The SOC 2 Debate: Assurance, Automation, and the Quality Divide
Martha Raber
?? GRC & AI Innovator | Head of Global GRC @ Trustero | Compliance, Security & Risk Expert | CRISC, CISM, CISSP, CIPM
SOC 2 has become the go-to security framework for SaaS companies, but the level of assurance provided by these reports is all over the place. Why? Because the process, once a rigorous, manual assessment, has been transformed by automation and mass-market compliance solutions.
Auditors are charging anywhere from $5K to $45K per SOC 2 audit, depending on the scope and size of the organization.
At the same time, SaaS compliance providers like Drata and Vanta are mass-producing templated, generic policies, helping SaaS SMBs do a “quick and dirty” SOC 2 audit. The result? A compliance checkbox rather than a meaningful demonstration of security maturity.
The Rise of the "Low Assurance" SOC 2
To be fair, SaaS SMBs aren’t entirely at fault. They need SOC 2 to do business. If a templated compliance solution gets them over the finish line, why wouldn’t they take the fastest, most cost-effective route? After all, they’re using SOC 2 as a marketing asset, not necessarily as a true reflection of security posture.
But this raises a bigger question: Has SOC 2 lost its value as a trust signal?
We Did This to Ourselves - So How Do We Fix It?
This isn’t just an auditor problem, or a SaaS SMB problem, or a compliance automation problem. This is a GRC-wide issue.
By making SOC 2 a near-mandatory requirement for doing business, we’ve created a market-driven race to the bottom.
Now, we have to ask:
?? Should SOC 2 reports include more transparency on assessment depth and methodology?
?? Are auditors holding companies to a consistent standard ... or just meeting them where they are?
?? Should customers demand more than just a SOC 2 badge before trusting a vendor’s security posture?
?? With humans involved in any process, how do we mitigate bias and errors?
At the end of the day, compliance should enable real security ... not just check a box. But as long as businesses treat SOC 2 as a “requirement” rather than a “commitment,” we’ll continue to see mass production of low-assurance reports.
So how do we shift the conversation from compliance for compliance’s sake to compliance as a meaningful trust signal?
Would love to hear thoughts from the GRC, InfoSec, and auditor communities. How do we solve this? ??
Cloud compliance automation CEO helping AWS Partners and customers fix misconfigurations, free resources and qualify for AWS programs with AI-powered, AWS-native automation at 6pillars.ai
1 周1. These startups fix pain. Unspeakable, slow, manual, opinionated, self-justifying pain. 2. They bring into focus what needs to fixed. And they assist in the process of fixing, though they could do more around continuous compliance of technical controls. 3. Customers love them. They hate auditors. Why? The frameworks have created artificial constructs of reinventing each of the other’s wheel to justify an archaic, self-serving industry that worships at the altar of manual obsolescence. R.I.P auditors. Vanta Drata Secureframe Sprinto Scrut Automation 6pillars.ai
Fix your SOC 2 program in 90 days (or less) without slowing down your business | DM 'FIX IT' for details
2 周SOC 2 is a trust signal but it’s not the ONLY trust signal. If you’re a company that takes it seriously and you’re buying from one that doesn’t, these days you do probably have to do a little close reading and some extra poking around to get a sense whether someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. This won’t be solved by auditors alone or the SMBs directly. You’re right the latter are victims. SOC 2 will need to become less lucrative for folks who are only out here to take the money and run.
AssuranceLab | Trust-Building Audits that Scale with Your Business
2 周In the same way we can say SaaS SMBs aren’t at fault for taking the quick and cheap path, you could argue GRC platforms aren’t at fault for building what those SaaS customers want. Nor audit firms for meeting the standards of the industry. So who is at fault? The enterprise that treat a $5k and $45k report as the same thing? (Not literally meaning based on price, but the actual quality). Or the AICPA for not addressing this widely known quality dilemma? I liken it to a sport where everyone plays to the referees whistle. If the AICPA don’t address this, then everyone is just following the course of the play.
Managing Partner & Founder | AssurancePoint
2 周This to me is the biggest issue in GRC and assurance today. How can a company relying on a vendor’s security compliance report/certification know if it was mass-produced and unreliable or if was accurate, consistent, and examined thoroughly. You are right in that we can’t blame the SMBs. I actually think they are victims and don’t even know they are victims until someone tells them. Government intervention would be great, but is that really going to happen? Maybe if these were financial audits - but they aren’t. Auditors are not operating to a consistent standard. Some do thorough due diligence as they are supposed to, and that unfortunately costs more than $5k because it takes technical professionals to do the work and even more technical professionals to review their work. I think transparency is a possible solution. Should the audit report disclose the exact audit methodologies deployed, disclose the price of the audit, disclose time spent by each level of audit personnel in the report. At least then a reader and the auditee can get a sense of the level of due diligence deployed. It’s very encouraging to see these conversations now happening.