SOC 2 readiness and remediation
A customer needs a SOC 2 report. Your team needs a clear scope, working controls and help getting ready for the independent examination.
Hotman Group provides hands-on SOC 2 readiness, implementation, remediation and ongoing Cyber GRC support. We help turn a customer requirement into a program your organization can operate.
Choose the support your team needs
Your organization needs a consulting team to help design, implement and operate controls, close readiness gaps, or make an existing compliance platform useful. HG can support a first SOC 2 program, remediation after a readiness assessment, or recurring work across multiple frameworks.
HG works alongside your technical teams and control owners. Leadership retains responsibility for risk decisions and internal accountability.
The scope is agreed around your starting point and business requirements. HG provides readiness and implementation support; an independent CPA firm performs the SOC 2 examination.
Published client experience
AI-focused company
Under 3 months
An AI company began with very little formal cybersecurity and compliance infrastructure. HG designed controls around its actual risks and technology, built the program into a GRC platform, developed governance and documentation, helped remediate gaps and supported the independent audit.
The company completed SOC 2 Type 1 and entered its Type 2 operating period. The platform implementation was completed within the same period.
This is one client's outcome. Your schedule depends on scope, existing controls, resources and the independent auditor's process.
Why this experience matters
This engagement demonstrates HG's ability to build the underlying program, operationalize GRC technology and help close gaps while supporting an independent examination.
If your team has already bought a platform or received a gap report, HG can help determine what remains to be implemented, who needs to own it and how the controls will be evidenced.
When a customer says your organization needs SOC 2, the first step is not to immediately hire an auditor.
Start by understanding what the customer actually requires, what type of SOC 2 report they expect, what services and systems should be in scope, what security controls already exist and what gaps need to be addressed before an independent examination.
Hotman Group helps organizations move from customer-driven SOC 2 pressure to a practical readiness, remediation and implementation plan that supports both the immediate business need and the broader cybersecurity program.
The objective is not simply to produce a SOC 2 report. It is to build and operate the controls necessary to provide credible assurance to customers.
Understand the customer requirement
Usually, the customer is asking for independent assurance about the security controls supporting the services your organization provides.
But "we need SOC 2" can mean different things.
The customer may be asking for:
Clarify the requirement before building the project around an assumption.
SOC 2 is an independent assurance examination performed by a licensed CPA firm under AICPA standards.
The examination evaluates controls relevant to one or more Trust Services Criteria.
These may include:
The Security criterion is included in every SOC 2 examination. The others are included when relevant to the organization and the services being assessed.
A SOC 2 Type 1 report evaluates whether controls are suitably designed as of a specified date.
A SOC 2 Type 2 report evaluates both the design and operating effectiveness of controls over a defined period.
Customers often prefer Type 2 because it provides evidence that the controls operated over time rather than only existing at one point in time.
Many customers ultimately want a SOC 2 Type 2 report.
But the answer should come from the customer's actual requirement rather than assumption.
An organization early in its SOC 2 journey may sometimes pursue Type 1 first and then move into a Type 2 period, while others may proceed directly toward Type 2 depending on readiness, timing and business need.
Yes.
Useful questions include:
These answers can materially affect scope, schedule and effort.
Readiness and the independent examination
Understand whether the organization is actually ready.
Evaluate:
If significant gaps exist, address them before the audit period whenever practical.
Often, yes.
A readiness assessment helps determine whether the organization has appropriately designed controls and whether those controls can be demonstrated during an independent examination.
A useful readiness assessment should identify:
The readiness work should lead directly into implementation and remediation.
Readiness work is designed to help the organization prepare.
The SOC 2 examination is the independent assurance engagement performed by a CPA firm.
A consultant may help design controls, remediate gaps, prepare evidence and build the program.
The independent auditor evaluates the resulting environment.
These roles should remain distinct.
The organization should preserve the independence required for the assurance engagement.
The team helping design and implement controls serves a different role from the CPA firm providing independent assurance over those controls.
Separating those functions also creates a healthier readiness process because the implementation work can focus on building a program that actually works rather than merely preparing for one assessor's preferences.
Define scope and build working controls
Scope should reflect the systems, services, people and processes relevant to the services being described in the report.
Questions may include:
Scoping too broadly can create unnecessary work. Scoping too narrowly can produce a report that does not satisfy the customer's assurance need.
No.
Security is included in every SOC 2 examination.
Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality and Privacy are included when relevant to the services and assurance needs.
The organization should not automatically add criteria simply because more appears stronger.
Each additional criterion creates additional control and evidence considerations.
There is not one universal SOC 2 control list that applies identically to every company.
Controls should be designed to address the applicable Trust Services Criteria within the organization's actual environment.
Common areas may include:
The control set should describe what the organization actually does.
No.
Compliance technology can help organize controls, evidence, policies, tasks and audit preparation, but it is not a SOC 2 requirement.
Some organizations benefit significantly from a platform. Others can manage the program effectively using existing systems and disciplined processes.
No.
A platform may provide templates, integrations and workflows, but the organization still needs to implement and operate the controls.
For example, a platform can request an access review.
It cannot make the access review meaningful if nobody knows who owns it or what should be reviewed.
See how to automate compliance without automating bad processes.
Yes.
If the organization already operates controls through ISO 27001, NIST, CMMC, internal security standards or other programs, many may be reusable.
The organization should map existing controls to the applicable Trust Services Criteria and identify where gaps remain.
See how to reduce duplicate cybersecurity and compliance work.
Only where existing documentation does not adequately describe the organization's actual control environment.
Organizations often already have useful policies covering:
Do not create duplicate SOC 2 policies simply because a readiness checklist uses different terminology.
The auditor will need evidence sufficient to evaluate the controls in scope.
Examples may include:
The exact evidence depends on the controls and examination period.
See how to centralize cybersecurity and compliance evidence without creating more work.
Set a credible timeline and communicate clearly
There is no universal timeline.
The amount of work depends on:
An organization with mature security controls may be much closer than one beginning with informal processes and limited documentation.
A Type 2 report evaluates controls over a defined examination period.
The organization therefore needs controls operating consistently throughout that period.
Readiness and remediation need to occur early enough that important controls are functioning before or during the required period.
The audit timeline also depends on the CPA firm's testing and report process.
An organization may be able to prepare quickly if the control environment is already mature, but there is no legitimate shortcut around control design, operation and evidence.
A Type 2 examination specifically depends on controls operating over time.
Be cautious about treating SOC 2 as a document that can simply be purchased on an accelerated timeline.
Determine what the customer actually needs by the deadline.
Possible options may include:
The right answer depends on the customer and commercial situation.
Do not represent that a report exists or that controls operate if they do not.
Clarify what was represented.
SOC 2 is not a certification in the same sense as ISO 27001, and organizations should be precise about whether they have completed a SOC 2 examination and what report actually exists.
If the organization has not completed the examination, determine what can truthfully be communicated about current readiness and the planned timeline.
SOC 2 results in an independent attestation report rather than a certification.
Organizations often use informal shorthand in the market, but communications should accurately describe the assurance the organization actually has.
Remediate, sustain and support customer trust
Turn them into remediation work.
Determine:
Understand what the exceptions actually mean.
Not every exception has the same significance.
Evaluate:
The report should be understood rather than reduced to "pass" or "fail."
No.
A SOC 2 report provides valuable assurance about defined controls and scope.
It does not mean the organization has no cyber risk or that every security issue is covered by the examination.
See whether passing a cybersecurity audit means the organization is secure and the work is done.
The controls need to keep operating.
Evidence should continue to be maintained.
Changes need to be evaluated.
Findings need to be remediated.
Risk needs to be managed.
Future examination periods need to be supported.
See how to maintain cybersecurity compliance after certification.
Integrate the controls and evidence into normal operations.
Do not stop performing recurring activities when the auditor leaves.
See how to prepare for cybersecurity audits without constant fire drills.
Yes.
A current SOC 2 report can provide reusable assurance to customers and may reduce the amount of additional diligence required.
But some customers will still ask questions outside the report's scope.
See why customer security questionnaires become so painful and how to fix the underlying problem.
Connect SOC 2 to the wider program
Much of the underlying security program may be reusable.
SOC 2 and ISO 27001 are different assurance models, but controls, evidence, risk management, governance and security processes can often provide a substantial foundation.
Do not automatically create a separate cybersecurity program for each requirement.
Map the requirements to the security controls the organization actually operates.
See how to build one cybersecurity program across multiple frameworks.
Possibly, especially if the organization expects to maintain SOC 2 alongside several other requirements.
A common control structure can help reduce duplicate control ownership, evidence and remediation.
See what a common control framework is and whether the organization needs one.
Cyber GRC may coordinate the program, but the underlying controls should be owned by the functions that actually operate them.
For example:
See how to create clear ownership for cybersecurity controls.
Yes.
Organizations may use external support for:
Internal control owners and leadership still need appropriate accountability for the controls and risk decisions.
Hotman Group helps organizations understand what SOC 2 actually requires for their environment and move from customer pressure to an operating control program.
HG can support scope definition, readiness assessments, control design, gap remediation, policy and procedure development, evidence strategy, control ownership, GRC technology, audit preparation and ongoing Cyber GRC operations.
Where independent assurance is required, the SOC 2 examination is performed by the appropriate independent CPA firm while Hotman Group supports the organization on the readiness and implementation side.
The objective is not to create a temporary SOC 2 project that disappears after the report.
The objective is to build cybersecurity controls that support customer trust, business growth and future assurance requirements.
Start by clarifying exactly what the customer requires and by when.
Then define the likely scope, assess the controls that already exist and identify the real gaps before committing to an audit timeline.
If the customer requirement is part of a broader pattern of new cybersecurity demands, see what to do when a customer introduces a new cybersecurity requirement.
Hotman Group is a cybersecurity and Cyber GRC professional services firm that helps organizations solve complex cybersecurity, risk, governance and compliance problems. Hotman Group designs, builds, implements, remediates, operates and matures cybersecurity and GRC programs.
Learn more about Hotman Group's approach to solving complex cybersecurity and Cyber GRC problems.
Start with your customer's requirement
Use the inquiry form to share what your customer has requested, the deadline, whether you need Type 1 or Type 2, and any existing platform or gap assessment. If you are unsure of the report type or scope, say so. HG can help clarify the requirement and discuss the work your team needs.
Ask HG
