Automated SOC 2 Evidence Collection
Automated SOC 2 Evidence Collection is the process of using software integration to programmatically retrieve, verify, and store proof of an organization’s security controls. Instead of IT administrators manually taking screenshots, downloading logs, or filling out spreadsheets, compliance automation platforms connect directly to an organization’s infrastructure to gather this data in real-time.
This automation ensures that evidence is accurate, timestamped, and tamper-proof, satisfying the rigorous documentation requirements of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) for SOC 2 Type 1 and Type 2 audits.
How Automated Collection Works
The mechanism behind automated evidence collection relies on Application Programming Interfaces (APIs). The compliance software acts as a central hub that "reads" the configurations of other tools in the company's technology stack.
API Connection: The compliance platform connects to core systems like cloud providers (AWS, Azure), identity managers (Okta, Google Workspace), and version control systems (GitHub, GitLab).
Data Extraction: The system automatically pulls configuration data, such as "Is Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) enabled for all users?" or "Are database backups encrypted?"
Validation: The software compares the extracted data against specific SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria. If the configuration matches the requirement, it is marked as "Pass."
Artifact Storage: The system generates a digital record (evidence artifact) and stores it in a secure repository accessible to the external auditor.
Key Systems for Automated Evidence
To build a complete compliance picture, automated tools typically collect evidence from four primary infrastructure categories.
Cloud Infrastructure: Tools scan environments like AWS, Google Cloud, or Azure to prove that firewalls are active, data is encrypted at rest, and access is restricted.
Identity and Access Management (IAM): Integrations with providers like Okta or Azure AD verify that offboarded employees have their access revoked immediately and that password complexity policies are enforced.
Human Resources Information Systems (HRIS): Connections to platforms like Gusto or Rippling verify that background checks were performed on new hires and that security awareness training was completed.
Developer Tools: Integrations with GitHub or Bitbucket prove that code changes require peer review (pull requests) before being merged into production.
The Importance of SOC 2 Type 2 Audits
While a SOC 2 Type 1 audit looks at a single point in time, a SOC 2 Type 2 audit evaluates the effectiveness of controls over a period (usually 6 to 12 months).
Automated evidence collection is critical for Type 2 audits because it provides a continuous chain of custody. Without automation, an organization would need to manually sample evidence every week for a year to prove consistency. Automation creates a log entry every day, providing the auditor with irrefutable proof that a control (like daily backups) never failed during the observation period.
Benefits of Automation Over Manual Collection
Transitioning from manual spreadsheets to automated collection offers several strategic advantages.
Elimination of Human Error: Manual sampling often leads to uploading the wrong file or forgetting to capture a screenshot. Automation ensures the evidence is always relevant and accurate.
Real-Time Remediation: If a control fails (e.g., an employee turns off MFA), the automation tool detects it immediately and alerts the security team. This allows the issue to be fixed before it becomes an audit failure.
Reduced Audit Fatigue: Automation reduces the time internal teams spend answering auditor requests. Instead of hunting for documents, the team simply grants the auditor access to the automated dashboard.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does automated evidence collection replace the external auditor? No. The automation tool collects the evidence, but a licensed CPA firm must still review that evidence, perform testing, and issue the final SOC 2 report. Automation speeds up the auditor's work, but it does not replace their judgment.
Is automation secure? Generally, yes. Most automated compliance platforms use "read-only" access to your systems. This means they can look at configurations to verify them, but they cannot change settings or delete data.
Can all SOC 2 evidence be automated? Not 100%. While technical controls (such as encryption and backups) can be automated, administrative controls often require manual uploads. For example, organizational charts, board meeting minutes, and strategic business plans are usually uploaded manually.
How ThreatNG Automates SOC 2 Evidence Collection
ThreatNG streamlines the SOC 2 audit process by automating the collection of evidence related to an organization's external security posture. Instead of relying on manual screenshots or static spreadsheets, ThreatNG continuously scans the external environment to generate timestamped, objective artifacts that validate Trust Services Criteria (TSC) regarding Security, Availability, Confidentiality, and Privacy.
By acting as an "always-on" external auditor, ThreatNG provides the necessary proof that controls are operating effectively, which is critical for passing SOC 2 Type 2 audits.
Automated External Discovery
For SOC 2 Common Criteria 6.1 (Asset Inventory), organizations must demonstrate that they are aware of and manage all system components. ThreatNG automates the creation of this evidence through purely external, unauthenticated discovery.
Evidence of Asset Inventory: ThreatNG automatically generates a complete list of all internet-facing assets, including subdomains, cloud environments, and third-party SaaS connections. This list serves as the primary artifact to prove to auditors that the organization has full visibility into its digital footprint.
Shadow IT Detection: The system identifies assets that fall outside of standard change management processes (e.g., a marketing site hosted on a personal AWS account). By detecting these assets, ThreatNG provides evidence that the organization is actively monitoring for unauthorized systems, satisfying requirements for boundary protection.
Automated External Assessment
ThreatNG performs automated assessments to evaluate the effectiveness of security controls. These tests generate "Pass/Fail" results that serve as direct evidence for specific SOC 2 criteria.
Web Application Hijack Susceptibility
This assessment validates Security (CC6.1, CC6.6) and Confidentiality (C1.1) controls by proving that web applications are configured to resist client-side attacks.
Automated Evidence Detail: The platform scans all identified subdomains for the presence of critical security headers. It specifically verifies the existence of Content-Security-Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict-Transport-Security (HSTS), X-Content-Type, and X-Frame-Options.
Example of ThreatNG Helping: An auditor requires proof that the organization mitigates Cross-Site Scripting (XSS). ThreatNG generates a report showing that the corporate portal enforces a strict CSP header. This timestamped report acts as the evidence artifact. If a header is missing, ThreatNG flags it, allowing the team to fix it before the audit window closes.
Subdomain Takeover Susceptibility
This assessment provides evidence for Availability and Change Management (CC8.1) by ensuring that decommissioned assets do not leave the organization vulnerable.
Automated Evidence Detail: ThreatNG performs DNS enumeration to identify CNAME records pointing to third-party services (such as AWS S3, Heroku, or GitHub). It cross-references these against a comprehensive vendor list to determine if the resources are unclaimed.
Example of ThreatNG Helping: To prove effective asset disposal, ThreatNG logs a scan showing no "dangling" DNS records. If it finds a subdomain pointing to an abandoned Azure resource, it alerts the team. The subsequent remediation (removing the DNS record) is logged, providing a "chain of custody" evidence trail that proves the Change Management process works.
Data Leak and Privacy Susceptibility
This assessment supports the Confidentiality and Privacy (P1.1) criteria by demonstrating that the organization actively checks for unauthorized data disclosure.
Automated Evidence Detail: The system scans for sensitive files in open cloud buckets, secrets in public code repositories, and Personally Identifiable Information (PII) in archived web pages.
Example of ThreatNG Helping: An organization must prove it protects customer data. ThreatNG discovers an archived PDF on a forgotten subdomain containing customer names. The system flags this as a "Data Leak." The organization's removal of the file, prompted by the alert, serves as evidence of an active Data Loss Prevention (DLP) capability.
Reporting
ThreatNG transforms raw technical data into audit-ready documentation that speaks the AICPA's language.
Mapped Compliance Reports: ThreatNG specifically maps technical findings to SOC 2 codes. For example, a finding of "Open Cloud Bucket" is automatically tagged to Confidentiality (C1.1). This allows compliance teams to export reports that directly answer auditor requests without manual data mapping.
Security Ratings: The platform assigns letter grades (A-F) to risk categories. A historical report showing a consistent "A" rating serves as high-level evidence of a mature security posture for executive summaries and board reviews.
Continuous Monitoring
For SOC 2 Type 2 audits, which cover a period of time, continuous evidence is mandatory. ThreatNG satisfies Common Criteria 7.2 (Monitoring System Components) by ensuring evidence is collected 24/7.
Drift Detection Logs: ThreatNG establishes a baseline of the environment. Any deviation—such as a new port opening or a certificate expiring—is logged as "Drift." This log proves to the auditor that the organization monitored the environment every day of the audit period, not just during the fieldwork phase.
Time-Series Evidence: Unlike a manual pen test, which is a point-in-time snapshot, ThreatNG provides a longitudinal record. Auditors can see that vulnerability scans were performed continuously throughout the year, satisfying requirements for ongoing risk assessment.
Investigation Modules
ThreatNG’s investigation modules allow organizations to generate deep-dive forensic evidence when a specific control is questioned.
Domain Intelligence
This module provides evidence for Incident Response (CC7.3) and Risk Assessment.
Investigation Detail: It analyzes domain permutations to identify typo-squatting and checks for active mail records (MX) on these lookalike domains.
Example of ThreatNG Helping: To prove the organization manages phishing risks, the team exports an investigation report showing a list of typo-squatted domains that were identified and blocked. The report details that the domains had active MX records (indicating email capability), validating the decision to block them as a proactive security measure.
Subdomain Intelligence
This module provides granular evidence for Vendor Risk Management and Patch Management.
Investigation Detail: It identifies the technology stack (e.g., specific CMS versions) and hosting providers for subdomains.
Example of ThreatNG Helping: An auditor asks if the organization keeps external software patched. The team uses the Subdomain Intelligence module to produce a report listing all external technologies and their versions, verifying that no "End of Life" software is present on the perimeter.
Intelligence Repositories
ThreatNG enriches audit evidence with external threat data, proving the organization uses a Risk-Based Approach (CC2.1).
DarCache Dark Web: Monitors for compromised credentials. Logs showing the detection of a leaked credential and the subsequent password reset provide evidence of reactive access control.
DarCache Ransomware: Tracks ransomware group tactics. This intelligence enables the organization to justify its patching priorities to an auditor, demonstrating that it prioritizes vulnerabilities actively exploited by ransomware groups.
Complementary Solutions
ThreatNG acts as the external source of truth, feeding automated evidence into other tools to create a unified compliance ecosystem.
Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC) Platforms
ThreatNG automates the "Evidence Collection" phase for GRC tools.
How They Work Together: The GRC platform defines the control (e.g., "All web transmissions must be encrypted"). ThreatNG performs validation (SSL certificate scanning).
Example of Cooperation: ThreatNG runs a daily scan of the external perimeter. It pushes a "Pass" or "Fail" status for SSL encryption to the GRC dashboard. If the scan passes, the GRC platform automatically marks the "Encryption Control" as effective and attaches the ThreatNG scan log as the proof artifact, eliminating manual uploads.
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)
ThreatNG provides external context to internal SIEM logs, strengthening evidence for Security Monitoring.
How They Work Together: ThreatNG detects external risks; the SIEM records the internal response.
Example of Cooperation: ThreatNG detects a "Subdomain Takeover" risk on a legacy domain. It sends a high-severity alert to the SIEM. The SIEM correlates this with network logs to confirm no traffic is flowing to that domain. This correlation demonstrates to auditors that the organization has end-to-end visibility—from external detection to internal verification.
Vulnerability Management (VM) Systems
ThreatNG ensures the internal VM system is scanning the correct scope, validating Asset Management.
How They Work Together: ThreatNG finds the assets; the VM system scans them for OS-level flaws.
Example of Cooperation: ThreatNG identifies a new cloud instance spun up by developers (Shadow IT) that is not in the central registry. It shares the IP address with the Vulnerability Management system. The VM tool then adds this IP to its scheduled scan. This workflow proves to auditors that the "Vulnerability Scanning" process is dynamic and covers 100% of the actual attack surface, not just the known static inventory.
