SOC 1 and SOC 2 are designed to provide valuable insights into how an organization manages its internal controls and protects data. While they both evaluate internal controls, they have different focuses. In this article, we'll discuss what sets SOC 1 and SOC 2 apart.
Organizations often use SOC 1 and SOC 2 reports to showcase the effectiveness of their internal controls. Although they both serve the same purpose, they focus on different aspects of control evaluation. What are these aspects? Which one is better?
To provide answers, we've differentiated both security standards (i.e., SOC 1 vs SOC 2) in detail, shedding light on their respective roles in assessing internal controls within organizations. This comparison will help you determine which one to choose for your organization.
So, let's start by understanding what SOC 1 and SOC 2 are.
SOC 1 stands for system and organization controls 1. Previously known as SSAE 18 and SAS 70, it is an auditing report introduced by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). It's specifically designed to evaluate an organization's internal security controls to ensure the accuracy of financial reporting.
Besides that, SOC 1 also makes sure that sensitive financial data collected from users (can be employees, clients, or external stakeholders) by service providers is kept secure.
Below are 3 key benefits of having SOC 1 reports:
SOC 2 (system and organization control 2), previously known as SOC 2 attestation report.
It is another report designed by the AICPA to evaluate the security, processing integrity, availability, privacy, and confidentiality of data handled by organizations.
It basically involves a thorough evaluation of the internal controls and processes implemented by organizations to ensure the protection and integrity of users' data.
To provide you with better clarity, here's a breakdown of the five Trust Services Criteria (TSC) that SOC 2 evaluates:
Also, service providers need to adhere to data usage and privacy policies and the Generally Accepted Privacy Principles (GAPP) while handling such data.
Below are 3 key benefits of having SOC 2 reports:
After reading the definition and benefits, you may have a brief idea of the difference between SOC 1 and SOC 2. However, to provide you with more clarity, we've compared both reports based on different parameters.
Below, we have conducted an in-depth comparison of SOC 1 vs SOC 2 based on distinct criteria. This comparison will help you clearly understand what sets them apart.
Both SOC 1 and SOC 2 have different types of audit reports :
SOC 1 Type 1: This report confirms whether your financial controls are appropriately designed to meet the specific objectives on a particular date.
SOC 1 Type 2: This report contains the same details as Type 1 but also focuses on examining the financial controls' effectiveness over time to ensure they continue to work effectively.
SOC 2 Type 1: This report examines whether the design of controls related to Trust Service Criteria (TSC) is working properly during a specified period of time.
SOC 2 Type 2: This report evaluates the design and operating effectiveness of controls associated with the TSC.
These are the requesters whose financial reports could potentially be affected by the accuracy of the reporting procedures implemented by the organization.
They are interested in understanding how the internal controls impact the financial data that they rely on for decision-making and compliance purposes.
These stakeholders are concerned about the security, availability, and privacy of their data while it is under the control of the reporting organization.
They want assurance that the reporting organization has implemented controls and safeguards to protect their data against unauthorized access, breaches, or misuse.
The time taken to complete assessments for SOC 1 and SOC 2 certifications can differ.
SOC 1 reports are faster to complete, especially if the necessary controls are readily available.
However, SOC 2 assessments typically involve a more thorough examination of policies and processes, which often takes over a minimum period of six months.
For SOC 1, the examination normally lasts one to three months for Type 1 reports and nearly six to twelve months for Type 2 reports if controls are in place. If no controls are in place, the audit might take even longer.
On the other hand, for most businesses, completing a SOC 2 Report usually takes six months to a year. SOC 2 Type 1 Reports could take up to six months, while SOC 2 Type 2 Reports often need at least six months and sometimes a year or more.
Here’s an overview SOC 2 vs SOC 1 in tabular format:
After going through the comparison, you may have a question about which report to get for your organization. To help you find the answer, here’s what you need to consider before making your decision.
Every organization operates differently and has its own set of practices. So, when it comes to choosing between SOC 2 vs SOC 1 reports, it's important to pick the right one that shows the organization's compliance commitments.
To help you understand which organizations need SOC 1 and SOC 2 reports, we've listed below a few of the firm's types:
SOC 1 reports focus on financial reporting and auditing processes to ensure the reliable management of financial records. They are expected from the following types of organizations:
In short, a SOC 1 report is necessary if your organization's services could impact the financial data of your business partners or other stakeholders.
Ensuring data security is crucial for most organizations. However, if your security measures could affect your users' data, obtaining a SOC 2 report becomes necessary.
Organizations that require a SOC 2 report include:
So, in short, if you handle users' data and pose any potential risk to them in the event of a data breach, getting a SOC 2 report is essential.
If your organization fits into any of these categories, you can select the appropriate report to showcase the effectiveness of your internal controls.
In conclusion, obtaining SOC 1 and SOC 2 reports is not just a regulatory necessity but signifies a dedication to effectively managing internal controls within organizations. Whether it's ensuring the accuracy of financial information or safeguarding user data security, these reports are essential to verify that internal controls are operating effectively to protect them.
However, having an access review platform is a must to ensure there are no errors and deficiencies during the review process. One such innovative solution that can be very helpful is Zluri. How does it help? Here's how.
Automates Access Review Process
Zluri offers an access review solution that automates the access review process. How does it do that? It enables your IT teams to create workflows that allow them to evaluate access rights (who has access to what) with just a few clicks. And it is highlighted in Kuppingercole's research and analysis report that Zluri’s automated access review further helps reduce the likelihood of inaccuracies while reviewing user rights and saves time.This automation helps reduce the likelihood of inaccuracies while reviewing user rights and saves time.
Safeguards Crucial data
While reviewing employees' access rights, Zluri's access review ensures no one holds unnecessary access to sensitive data. If anyone does, it triggers actions and runs the deprovisioning playbook and access modification playbook. This helps ensure that only the right users gain access to apps and data, thereby protecting sensitive data from security breaches and unauthorized access.
Strengthens Controls
To strengthen the organization's access controls and security posture, it enables teams to implement access policies such as Segregation of Duties (SoD) to ensure data integrity, which also acts as a strategic step to meet regulatory requirements.
Helps Meet Compliance
By conducting assessments, organizations can also meet other mandatory regulations requirements like HIPAA, SOC 1 and 2, SOX, and ISO 27001.
That's not all. To provide external auditors and stakeholders with proof of the effectiveness of internal controls and compliance adherence, Zluri documents the entire audit process and generates curated UAR reports.
These reports prove that the implemented access controls are effective enough to safeguard sensitive data and that all the requirements stated by compliance regulations are fulfilled without fail. Basically, these reports provide transparency in the reviewing journey.
To learn more about Zluri's access review, book a demo now.
SOC 2 Type 2 report is better because it thoroughly examines data security controls and provides higher audit assurance. While it includes the same controls as a Type 1 audit, but Type 2 audits delve deeper into the operational effectiveness of these controls, backed by evidence.
SOC 1 report Type 1 assesses the design and implementation of internal controls that safeguard financial data within the organization to ensure they are appropriately constructed and implemented. Meanwhile, SOC 1 Type 2 goes a step further by examining the operational effectiveness of these controls over a period of time.
Usually, SOC 2 Type 2 reports are used by Healthcare and related service organizations to safeguard patient data and adhere to healthcare compliance regulations.
Tackle all the problems caused by decentralized, ad hoc SaaS adoption and usage on just one platform.