separator|>
[24]
SSAE 16 vs SSAE 18 | Insights Into the Updated Standards
Aug 7, 2024 · The AICPA updated the attestation standards, shifting from SSAE 16 to SSAE 18, to simplify and align them with international standards. It ...
[25]
Moving From SSAE 16 to SSAE 18.... - Compass IT Compliance
Aug 11, 2016 · SSAE 18 defines a subservice organization as a service organization used by another service organization to perform some of the services ...
[26]
SOC for Cybersecurity | AICPA & CIMA
The AICPA has developed a cybersecurity risk management reporting framework that assists organizations as they communicate relevant and useful information.
[27]
A SOC for Supply Chain Report Can Help Reveal a Business's ...
Apr 7, 2022 · The AICPA developed the SOC for Supply Chain reporting framework for software vendors to provide an independent assessment of their security ...
[28]
SOC for Supply Chain | AICPA & CIMA
SOC for Supply Chain is a flexible, voluntary reporting framework to help organizations identify, assess, and address supply chain risks and communicate risk ...
[29]
2017 Trust Services Criteria (With Revised Points of Focus – 2022)
Sep 30, 2023 · The 2017 Trust Services Criteria for Security, Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, and Privacy (With Revised Points of ...
[30]
Trust Services Criteria (TSCs): SOC 2 Audit Guidance
Feb 1, 2023 · Conclusion. The AICPA introduced the updated TSP Section 100, 2017 Trust Services Criteria for Security, Availability, Processing Integrity, ...What Are the Five Trust... · How Do the 17 COSO... · Additional SOC 2 Criteria...
[31]
2025 Trust Services Criteria for SOC 2 | Secureframe
What are the Five AICPA Trust Services Criteria? · 1. Security · 2. Availability · 3. Processing Integrity · 4. Confidentiality · 5. Privacy.
[32]
SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria (TSC): A Guide | Cherry Bekaert
Mar 20, 2025 · The criteria have defined five categories for evaluating SOC 2 compliance: security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality and privacy.
[33]
SOC 2 Trust Services Categories | AJ Yawn - SANS Institute
Jan 24, 2022 · The Security category includes nine criteria, which are: CC1.0 - The Control Environment; CC2.0 - Communication and information; CC3.0 - Risk ...
[34]
AICPA SOC 2 Controls List - 2025 Version - Cyber Sierra
Rating 4.8 (112) Jun 12, 2025 · Comprehensive SOC 2 controls framework guide. Includes readiness assessment tips, cybersecurity insurance requirements, and practical steps ...
[35]
5 Key SOC 2 Controls Your Organization Should Use - Panorays
May 24, 2023 · The 5 key SOC 2 controls are: Data Access, Encryption, Two-Factor Authentication, Disaster Recovery, and Third-Party Security Management.Risk Mitigation Controls · The 5 Soc 2 Controls To... · 2. Encryption<|control11|><|separator|>
[36]
AICPA SOC 2 Compliance Key Trust Services Criteria & Latest ...
Apr 2, 2025 · Stay updated with AICPA SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria. Learn about security mandates, integration with ISO 27001, and compliance updates.
[37]
New whitepaper available: AICPA SOC 2 Compliance Guide on AWS
Jul 23, 2025 · ... AICPA's Trust Services Criteria requires thoughtful planning and robust implementation. This new whitepaper helps cloud architects, security ...Missing: emerging | Show results with:emerging<|control11|><|separator|>
[38]
Understanding SOC 2 Availability, Uptime & DR | ISMS.online
Availability metrics, including uptime percentages, Mean Time Between Failures (MTBF), and Recovery Time Objectives (RTO), serve not as isolated measurements ...
[39]
What is Processing Integrity and Who Needs it in their SOC 2?
Aug 23, 2017 · As shown above, the AICPA defines the processing integrity trust services criteria as: “System processing is complete, valid, accurate, timely, ...What is the Processing... · Who needs to Include... · What Additional Testing is...
[40]
What are the SOC 2 Processing Integrity Controls? - RSI Security
Sep 29, 2025 · This principle focuses on ensuring that data processing is accurate, complete, timely, and authorized, supported by specific controls across ...
[41]
https://linfordco.com/blog/confidentiality-vs-privacy-in-a-soc-2/
[42]
Confidentiality vs. Privacy in a SOC 2 - Linford & Company LLP
Mar 7, 2018 · The GAPP consists of ten privacy principles, which are reviewed as part of the SOC 2 Privacy Criteria. The privacy principles are listed and ...
[43]
The 5 SOC 2 Trust Services Categories Explained - Schellman
Aug 27, 2025 · The 5 Trust Services Categories for SOC 2 Reports · 1. Security · 2. Availability · 3. Processing Integrity · 4. Confidentiality · 5. Privacy.
[44]
Trust Services Criteria for SOC 2: What You Need to Know - Drata
Mar 25, 2025 · The specific Availability criteria are: A1.1: Capacity Management – Ensures systems can scale to meet usage demands without performance issues.
[45]
5 SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria - Bright Defense
SOC 2 audits are structured around the Trust Services Criteria, a framework developed by the AICPA. These criteria outline expectations for managing data ...
[46]
The Ultimate SOC 2 Compliance Checklist & How to Comply - Qovery
Draft key security policies (Access Control, Incident Response, Data Retention). Implement safeguards: MFA, data encryption (at rest and in transit), and ...
[47]
SOC 2 Compliance Guide: How Secure Privacy Achieved It
Oct 6, 2025 · The SOC 2 privacy criteria specifically addresses requirements that overlap directly with GDPR and CCPA obligations including privacy notices, ...Why Soc 2 Matters For... · How Soc 2 Aligns With Gdpr... · Inside The Soc 2 Audit...
[48]
SOC 2 Privacy vs. GDPR: Audit Considerations & Compliance
Nov 6, 2019 · Learn about similarities and differences between SOC 2 Privacy and GDPR during audits for compliance with personal data security ...
[49]
Explore AICPA Updated SOC 2 Guide Clarifications - Moss Adams
Nov 17, 2022 · The AICPA released an updated SOC 2® Guide on October 15, 2022. Learn about potential impacts and what this means for your organization.
[50]
AI and Privacy: Shifting from 2024 to 2025 - Cloud Security Alliance
Apr 22, 2025 · For multi-jurisdictional enterprises, it is imperative to prioritize cross-border compliance strategies by aligning AI systems with the most EU ...
[51]
AICPA | Understanding the Key Differences & Similarities and What ...
The AICPA put forth the SOC 2 framework, a reporting option specifically designed for entities such as data centers, IT managed services, software as a service ...Missing: evolution Act
[52]
SOC 1 vs. SOC 2: Key Differences for Compliance and Security - Aprio
SOC 1 focuses on financial controls, while SOC 2 emphasizes information security, catering to diverse business needs.
[53]
What is a SOC 1 Report? Expert Advice for Audit Compliance
Apr 12, 2023 · A SOC 1 report is an audit report that's scope includes both business process and information technology control objectives and testing.
[54]
https://www.aicpa-cima.com/topic/audit-assurance/audit-and-assurance-greater-than-soc-3
[55]
What is SOC 1? — A Complete Guide to SOC 1 Reports
Jun 12, 2025 · A System and Organization Controls (SOC) 1 report is a formal, independent assessment of a service organization's internal controls that are ...<|separator|>
[56]
Illustrative SOC 2® Report with Illustrative System Description
This illustrative SOC 2 Report includes management's assertion, description of the system, and a SOC 2 Type 2 service auditor's report.
[57]
SOC 3® - SOC for Service Organizations: Trust Services Criteria for ...
SOC 3 reports address controls relevant to security, availability, processing integrity, confidential and privacy.
[58]
SOC 3 Reports: Do You Need One? - Linford & Company LLP
May 21, 2024 · The SOC 3 report is a general-use report after an attestation examination is conducted in accordance with the SSAE 18 standard.
[59]
What You Need to Know About SOC 3 Reports | Schellman
Mar 18, 2025 · A SOC 3 report provides a high-level summary of the organization's system and how it meets the Trust Services Criteria without disclosing detailed control ...
[60]
Learn about the key distinctions between a SOC 2 examination and ...
Oct 25, 2021 · In April 2017, the AICPA introduced a new cybersecurity risk management examination (SOC for Cybersecurity) designed to help all types of ...
[61]
What is SOC for Cybersecurity? - Schellman
Jan 26, 2022 · When it previously stood for Service Organization Controls, now the term represents System and Organization Controls. Where SOC was ...
[62]
SOC for Cybersecurity vs SOC 2: 5 key differences - Wipfli
Dec 18, 2024 · The SOC for Cybersecurity framework, also known as Cyber SOC, provides both structure and transparency into how your company manages cybersecurity risks.
[63]
AICPA Introduces SOC for Supply Chain, Promotes Software Quality ...
Jun 24, 2020 · The SOC 2 report provides information on a service provider's processes and controls to help customers to evaluate the risks of doing business ...
[64]
SOC Reporting After PE Acquisition | Insights - Calvetti Ferguson
SOC 2 reports expand the internal controls testing and apply the AICPA's Trust Services Criteria for security and privacy. The audience for SOC 2 reports is ...
[65]
[PDF] March 13, 2025 - NITRD's File Portal
Mar 13, 2025 · In the case of AI assurance, CPA assurance services would be performed under the AICPA attestation standards. The AICPA attestation ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[66]
Guide to SOC Reporting (Service Organization Controls) - Armanino
Jun 17, 2012 · Both Type 1 and Type 2 reports include: Management's description of the service organization's system; A written assertion by management of the ...Types Of Soc Reporting · Soc Reporting Options · Coso And Changes To Soc...
[67]
SOC 2 Type 1 vs Type 2: A comprehensive guide to ... - Thoropass
Type 1 audits are faster and can set realistic expectations for a Type 2 audit report. A Type 2 audit is more comprehensive and shows a greater level of audit ...
[68]
What is a SOC 2 Type 2 Report? Guidance & Auditor Insights
May 22, 2024 · A SOC 2 Type 2 report provides an assessment of a service organization's internal controls based on the applicable trust services criteria.
[69]
SOC 2 Type 2 Compliance: Who Needs This Report & Why?
Jul 21, 2025 · The SOC 2 Type 2 report assesses the design and operating effectiveness of your internal controls over a period of time, typically 3-12 months.
[70]
Understanding Management's Responsibility in a SOC Audit
Jan 19, 2021 · Management bears responsibility for designing, implementing, operating, monitoring, and documenting controls over that system boundary.
[71]
SOC 2 compliance: A step-by-step guide to prepare for your audit
May 20, 2024 · Preparing for a SOC 2 audit involves identifying the report type, defining scope, conducting assessments, remediating gaps, choosing an auditor, ...
[72]
SOC 2 compliance consultant - Atlant | Security
Sep 10, 2025 · A SOC 2 compliance consultant helps a business implement security controls by conducting a gap analysis against Trust Services Criteria (TSCs), ...
[73]
Your complete 2025 guide to SOC 2 gap analysis - Thoropass
The first step toward getting your SOC 2 is a gap analysis, which helps understand existing policies, procedures, and controls are operational.Missing: phase | Show results with:phase
[74]
How to prepare your SOC 2 compliance documentation - Vanta
There are three documents you'll need for your SOC 2 audit: a management assertion, a system description, and a controls matrix. ‍. Management assertion. This ...
[75]
Steps to Prepare Your SOC 2 Compliance Documentation
Aug 26, 2025 · Learn the key steps to prepare your SOC 2 compliance documentation, from scoping & system descriptions to control matrices, diagrams, ...
[76]
How Long Does It Take To Get SOC 2 Compliance? | Cherry Bekaert
Jun 3, 2025 · SOC 2 Type 2 (Starts After the Type 1 Reporting, 3 – 12 Months) Although the AICPA does not specify a minimum allowable audit period for a SOC ...
[77]
Key 11 Stages of SOC 2 Compliance Journey - Ampcus Cyber
Mar 27, 2025 · Stage 1. Pre-Assessment for SOC 2 Compliance · Stage 2. Creating a Project Plan · Stage 3. Assembling A Cross-Functional Team · Stage 4. Creating a ...
[78]
Carve-Out vs Inclusive Method: SOC 2 Subservice Audits
Jun 25, 2025 · Inclusive method includes subservice controls in your system, while carve-out excludes them, but you are responsible for understanding and ...
[79]
Understanding Audit Procedures: Methods & Test of Controls
Aug 9, 2023 · What Are the Five Types of Audit Tests? · Inquiry · Observation · Examination or Inspection of Evidence · Re-performance · Computer-Assisted Audit ...What Are the Five Types of... · What Does the AICPA Say...
[80]
4 Testing Methods Used During Audit Procedures - IS Partners, LLC
Dec 18, 2024 · Auditors use four main audit testing techniques – Inquiry, Observation, Examination/Inspection, and Re-performance.
[81]
Breaking Down SOC 2 Reports: How to Prepare and Review Each ...
Jul 26, 2022 · SOC 2 reports are performed by a third-party auditor in the U.S. under SSAE 18 and the AICPA guide to reporting on service organization controls ...1. Auditor's Report · Qualified Opinion · Unqualified Opinion
[82]
SOC 2 Section 5: The Unaudited Section of a SOC Report
Nov 9, 2021 · Section 5, the unaudited section, of the SOC 2 report can vary significantly between reports. It may contain a lot of details about the service organization.
[83]
SOC 2 Reports – Frequently Asked Questions - PBMares
Sep 4, 2025 · For example, a SOC 2+ report can incorporate mapping to HIPAA safeguards, ISO 27001 controls, PCI DSS requirements, or CMMC practices.
[84]
Understanding SOC 2 Audit Frequency for Consistent Compliance
Sep 23, 2024 · SOC 2 audit frequency is typically annual but can vary based on client needs, regulations, or major security changes, ensuring continuous ...
[85]
SOC 2 Exceptions: What They Mean & How to Handle Them - Sprinto
Jun 20, 2025 · Learn what SOC 2 exceptions are, how they impact audits, how to respond, remediate, avoid them with practical examples & expert clarity.Missing: distribution NDA
[86]
SOC for Service Organizations Engagements – Overview | Resources
This document provides an overview of SOC for Service Organizations Engagements.
[87]
[PDF] SOC 2 Thought Leadership March 2021 - EY
SOC 2 reports build trust with your stakeholders and allow you to identify areas for improvement. They are used to understand a service organization's internal.
[88]
Budgeting for SOC 2: How Much Does a SOC 2 Audit Cost? - Drata
SOC 2 Type 1 audits cost $7,500-$15,000 (small to midsize) to $60,000 (large). Type 2 audits cost $12,000 to over $100,000. Total costs can double with other ...SOC 2 Audit Costs: What... · Additional SOC 2 Audit Costs
[89]
SOC reports Proving security building trust - RSM US
Cost effectiveness. Can reduce security breaches, minimize efforts related to annual security due diligence, and lower cybersecurity insurance premiums ...
[90]
Service Organization Control (SOC) Reports Explained
May 15, 2023 · What Are the Types of SOC Reports? ; SOC-1, Financial Reporting Processing, Payroll Processors, Medical Billing ; SOC-2 / SOC-3, Software (SaaS) ...
[91]
What Is a Vendor SOC Report? - Venminder
Oct 31, 2023 · A system and organization controls (SOC) report is often one of the most challenging documents to review during vendor due diligence.
[92]
What is Vendor SOC Report And How It Can Help in TPRM?
Aug 11, 2023 · SOC reports can be used during contract negotiations to ensure that service level agreements (SLAs) and other contractual obligations align ...
[93]
What is a SOC Report and Why is it Important? - Bright Defense
Discover what is a SOC report: a tool for assessing service organizations' controls over financial reporting, data security, and privacy.
[94]
SOC Reports as a Due Diligence Tool: Best Practices for TPRM Teams
Oct 6, 2025 · Typically, no. SOC 1 and SOC 2 reports are considered confidential and are shared only under non-disclosure agreements. SOC 3 reports, however, ...<|control11|><|separator|>