Free Assessment

Table of Contents

Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less.

Request a Demo

Home

  /

  / Avoiding Common Pitfalls in SOC 2 & ISO 27001

Avoiding Common Pitfalls in SOC 2 & ISO 27001

Picture of Adeyinka Adeleke
Copy Link

Product

SOC 2, ISO 27001

Partner

Drata

Locations

Worldwide

common-pitfalls-soc-and-iso27001-axipro

Introduction

Achieving SOC 2 and ISO 27001 certification is a major milestone for growing companies. These frameworks prove to customers, investors, and regulators that your organization takes security and compliance seriously. But while the end goal is clear, the path is rarely straightforward.

In a recent webinar, Ali Hayat, Principal Consultant at Axipro, joined compliance experts from Drata to share the most common mistakes companies make when starting their compliance journey. The session revealed why so many organizations run into delays, wasted effort, and audit challenges, and how to avoid them.

At Axipro, the most reviewed Drata partner in EMEA, we specialize in helping businesses navigate SOC 2 and ISO 27001 with confidence. Our mission is simple: AXIPRO | AUDIT PARTNER — YOUR SUCCESS, OUR PRIORITY.

Why SOC 2 and ISO 27001 Compliance Trips Up Companies

SOC 2 and ISO 27001 are two of the most trusted compliance frameworks worldwide. SOC 2 demonstrates that your organization protects customer data according to strict security principles. ISO 27001 establishes a comprehensive information security management system (ISMS) recognized across industries and regions.

Both frameworks bring significant benefits, from faster sales cycles to stronger customer trust. But they also come with challenges. Companies often underestimate:

  • The effort required to define scope and controls.
  • The importance of readiness assessments.
  • The need for continuous monitoring, not just one-time fixes.

These challenges lead to delays, costly remediation, and even failed audits. The good news? With the right approach, most of these pitfalls can be avoided.

Pitfall #1: Failing to Define Scope Early

One of the biggest reasons compliance projects go off track is an unclear scope. Organizations often jump into SOC 2 or ISO 27001 without deciding:

  • Which systems and services are in scope?
  • Which business units or regions are included?
  • What customer expectations need to be met?

When the scope is vague or constantly changing, teams waste time implementing unnecessary controls or scramble to fix gaps late in the process. Worse, auditors may reject the scope entirely, forcing companies to redo large parts of their preparation.

How to avoid it:

  • Define the scope at the very start of your compliance project.
  • Involve leadership, IT, and operations to ensure alignment.
  • Document your scope and confirm it with your auditor or compliance partner before moving forward.

At Axipro, we guide clients through structured scope definition workshops, making sure nothing is overlooked. This early clarity saves weeks of effort and ensures your compliance project stays on track.

Pitfall #2: Skipping a Readiness Assessment

Many companies rush into compliance without a clear picture of where they stand. They assume existing policies and controls are “good enough”, only to discover major gaps during the audit. This mistake leads to last-minute fire drills, added costs, and sometimes audit failure.

How to avoid it:

  • Conduct a readiness assessment before starting your SOC 2 or ISO 27001 journey.
  • Identify gaps in policies, processes, and technical controls.
  • Build a remediation plan with realistic timelines.

A readiness assessment is like a compliance health check. It tells you exactly where you stand today and what needs to be done to pass tomorrow. At Axipro, we make this process simple, mapping controls across both SOC 2 and ISO 27001 so you don’t duplicate effort.

Pitfall #3: Weak Policy Documentation & Evidence

Writing policies is easy. Proving that you follow them is harder. Many organizations create documents that look good on paper but fail under audit review because they lack consistent evidence of practice.

Auditors don’t just want to see your incident response policy; they want logs of real incidents and proof of how they were handled. They don’t just want an access control policy; they expect user provisioning records and termination checklists.

How to avoid it:

  • Align policies with day-to-day practices.
  • Centralize your evidence so it’s easy to access during audits.
  • Review and update documentation regularly as your business grows.

At Axipro, we help clients implement evidence collection workflows that ensure documentation matches reality. This avoids surprises when auditors ask for proof.

Pitfall #4: Overlooking Vendor & Third-Party Risk

Third parties are often the weakest link in compliance. Many organizations focus on their own systems but ignore the risks introduced by vendors, cloud providers, software partners, or outsourced services.

Without proper oversight, a vendor’s poor security practices can jeopardize your entire audit. Auditors will expect to see vendor due diligence, risk assessments, and contractual obligations that align with SOC 2 and ISO 27001 standards.

How to avoid it:

  • Perform vendor risk assessments before onboarding new partners.
  • Include security and compliance clauses in contracts.
  • Monitor vendor performance and update risk profiles regularly.

At Axipro, we provide clients with vendor management frameworks that simplify third-party risk oversight. This not only supports compliance but also strengthens the overall security posture.

Pitfall #5: Treating Compliance as a One-Time Project

Many organizations view SOC 2 or ISO 27001 certification as a finish line. Once the certificate is issued, the compliance effort slows down until the next audit cycle arrives. This stop-start approach creates risk, inconsistency, and unnecessary stress.

Both SOC 2 and ISO 27001 demand continuous compliance. SOC 2 Type 2 requires evidence across a 6–12 month period. ISO 27001 expects ongoing monitoring and continuous improvement of your information security management system (ISMS).

How to avoid it:

  • Build compliance into daily operations, not just once a year.
  • Assign clear ownership for ongoing monitoring and reporting.
  • Use automation to track changes and flag issues in real time.

At Axipro, we encourage clients to view compliance as a living system, not a project with an end date. With the right approach, you stay audit-ready all year round, avoiding surprises and last-minute scrambles.

Expert Advice: How to Stay Audit-Ready

During the webinar, our panel emphasized one central truth: compliance doesn’t need to be painful if you prepare correctly.

Here are the steps every organization should take:

  1. Start with a readiness assessment to benchmark your current state.
  2. Define the scope clearly before making changes.
  3. Map controls across SOC 2 and ISO 27001 to avoid duplication.
  4. Centralize documentation and evidence in one place.
  5. Involve leadership and assign ownership for compliance tasks.
  6. Use automation tools to reduce manual lift and human error.
  7. Conduct regular internal reviews to maintain continuous compliance.

A Real-World Example

One Axipro client, a fast-growing SaaS company expanding into the EU market, initially planned to pursue SOC 2 only. Midway, a major customer, requested ISO 27001 certification as well. Without a clear scope or readiness plan, they risked delays of 6–9 months and losing the deal.

By partnering with Axipro, they:

  • Defined a dual-framework scope in two workshops.
  • Completed a readiness assessment that revealed 12 control gaps.
  • Mapped SOC 2 controls to ISO 27001, cutting work in half.
  • Used Drata automation to streamline evidence collection.

The result? The company achieved both SOC 2 and ISO 27001 certification in under 8 months, closing the customer deal and securing new revenue.

Key Takeaways for Your Compliance Journey

Avoiding pitfalls is not about shortcuts; it’s about preparation. To accelerate SOC 2 and ISO 27001 certification, you need clarity of scope, a readiness plan, strong documentation, vendor oversight, and a commitment to continuous compliance.

With the right partner, compliance becomes a growth enabler, not a roadblock.

Conclusion

Compliance doesn’t have to slow your business down. At Axipro, we specialize in helping companies across EMEA avoid the most common SOC 2 and ISO 27001 pitfalls. As the most reviewed Drata partner in the region, we combine expert consulting with automation to deliver results that stand up to audit.

AXIPRO | AUDIT PARTNER — YOUR SUCCESS, OUR PRIORITY.

Ready to simplify your compliance journey? Book a consultation with Axipro today and take the first step toward audit-ready certification.

Axipro Author

Picture of Adeyinka Adeleke

Adeyinka Adeleke

Copy Link

Blog Highlights

Explore More Articles

Read More Blogs

Agentic AI Risk Management: Why Agentic Autonomy Needs Its Own Line in Your Risk Register

For the past two years, enterprise AI risk conversations have centered on a familiar set of concerns: model bias, hallucination, data privacy, and dependency on third-party models. These are real risks, and most organizations now run some version of a governance program to manage them. But something has shifted. Organizations are no longer just deploying AI that generates content for a human to review. They’re deploying AI that acts. Agents now plan multi-step tasks, call APIs, move data between systems, execute transactions, and coordinate with other agents, often with no human checkpoint in the loop. That shift deserves more than a footnote in the existing AI risk category. It deserves its own line in the risk register: Agentic Autonomy Risk. What Is Agentic AI Risk Management? Agentic AI risk management is the practice of identifying, assessing, and controlling the risks created when AI systems take autonomous action on an organization’s behalf. Where traditional AI governance evaluates outputs (accuracy, bias, privacy), agentic AI risk management governs what agents actually do: the tools they call, the permissions they inherit, and the downstream consequences of their actions. That distinction is the reason existing risk registers struggle with agents, and it’s worth unpacking properly. What Agentic AI Actually Changes Traditional AI systems, even generative ones, are advisory. They produce an output such as a summary, a prediction, a draft email, or a classification, and a human remains the last checkpoint before anything happens in the real world. Agentic AI removes that checkpoint. An agentic system doesn’t just produce an answer. It pursues a goal. It decides which tools to call and in what order, then executes those actions directly against live systems: submitting a purchase order, modifying a database record, sending an external communication, or orchestrating a set of sub-agents to complete a broader workflow. Agentic autonomy is the degree to which a system can plan and execute actions without a human explicitly authorizing each step. It’s a spectrum rather than a binary. At one end, the AI drafts and a human approves every action. At the other, the AI operates within broad guardrails and only escalates exceptions. The further an organization moves along that spectrum, the less its exposure looks like software risk and the more it looks like delegated authority risk, the kind normally reserved for employees, contractors, and automated financial systems. Why Existing Risk Registers Miss Agentic AI Risks Most enterprise risk registers were built on a reasonably safe assumption: a human initiates consequential actions, and the technology around that human behaves deterministically. Agentic AI breaks both halves of that assumption at once. A few specific gaps show up quickly when organizations try to map agentic deployments onto existing categories. Operational risk registers assume process failures come from human error or system outages, not from a system independently choosing an unanticipated path to a stated goal. Cybersecurity risk registers are built around unauthorized external access, while an agent problem usually involves an authorized system taking unauthorized internal actions with its own legitimate credentials. Model risk frameworks, borrowed largely from financial services, evaluate output accuracy rather than action consequences, which matters most when those actions can’t be reversed. And third-party risk assessments treat vendors as static entities, not as autonomous agents that might invoke other vendors’ agents on your behalf. See our guide to the NIST AI Risk Management Framework for how output-focused frameworks are structured. The result is a governance blind spot. An organization can be compliant against its AI policy, its cybersecurity policy, and its vendor risk policy, and still have nobody accountable for the specific risk of a system initiating a harmful sequence of actions before anyone notices. Defining Agentic Autonomy Risk Agentic Autonomy Risk is the risk that an AI system, operating with delegated decision-making and execution authority, takes actions that are harmful, non-compliant, or misaligned with organizational intent before adequate human oversight can intervene. Those actions might happen independently or in coordination with other agents. It deserves standing as a named category alongside cybersecurity, operational, legal, financial, and third-party risk because the loss event itself is different. The harm is a completed action in a live system, and it may be difficult or impossible to reverse. The accountability structure is different too: when an orchestrating agent delegates to sub-agents, responsibility for the outcome gets distributed in ways existing ownership models don’t cleanly capture. So is the detection window. Traditional controls assume a human is positioned to catch an error before it compounds, but an agent can execute dozens of dependent actions faster than any human review cycle. 7 Agentic AI Risk Scenarios to Put on Your Register 1. Unauthorized autonomous decision-making. An agent takes an action within its technical permissions but outside its intended business mandate. It adjusts pricing, approves a refund, or modifies a customer record, and no policy ever explicitly authorized that scenario. 2. Goal misalignment. The agent optimizes for a literal interpretation of its objective in a way that diverges from actual business intent, particularly under ambiguous or adversarial inputs. 3. Multi-agent interactions and cascading failures. One agent’s flawed output becomes another agent’s trusted input. A single error can propagate across a chain of agents faster than anyone can detect it, amplifying the original mistake instead of containing it. 4. Excessive tool or system permissions. Agents get provisioned with broad, standing access “to be safe” rather than scoped, least-privilege access tied to specific tasks. A productivity tool quietly becomes a privilege-escalation path. 5. Regulatory non-compliance. Autonomous actions trigger obligations under data protection, financial services, employment, or sector-specific regulation, and they execute without the compliance review a human-initiated process would normally receive. 6. Explainability and accountability gaps. An autonomous action causes harm and the organization can’t clearly reconstruct why the agent chose that path, or establish whether the business owner, the AI governance function, or the vendor is accountable for the outcome. 7. Autonomous third-party actions. A vendor’s agent, integrated into your environment, takes action on your behalf, or your agent acts against a

Read more

SOC 2 Penetration Testing Cost: 2026 Price Ranges

A SOC 2 penetration test costs between $1,000 and $30,000 for most companies. A typical SaaS scope, meaning one web application, its API layer, and the cloud infrastructure behind it, usually lands between $2,000 and $20,000. Early-stage startups with a narrow scope can get an auditor-accepted test for $1,000 to $8,000, while enterprises with multiple products and hybrid infrastructure regularly spend $20,000 to $50,000 or more. The spread is wide because “penetration test” covers everything from an automated scan with a cover page to weeks of manual testing by senior engineers. Auditors know the difference, and so do the enterprise customers who asked for your SOC 2 report in the first place. This guide breaks down what drives the price, where the hidden costs sit, and how to buy a test that holds up in fieldwork without overpaying for it. What Is SOC 2 Penetration Testing?​ A SOC 2 penetration test is a simulated attack on your systems, performed by a qualified security professional, scoped to the environment covered by your SOC 2 report. The tester tries to exploit real weaknesses the way an attacker would: broken access controls, injection flaws, misconfigured cloud services, exposed credentials. The output is a report your auditor reads as evidence that your security controls work in practice, not only on paper. That last part matters. A pentest bought for SOC 2 has a second audience beyond your security team. If the report doesn’t map findings to your audit scope, document its methodology, and show remediation, it fails the job you bought it for. We cover the full deliverable in our guide to what a SOC 2-ready VAPT report includes. How Penetration Testing Fits Into SOC 2 Compliance​ SOC 2 is built on the AICPA’s Trust Services Criteria, and the Security category (the Common Criteria) applies to every report. Penetration testing is the standard way to satisfy CC7.1, which expects you to detect and monitor for new vulnerabilities, and it supports CC4.1, which covers ongoing evaluations of whether controls actually function. The AICPA’s points of focus explicitly mention vulnerability scanning and penetration testing as examples of how companies meet these criteria. In practice, the test slots into your audit timeline as an evidence item. Your auditor will ask for the report, check the test date against the audit period, and review how you handled the findings. Remediation is often scrutinized harder than the test itself, because it shows whether your vulnerability management process runs or merely exists. Is Penetration Testing Required for SOC 2?​ Strictly speaking, no. The Trust Services Criteria never use the word “mandatory” about penetration testing. You could theoretically satisfy CC7.1 with vulnerability scanning and strong monitoring alone. In reality, almost every auditor expects one, and skipping it invites two problems. First, your auditor may push back during fieldwork or add exceptions to the report. Second, the enterprise buyers reviewing your SOC 2 report increasingly look for pentest evidence specifically, and a report without it raises questions during procurement. Treat the test as effectively required and budget for it from the start of your SOC 2 compliance checklist. How Much Does SOC 2 Penetration Testing Cost? Typical Price Range for SOC 2 Pen Testing Most companies pay $1,000 to $30,000, with the median engagement for a SaaS business sitting around $12,000 to $15,000. Compliance-focused tests at the lower end of the market start around $1,000 to $5,000. Deep manual testing from established firms runs $10,000 to $30,000. Anything quoted below roughly $3,000 is almost certainly automated scanning packaged as a pentest, which auditors are getting better at spotting. Cost by Company Size (Startup, SMB, Enterprise) Company size is a proxy, not the driver. A 15-person company with three products and a legacy on-prem component will pay more than a 200-person company with one tightly scoped SaaS platform. Testers price effort, and effort follows scope. Cost by Test Type (Network, Web App, API, Cloud, Internal/External) Most SOC 2 engagements bundle two or three of these. The common package for a cloud-native SaaS company is web app plus API plus cloud configuration, which is why the $1,000 to $20,000 band comes up so often. Companies with office networks and internal systems in their audit scope add internal network testing, and the price climbs accordingly. Factors That Influence SOC 2 Penetration Testing Cost Scope and Number of Assets Tested Scope is the single biggest cost driver. Every additional application, API endpoint group, cloud account, or network segment adds testing hours. A pentest priced without a scoping call is a pentest priced on guesswork, and the guess usually favors the vendor. Complexity of Application or Infrastructure​ A simple CRUD app with two user roles tests quickly. A multi-tenant platform with role hierarchies, workflow engines, file processing, and third-party integrations takes far longer, because each of those features creates attack surface a tester has to work through manually. Authentication tiers matter especially: every distinct role needs testing for privilege escalation and cross-tenant data access. Testing Methodology (Black Box, Grey Box, White Box) Black box testing gives the tester nothing but a URL, grey box adds credentials and documentation, and white box adds source code and architecture diagrams. Grey box is the default for SOC 2 and usually the best value, since the tester spends time exploiting rather than discovering. White box costs more upfront but finds deeper issues. Black box sounds rigorous but often wastes paid hours on reconnaissance an attacker would run for free. Depth of Testing and Manual vs. Automated Approaches Automated scanning finds known vulnerability patterns. Manual testing finds business logic flaws, chained exploits, and authorization gaps that no scanner catches, and it’s the part auditors and security-literate customers actually value. The ratio of manual work to automation is the honest explanation for most price differences between two quotes covering the same scope. Tester Credentials and Firm Reputation Senior testers holding OSCP, GPEN, or CREST credentials bill higher rates, and firms with recognized methodologies charge a premium for the credibility their letterhead carries

Read more

LiteLLM Supply-Chain Breach: How to Check If You’re Exposed and What to Rotate

Two compromised versions of LiteLLM sat on PyPI for roughly 40 minutes on the morning of March 24, 2026. That window was enough to capture secrets from around 434,000 CI/CD pipeline runs across nearly 2,500 organizations, including AWS, Samsung, Cisco, Salesforce, Siemens, and Deloitte. In August, researchers at CloudSEK and Hudson Rock confirmed they had obtained the raw exfiltrated data: a 153GB archive containing 433,909 files of environment variables, cloud keys, Kubernetes secrets, and API tokens harvested live from running pipelines, as covered by Help Net Security’s reporting on the credential archive. If LiteLLM runs anywhere in your stack, or you touch any AI proxy infrastructure at all, you need answers to three things: whether you were exposed, what to rotate first, and whether the rotation you did back in March actually held. That last one matters more than it sounds, because “we rotated everything” has already burned at least one very large company. How the Breach Happened The attack didn’t start with LiteLLM. On March 19, 2026, a threat group called TeamPCP compromised the build pipeline of Trivy, a vulnerability scanner half the industry runs, and pushed a poisoned release. LiteLLM’s own CI pipeline ran Trivy, so the poisoned scanner had legitimate read access to the project’s runner environment. The attackers used that to steal LiteLLM’s PyPI publishing tokens and ship two malicious releases of their own: versions 1.82.7 and 1.82.8. KICS and the Telnyx Python SDK got hit in the same campaign. The payload design is the part worth studying. The malicious package dropped a .pth startup hook into site-packages, so the code ran the moment any Python interpreter started on the machine, whether or not anything imported LiteLLM. From there it harvested environment variables, read local credential files like .aws/credentials and .kube/config, tried to move laterally across Kubernetes clusters, and installed a systemd backdoor dressed up as a generic telemetry service. InfoQ’s coverage of the PyPI compromise put downloads of the compromised release above 40,000. For scale, LiteLLM normally gets downloaded around 3 million times a day. The exfiltration had a nasty fallback, too. According to CloudSEK, stolen data was encrypted and sent to a typosquatted domain, and when that failed, the malware created a public repository inside the victim’s own GitHub account and uploaded the loot as a release asset. Some companies were publishing their own secrets to the open internet and had no idea. Worth Knowing: The malicious code only existed in the PyPI artifacts. The GitHub source repository stayed clean the whole time, so a developer reviewing the code on GitHub saw nothing wrong. Source review isn’t artifact verification. If you don’t check that what the registry serves matches the upstream source, this class of attack is invisible to you. How to Check If You Were Exposed Three checks, from quickest to most involved. 1. Confirm whether the compromised versions ever ran The malicious versions went live on PyPI at 10:39 UTC on March 24, 2026 and got quarantined about 40 minutes later. The project’s advice: treat any install from that day before 16:00 UTC as suspect. Search your lockfiles, pip caches, SBOMs, and container image histories for 1.82.7 and 1.82.8. And check your internal artifact mirrors. An Artifactory or Nexus proxy that cached the bad release in March can keep serving it internally long after PyPI pulled it. Keep the .pth mechanism in mind when you scope this. The question isn’t “which applications import LiteLLM,” it’s “which machines had the package installed at all,” because every Python process on an infected machine triggered the payload. 2. Hunt for persistence Rotation is pointless if the attacker still has a foothold. Check developer machines, CI runners, and containers for unauthorized .pth files in site-packages and for suspicious systemd units, especially anything posing as a system telemetry service. And review activity from March 24 onward, not just the 40-minute window. Persistence is there so the access outlives the infection. Pro Tip: Don’t limit the persistence hunt to live machines. Base container images rebuilt in late March may have baked the payload into every image derived from them since. Scan your image registry for the affected LiteLLM versions and for unexpected .pth files, then trace which running workloads came from flagged images. 3. Check whether your secrets are in the dump Hudson Rock has published a domain lookup tool and is running ethical disclosures for affected organizations, and CloudSEK maintains a high-confidence victim list. Use them, but know their limits. Attribution in this dataset is genuinely hard. One dump with a siriusxm.com committer email actually traced, through its self-hosted GitLab endpoints, to AdsWizz, a SiriusXM subsidiary. And a large share of the dumps are generic pipeline configurations with no identifying domain, email, or server name at all. Absence from a victim list is not evidence of absence. If your pipelines ran the compromised versions, assume exposure no matter what a lookup tool tells you. What to Rotate, in What Order The guidance from both research teams is blunt: treat every secret the LiteLLM environment could reach as compromised. That covers secrets on disk, in memory, injected into CI jobs, and anything retrievable through instance metadata services. Work down by blast radius: Priority Credential type Why it comes first 1 Cloud IAM keys (AWS, GCP, Azure) Direct control of infrastructure, data stores, and billing. This is where attackers monetize fastest. 2 GitHub and GitLab PATs, package publishing tokens These let an attacker poison your releases and turn your company into the next link in the supply chain. 3 Kubernetes service account tokens and kubeconfigs Lateral movement across clusters was built into the payload, not a theoretical risk. 4 Database passwords and third-party API keys Dumped in plain text in the archive, often with no attribution, so nobody will warn you they leaked. 5 AI provider API keys Billing abuse, quota theft, and access to whatever data flows through your LLM routing layer. One word matters more than the rest of this article: revoke, don’t just rotate. That

Read more