Evidence-Based Compliance
Evidence-Based Compliance is a cybersecurity methodology that relies on objective, verifiable data to demonstrate adherence to regulatory standards and security policies. Unlike traditional compliance, which often depends on manual attestation, written policies, and periodic interviews, evidence-based compliance uses automated logs, system configurations, and real-time monitoring data to prove that security controls are actually functioning.
In this model, "compliance" is not a claim made by management but a factual state derived from the operational environment. It shifts the burden of proof from subjective human assertion to irrefutable digital artifacts, ensuring that an organization’s security posture is measured by reality rather than intent.
The Shift from Policy-Based to Evidence-Based
Historically, compliance audits were "policy-based." An auditor would ask, "Do you have a policy for password complexity?" The organization would produce a document, and the auditor would check a box.
Evidence-based compliance changes the question to: "Show me the configuration settings for all active user directories confirming that password complexity is enforced." The answer is not a document, but a timestamped export of the actual system setting. This distinction is critical for modern frameworks like SOC 2, ISO 27001, and CMMC 2.0, which increasingly prioritize "operating effectiveness" over design.
Core Components of Evidence-Based Compliance
To transition to an evidence-based model, organizations rely on specific technical capabilities that transform raw data into audit artifacts.
Objective Data Sources: Evidence is drawn directly from the source of truth—firewalls, identity providers, cloud platforms (AWS, Azure), and endpoint detection systems—rather than manual spreadsheets.
Automated Collection: APIs and scripts automatically harvest configuration data and event logs on a scheduled basis, eliminating the risk of human error or manipulation in data gathering.
Continuous Validation: Instead of collecting evidence once a year, systems validate controls continuously. If a specific control (like Multi-Factor Authentication) fails for even one user, the system records the failure as evidence of non-compliance.
Traceability: Every piece of evidence is immutable and traceable. It includes metadata such as who pulled the data, when it was pulled, and from which specific asset, creating a defensible audit trail.
How Evidence-Based Compliance Works
The lifecycle of evidence-based compliance follows a structured path that aligns security operations with audit requirements.
Define Controls: The organization maps regulatory requirements (e.g., "Encrypt data at rest") to specific technical checks (e.g., "Check AWS S3 Bucket Encryption status").
Collect Data: Automated tools query the infrastructure to retrieve the actual status of those technical checks.
Evaluate Findings: The system compares the retrieved data against the expected value. If the bucket is unencrypted, it flags a violation.
Generate Artifacts: The system produces a "Proof of Compliance" record—a digital snapshot showing that on a specific date and time, the control was active and effective.
Benefits of an Evidence-Based Approach
Adopting this methodology offers significant strategic advantages for security leaders and compliance officers.
Audit Efficiency: It drastically reduces the time spent on audits. Instead of hunting for screenshots, teams simply grant auditors access to the repository of pre-collected evidence.
Risk Reduction: Because it relies on actual data, it exposes security gaps that paper policies hide. It ensures that the organization is actually secure, not just compliant on paper.
Higher Trust: Customers and partners place greater trust in security reports backed by objective data, shortening sales cycles and improving vendor risk assessments.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the difference between attestation and evidence? Attestation is a statement of truth ("I promise I did this"). Evidence is proof of truth ("Here is the log file showing I did this"). Evidence-based compliance relies on the latter.
Does evidence-based compliance replace the need for policies? No. Policies are still required to define the rules. Evidence-based compliance is the method used to prove those rules are being followed.
Can all compliance controls be evidence-based? Most technical controls (access, encryption, patching) can be evidence-based. However, administrative controls (like "Board of Directors meeting minutes" or "Organizational Charts") still require manual documentation.
Is this required for SOC 2? While not explicitly mandated to use "evidence-based software," SOC 2 Type 2 requires proof of "operating effectiveness" over a period of time. Using an evidence-based approach is the most practical way to generate the volume of proof required for a successful Type 2 audit.
How ThreatNG Enables Evidence-Based Compliance
ThreatNG transforms the theoretical concept of compliance into a data-driven reality by providing the objective, verifiable artifacts needed for Evidence-Based Compliance. Instead of relying on manual attestations or static policy documents, ThreatNG continuously scans the external attack surface to generate timestamped, immutable logs that prove whether security controls are operationally effective.
By automating the collection and validation of external security data, ThreatNG bridges the gap between regulatory requirements (such as SOC 2, ISO 27001, and GDPR) and technical reality, offering auditors irrefutable proof of an organization's security posture.
Automated External Discovery
The foundation of evidence-based compliance is a complete and accurate asset inventory. You cannot provide evidence for assets you do not track. ThreatNG automates the generation of this evidence through purely external, unauthenticated discovery.
Inventory Completeness Evidence: ThreatNG creates a comprehensive map of all internet-facing assets, including subdomains, cloud environments, and third-party SaaS connections. This dynamic inventory serves as the primary audit artifact to demonstrate that the organization has full visibility into its digital footprint, satisfying "Asset Management" controls.
Shadow IT Detection: The system identifies assets deployed outside of formal change management processes, such as marketing microsites or development servers on personal cloud accounts. Detecting and logging these assets provides evidence that the organization is actively monitoring for unauthorized systems, validating "Boundary Protection" requirements.
Comprehensive External Assessment
ThreatNG performs automated assessments that generate "Pass/Fail" evidence for specific technical controls. These assessments translate abstract compliance mandates into concrete, auditable data points.
Web Application Hijack Susceptibility
This assessment provides evidence for Application Security and Configuration Management controls by verifying that web assets are hardened against client-side attacks.
Evidence-Based Detail: The platform scans discovered subdomains for the presence and correct configuration of critical security headers, including Content-Security-Policy (CSP), HTTP Strict-Transport-Security (HSTS), X-Content-Type, and X-Frame-Options.
Example of ThreatNG Helping: To prove compliance with ISO 27001 Annex A.14.2 (Security in development and support processes), ThreatNG generates a report showing the deployment status of the Content-Security-Policy (CSP) header across all web applications. A log showing 100% coverage acts as the definitive evidence artifact that the organization is actively mitigating Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) risks. If a header is missing, the system logs the failure, providing a clear audit trail for remediation.
Subdomain Takeover Susceptibility
This assessment generates evidence for Change Management and Asset Disposal controls by validating that decommissioned resources are fully removed.
Evidence-Based Detail: ThreatNG performs DNS enumeration to identify "dangling" CNAME records—DNS entries that point to third-party services (like AWS S3, Heroku, or GitHub) that are no longer active. It cross-references these against a comprehensive vendor list to confirm if the resources are unclaimed.
Example of ThreatNG Helping: For SOC 2 Control CC8.1 (Change Management), an organization must prove that assets are securely decommissioned. ThreatNG provides a clean scan log showing no "dangling" DNS records as positive evidence. Conversely, if it detects a subdomain pointing to an abandoned Azure resource, the detection and subsequent removal log serve as evidence that the organization's monitoring controls successfully caught a process failure.
Reporting
ThreatNG converts raw technical findings into structured compliance artifacts that are ready for auditor review.
Mapped Compliance Reports: The platform specifically maps technical findings to regulatory frameworks. For example, a "Subdomain Takeover" finding is automatically tagged to relevant SOC 2 or GDPR controls. This allows teams to export reports that directly answer auditor requests with specific technical evidence, rather than general policy statements.
Security Ratings: ThreatNG assigns letter grades (A-F) to risk categories. A historical report showing a consistent "A" rating provides high-level, quantifiable evidence of a mature security posture, suitable for board-level governance reviews.
Continuous Monitoring
Evidence-based compliance requires proof of consistency over time. ThreatNG supports this by generating a continuous stream of evidence, which is essential for "Period of Time" audits like SOC 2 Type 2.
Longitudinal Evidence Logs: ThreatNG establishes a baseline and monitors for deviation 24/7. It creates a historical record of scans, proving to auditors that security controls (such as SSL encryption or port restrictions) were functioning throughout the audit period, not just during the fieldwork phase.
Drift Detection: If a configuration changes—for example, if a developer accidentally opens a sensitive port—ThreatNG detects this "drift" immediately. The alert and the subsequent fix create a "Problem Management" evidence trail, showing that the organization reacts swiftly to unauthorized changes.
Investigation Modules
ThreatNG’s investigation modules allow organizations to generate deep-dive forensic evidence when a specific control is questioned, moving beyond simple pass/fail checks to detailed contextual proof.
Domain Intelligence
This module provides evidence for Incident Response and Brand Protection controls.
Evidence-Based Detail: It analyzes domain permutations to identify potential typo-squatting and checks for active Mail Records (MX) on these lookalike domains.
Example of ThreatNG Helping: To demonstrate an effective "Anti-Phishing" program, an organization uses ThreatNG to produce a report of identified typo-squatted domains. The report highlights that specific domains were flagged because they had active MX records (indicating intent to send email). This granular data proves that the organization uses a logic-based, proactive approach to neutralizing threats before they impact users.
Subdomain Intelligence
This module provides granular evidence for Vendor Risk Management and Patch Management.
Evidence-Based Detail: It identifies the specific technology stack (e.g., CMS versions, web servers) and hosting providers for individual subdomains.
Example of ThreatNG Helping: An auditor asks for proof that the organization does not use End-of-Life (EOL) software on its perimeter. The team uses the Subdomain Intelligence module to export a detailed inventory of all external technologies and their versions. This report serves as evidence that the "Vulnerability Management" program effectively identifies and facilitates the upgrade of outdated software components.
Intelligence Repositories
ThreatNG enriches audit evidence with external threat data, proving that the organization uses a Risk-Based Approach to compliance.
DarCache Dark Web: Monitors for compromised credentials. Logs showing the detection of leaked credentials and the subsequent forced password resets provide evidence of a reactive and effective Identity and Access Management (IAM) control.
DarCache Ransomware: Tracks ransomware group tactics. Using this intelligence to prioritize patching demonstrates that the organization's vulnerability management program aligns with real-world risk, satisfying the requirements for "Threat-Informed Defense."
Complementary Solutions
ThreatNG acts as the external "Source of Truth," feeding objective evidence into other security and compliance platforms to create a unified, automated compliance ecosystem.
Governance, Risk, and Compliance (GRC) Platforms
ThreatNG automates the validation layer for GRC systems.
Cooperation: The GRC platform defines the control (e.g., "All web transmissions must be encrypted"). ThreatNG performs the test (Scanning SSL certificates).
Example: ThreatNG runs a daily scan of the external perimeter. It pushes a "Pass" status for SSL encryption to the GRC dashboard. The GRC platform automatically marks the control as "Effective" and attaches the ThreatNG scan log as the proof artifact, eliminating the need for manual uploads and ensuring the evidence is always up to date.
Security Information and Event Management (SIEM)
ThreatNG provides the external context that internal SIEM logs lack.
Cooperation: ThreatNG detects external exposures; the SIEM records the internal response.
Example: ThreatNG detects a "Data Leak" in a public code repository and sends an alert to the SIEM. The SIEM correlates this with internal access logs to identify the user responsible. This end-to-end evidence trail—from external detection to internal identification—demonstrates a mature, comprehensive monitoring capability to auditors.
Vulnerability Management (VM) Systems
ThreatNG ensures the internal VM system is scanning the correct scope.
Cooperation: ThreatNG finds the assets; the VM system scans them for OS-level flaws.
Example: 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 provides evidence that the "Vulnerability Scanning" process covers 100% of the actual attack surface, preventing audit exceptions for unmanaged assets.
Frequently Asked Questions
How does ThreatNG support evidence-based compliance? ThreatNG automates the collection of technical data from the external attack surface, converting it into timestamped, immutable logs that serve as objective proof of control effectiveness for audits.
Can ThreatNG provide evidence for SOC 2 Type 2 audits? Yes. By continuously monitoring the environment and logging results over time, ThreatNG provides longitudinal evidence to demonstrate that security controls were operating effectively throughout the audit period.
Does ThreatNG help with data privacy compliance? Yes. By scanning archived web pages and public repositories for Personally Identifiable Information (PII), ThreatNG provides evidence that the organization actively monitors for and remediates privacy leaks, supporting GDPR and other privacy frameworks.
