For anyone unaware, a SOC3 is just a SOC2 with the audit details removed - it includes a high level statement from the company (Apple) and from the auditor (EY), that's it.
Also Apple certainly does invest heavily in security and privacy but SOC2's are so commoditized that it's like saying "look I can afford 50k", it's not particularly interesting
Importantly, anyone can get SOC2 (Type 1) by claiming some controls they figure they'll look at themselves.
SOC2 (Type 2) in theory requires an audit that you're actually doing what you said you'd do in (Type 1).
Both may also allow general lag time.
Note that firms decide on their own which controls to include, meaning, they get to decide to include or exclude various controls, the audit is on only the ones they picked. Pick basic controls, it's cheaper to pass easily, and now you have a logo.
This means SOC2s of either type cannot be compared to one another (and SOC2 Type 1 are roughly logo-ware).
SOC3 is, roughly, SOC2 redacted.
Recap:
SOC2 Type 1 is a firm picking some controls to say they'll do them, SOC2 Type 2 is roughly a firm having someone look at whether they're doing that (warning, screenshots might suffice, audit verification is probably not what you think), and SOC3 is public or non-confidential water down of that, typically without findings.
The only thing that matters is what controls, specifically, they're actually audited on. So ideally you want to know what the controls they picked are, and that a SOC2 Type 2 was audited on those.
Btw, keep in mind that "end to end encryption" means "https" and most controls have similarly basic ways of achieving them. It's difficult to fail SOC2 Type 2 core controls if you know "don't be useless" is how you pass them.
Also, it's not $50K even through the big five DIY SOC2 Type 2 shops. You can use the same ones trillion dollar firms use, by signing up online, and you'll be surprised how inexpensive relative to the cost of failing to let a business check that box in their procurement process.
Well you "claiming controls" to an independent CPA auditor. If a licensed CPA helps you lie -- they might lose their license (and can even get to prison), just like a tax preparer CPA can.
1. No, it does not require 50k, an auditor can cost way less (10k? maybe even less).
2. But the process of preparing for the audit will take a lot of work securing your systems (and increasing reliability and privacy as well), as long as you take it seriously. Of course you can lie to the auditor, but it's up on you. And auditor -- they might lose their CPA license and go to prison. Their job is to catch your lies.
Source -- went through it, and took it seriously. It really did increase our security stance, even though we thought we were good at it.
That auditors are responsible for catching the lies of an audited company on penalty of being suspended is a position that the big audit firms would not agree with. They might agree that they are responsible for ensuring the material accuracy of accounts if fraud occurs, but even here EY has disclaimed responsibility if the fraud were sufficiently complex [0]. Indeed auditors lobbied very hard against being mandated with a broader anti-fraud role [1].
Admittedly this is on the "real" audit side and not the advisory/consulting side, which would be the ones to handle SOC I imagine, but nonetheless a position I find a bit absurd.
For anyone unaware, a SOC3 is just a SOC2 with the audit details removed - it includes a high level statement from the company (Apple) and from the auditor (EY), that's it.
Also Apple certainly does invest heavily in security and privacy but SOC2's are so commoditized that it's like saying "look I can afford 50k", it's not particularly interesting
Importantly, anyone can get SOC2 (Type 1) by claiming some controls they figure they'll look at themselves.
SOC2 (Type 2) in theory requires an audit that you're actually doing what you said you'd do in (Type 1).
Both may also allow general lag time.
Note that firms decide on their own which controls to include, meaning, they get to decide to include or exclude various controls, the audit is on only the ones they picked. Pick basic controls, it's cheaper to pass easily, and now you have a logo.
This means SOC2s of either type cannot be compared to one another (and SOC2 Type 1 are roughly logo-ware).
SOC3 is, roughly, SOC2 redacted.
Recap:
SOC2 Type 1 is a firm picking some controls to say they'll do them, SOC2 Type 2 is roughly a firm having someone look at whether they're doing that (warning, screenshots might suffice, audit verification is probably not what you think), and SOC3 is public or non-confidential water down of that, typically without findings.
The only thing that matters is what controls, specifically, they're actually audited on. So ideally you want to know what the controls they picked are, and that a SOC2 Type 2 was audited on those.
Btw, keep in mind that "end to end encryption" means "https" and most controls have similarly basic ways of achieving them. It's difficult to fail SOC2 Type 2 core controls if you know "don't be useless" is how you pass them.
Also, it's not $50K even through the big five DIY SOC2 Type 2 shops. You can use the same ones trillion dollar firms use, by signing up online, and you'll be surprised how inexpensive relative to the cost of failing to let a business check that box in their procurement process.
I think companies like Deel showed that SOC2 is more show than anything else.
For context, this is how easy it is to get a SOC2: https://deepdelver.substack.com/p/delve-fake-compliance-as-a...
Hasn't Deel been run out of business though?
IME SOC2 is still quite involved for any company, especially smaller ones without specialized security personnel.
Well you "claiming controls" to an independent CPA auditor. If a licensed CPA helps you lie -- they might lose their license (and can even get to prison), just like a tax preparer CPA can.
Last I chatted with some friends who were going through their first SOC2, they quoted a much lower number.
Everyone lies on SOC2. Auditors don't understand the technologies and just take peoples word for it. It's a shit practice
Citation needed. This is not my experience at all, after participating in such efforts at three different companies.
> "look I can afford 50k"
Oh no. Looks like you never went through SOC2.
1. No, it does not require 50k, an auditor can cost way less (10k? maybe even less).
2. But the process of preparing for the audit will take a lot of work securing your systems (and increasing reliability and privacy as well), as long as you take it seriously. Of course you can lie to the auditor, but it's up on you. And auditor -- they might lose their CPA license and go to prison. Their job is to catch your lies.
Source -- went through it, and took it seriously. It really did increase our security stance, even though we thought we were good at it.
That auditors are responsible for catching the lies of an audited company on penalty of being suspended is a position that the big audit firms would not agree with. They might agree that they are responsible for ensuring the material accuracy of accounts if fraud occurs, but even here EY has disclaimed responsibility if the fraud were sufficiently complex [0]. Indeed auditors lobbied very hard against being mandated with a broader anti-fraud role [1].
Admittedly this is on the "real" audit side and not the advisory/consulting side, which would be the ones to handle SOC I imagine, but nonetheless a position I find a bit absurd.
[0]: https://www.ft.com/content/a9deb987-df70-4a72-bd41-47ed8942e...? [1]: https://www.ft.com/content/c25de9fb-a808-4946-ade6-80d76a66a...
I'm glad they're doing them.
Audits are decidedly imperfect, but on balance people tend to toe the line better on good practices when they know they're being audited.
the page keeps 301ing to the home page for me - could be a region issue
https://archive.ph/JYC9B
Works for me on a major US cell network.
I thought they were working on M5 already? Why are they still auditing M3?
High security for a low value product.
Imagine the security for the high value products
"Here are 2 things, but you can only have 1," it seems.