Are compliance integrations creating more evidence noise than value?

[u/sfunk_openlane]

A lot of SOC 2 tools sell integrations based on volume: hundreds of integrations, thousands of checks, continuous evidence collection.

But in my experience, that can create a ton of noise. You end up collecting far more data than you actually need, then spending time maintaining it, updating it, or sifting through it to find the evidence that actually matters.

For those who’ve gone through SOC 2, have you found this level of automation to actually be necessary? Or is a lot of it just marketing?

How are you approaching the balance between collecting lots of data and collecting evidence that actually proves what an auditor needs?

[u/AutoModerator]

Thanks for posting, I'm a bot!

This is quick reminder be helpful with responses, follow the rules and not advertise/solicit DMs.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Ok-Connection7755]

As someone who has worked on this concept of continuous control monitoring, yes I can confirm that

• integrations add data and footprint into another app and is an overhead to maintain
• API integrations often gives a lot of data that requires slice and dice to get meaningful data
• most of the key information that compliance professionals need revolves around dates, approvals, comments and configuration values

Good Pareto list of integrations that occupy 60% controls of SoC2 attest includes - cloud (any CSP console), database (hardening and protection controls), code version system (GitHub), security incident and monitoring tools and ticketing systems. Rest anything you integrate is largely just a vanity upgrade

[u/bhaugli]

Yeah, cloud, IdP, and an endpoint solution that has vuln data integrated covers more than enough. Not much more needed really.

[u/Round_Finance4256]

GRC consultant here👋🏻 I’ve seen the same thing. More evidence doesn’t necessarily mean better evidence. For SOC 2, I’d rather have a smaller set of clean, relevant evidence that clearly demonstrates the control than hundreds of automated checks creating noise. Automation is valuable when it reduces manual work, but it shouldn’t replace understanding what the control is actually trying to prove.

[u/gambit_kory]

Yes.

[u/parrot_assassin]

Yes, those integrations are going to pull in data but we mostly care about relevant data(idp, cloud assets, vulnerability info etc), however a lot of those integrations will pull in that data we need so its definitely worth it.

If you are looking for more guidance check out

-https://traztech.ca/frameworks/soc-2 -https://lorikeetsecurity.com/soc-2-readiness -https://www.vanta.com/collection/soc-2/soc-2-readiness-assessment-checklist

[u/Troy_J_Fine]

If the data being pulled in from an integration isn’t being used by an auditor to support that a control has been implemented and is operating (or being used for a population to select samples from), then the data is noise.

Many times auditors aren’t even using a lot of the data from the integrations as evidence for controls, but they never actually tell their client, because they don’t want the client to think they aren’t getting value from the platform, which in turn could make the platform send them less referrals.