Table of Contents

Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less.

  / Drata SOC 2: A Practical, Step-by-Step Guide to Getting Audit-Ready Faster

Drata SOC 2: A Practical, Step-by-Step Guide to Getting Audit-Ready Faster

Drata is a powerful tool. It can transform a slow, resource-draining activity into a value-added automated task.

But in order for it to work, it needs to be set up properly.

This guide explains how SOC 2 actually works inside Drata, what you need before you begin, and how to avoid the most common mistakes that slow teams down. It is written for founders, CISOs, compliance leads, and non-technical executives who want a semi-automated approach to compliance.

Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less

Schedule Your Free SOC 2 Assessment Today

Drata does not replace your SOC 2 program. It operationalizes it. The platform helps you manage controls, evidence, and monitoring, but decisions, ownership, and execution still matter.

A successful Drata SOC 2 project follows a predictable flow: scoping, setup, automation, validation, and audit.

Before You Start: What You Need to Run a SOC 2 Project in Drata

Before logging into Drata, your organization needs to be aligned.

1- Decide your SOC 2 target: Type 1 vs. Type 2 and realistic timelines

SOC 2 comes in two formats defined by the AICPA.

SOC 2 Type I evaluates whether controls are designed correctly at a point in time.
SOC 2 Type II evaluates whether those controls operate effectively over a period, usually three to twelve months.

Report Type

What It Evaluates

Timeframe

SOC 2 Type I

Whether controls are designed appropriately

Point in time

SOC 2 Type II

Whether controls operate effectively

3–12 months

With Drata, many of our clients reach Type I readiness in 6 to 8 weeks if controls already exist. Type II timelines depend on the observation period, which can range from 3 months to up to a year.

If you’re pursuing SOC 2 compliance due to a client’s request, he will till you which type he requires. If you’re proactively seeking SOC 2 compliance, then we recommend going for type 2 compliance. This allows you to cast a wider net of clients.

A successful SOC 2 program follows a predictable lifecycle. While tools and timelines vary, the underlying phases are consistent across most organizations.

  1. Scoping: Define the system being audited, select Trust Services Criteria, set the audit period, and confirm the auditor. Good scoping reduces downstream complexity dramatically.
  2. Setup: Configure Drata, connect integrations, publish policies, and assign control ownership. This phase turns abstract requirements into operational structure.
  3. Automation: Enable continuous evidence collection across identity, infrastructure, code, ticketing, and endpoints. Automation replaces manual tracking, but only when integrations reflect reality.
  4. Validation: Run a readiness review. Confirm that controls are operating as described, evidence is complete, and timing aligns with the audit window. This is where most hidden risks surface.
  5. Audit: Auditors independently test controls and evidence. Clarifications and minor findings are normal. Clear responses and preparation determine how fast this phase moves.
  6. Continuous compliance: After the report is issued, controls continue operating. Monitoring, reviews, and periodic reassessment prevent drift and reduce effort in future audit cycles.

 

2- Select your Trust Services Criteria

Every SOC 2 must include the Common Criteria for Security. Additional criteria are optional and must be justified.

These include Availability, Confidentiality, Processing Integrity, and Privacy.

The choice of additional criteria is driven by the service agreement with the customer, which may require specific criteria, or by the type of business pursuing SOC 2. 

If you’re a SaaS that handles a large amount of private financial data, it makes sense to pursue the confidentiality criteria, for example. Availability makes sense if you sell uptime guarantees or SLAs. Privacy should only be selected if you are prepared to meet the additional criteria around notice, consent, and data subject rights.

 

3- Gather prerequisites: Systems, Owners, and Access

Drata works best when you already know what is in scope. This includes cloud infrastructure, identity providers, repositories, ticketing tools, and endpoints.

You also need named control owners. Automation cannot replace accountability.

 

4- Choose or confirm an auditor early

An external CPA firm ultimately issues the SOC 2 report. Confirm your auditor before proceeding with deep configuration to avoid mismatches in expectations, evidence formats, or control interpretations.

Where Axipro Fits in a Drata-Led SOC 2 Program

Drata is excellent at operationalizing SOC 2. It centralizes controls, automates evidence collection, and enforces timelines that matter to auditors. What it does not do is make judgment calls, resolve ambiguity, or design controls in context. That work still belongs to the experts.

This is where Axipro fits.

In practice, Axipro supports Drata-led SOC 2 programs in four critical areas:

Scoping discipline

Before configuration begins, Axipro helps validate system boundaries, Trust Services Criteria selection, and audit periods. This prevents over-scoping, which is one of the most common reasons SOC 2 projects slow down or fail testing later.

Control ownership and execution clarity

Drata can track controls, but it cannot assign accountability. Axipro works with teams to ensure every in-scope control has a clear owner, a realistic execution process, and an evidence strategy that will stand up to auditor scrutiny.

Readiness validation before auditor access

Many SOC 2 delays happen after auditors are invited. Axipro performs structured readiness reviews to catch weak evidence, misaligned controls, and timing gaps before fieldwork begins. This reduces follow-ups, exceptions, and rework.

Audit navigation and exception handling

During the audit, Axipro helps teams respond to auditor questions, document compensating controls, and resolve findings clearly. This keeps the audit moving and avoids creating long-term issues that resurface in future cycles.

Drata provides the operating system. Axipro helps ensure the program running on top of it is coherent, defensible, and sustainable.

Step 1: Scope Your SOC 2 Program in Drata

Once your prep work is done, it’s time to open Drata and start the real implementation work. Scoping is the first and most important step. It defines what the auditor will test and, just as importantly, what they will ignore.

Create the audit container

In Drata, scope becomes “real” the moment you create the audit.

Navigate to Audit Hub, then select Create Audit. Choose SOC 2 as the framework and define the audit period.

This date range matters more than most teams realize. Drata restricts auditor access to evidence strictly within this window. If your controls weren’t operating during this period, they effectively do not exist for the audit.

Add your auditor once the container is created. From this point forward, you are no longer “preparing”. You are in audit mode.

Define the system boundary before touching anything else

Before clicking deeper into Drata, pause and write a single sentence internally:

“This SOC 2 audit covers the systems, people, and processes used to deliver [Product or Service Name] to customers.”

That sentence becomes your anchor.

SOC 2 is not a company-wide certification. It is a system-level attestation. The American Institute of CPAs, which governs SOC reporting, is explicit about this.

Everything you include in scope must directly support that system. Everything that doesn’t should stay out.

This mindset alone can reduce audit scope by 30–50 percent for early-stage SaaS companies.

Identify what is actually “in scope” inside Drata

Now you translate that boundary into real systems.

A simple rule works well: if it stores, processes, or transmits customer data for the in-scope product, or is required to operate production, it belongs in scope.

Production environments are almost always included. Development and staging environments are in scope only if they use real customer data or are part of enforced change management workflows.

Infrastructure follows the same logic. Cloud accounts, databases, CI/CD pipelines, identity providers, logging, monitoring, and incident management tools typically qualify.

Third-party vendors matter too. SOC 2 explicitly requires the evaluation of subservice organizations that could impact system security or availability. Drata supports this through vendor inventory and SOC report review workflows.

 

Assign owners to everything that falls in scope

A control without an owner is an audit risk.

Inside Drata, each control mapped to your scoped Trust Services Categories needs a clearly assigned owner and a defined evidence source. Automated evidence is ideal, but manual uploads are acceptable if they are consistent and timely.

According to multiple SOC 2 readiness studies, unclear ownership is one of the top three causes of audit delays.

If someone cannot answer “who owns this?” within five seconds, you have a problem.

 

Final check: Does your time scope match your system scope?

Before you move forward, sanity-check one last thing.

Your audit period, your operating controls, and your evidence availability must all align. If your controls went live halfway through the audit window, the earlier period may fail testing.

Drata enforces this strictly, which is good, but unforgiving.

When these elements are aligned, auditors move faster, questions decrease, and SOC 2 stops feeling mysterious.

When scoping is done right

Scoping is complete when:

  1. Your audit exists in Drata,
  2. Your Trust Services Categories are intentional, 
  3. Your system inventory reflects reality, and 
  4. Your System Description matches both.

Step 2: Connect Integrations to Automate Evidence Collection in Drata

This is where Drata delivers real value. Automation replaces screenshots, spreadsheets, and human reminders, but only if integrations match how your company actually operates.

Start with identity and access management. Most organizations connect Drata to Okta, Azure Active Directory, or Google Workspace. This integration powers continuous monitoring for user access, offboarding, MFA enforcement, and periodic access reviews. Identity controls sit at the core of SOC 2 Security and are among the most frequently tested by auditors.

Next, connect your cloud infrastructure. AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud integrations allow Drata to automatically validate account configurations, logging, encryption settings, and change activity. Cloud misconfiguration remains a leading cause of security incidents, which is why auditors scrutinize this area closely.

For source control and CI/CD, integrations with GitHub or GitLab support evidence for change management, code review enforcement, and deployment traceability. These controls demonstrate that production changes are authorized, tested, and auditable.

Ticketing and incident workflows typically integrate with tools like Jira or ServiceNow. This evidence shows how incidents are identified, tracked, resolved, and reviewed. 

Endpoint management often includes platforms such as Jamf or Microsoft Intune, depending on whether your environment is Apple-first or Windows-heavy. These integrations support device inventory, encryption, and security configuration evidence.

Step 3: Run a Gap Analysis Using Drata’s Control Framework

Once integrations are live, it’s time to pressure-test reality. 

Drata maps every SOC 2 control directly to the Trust Services Criteria. This alignment allows you to evaluate readiness control by control, rather than guessing whether you are “mostly compliant.”

Start with Security controls, which are mandatory in every SOC 2 report. These cover access management, logging, monitoring, risk assessment, and incident response. Optional criteria like Availability, Confidentiality, or Privacy introduce additional operational depth, but also increase testing scope.

Inside Drata, review each control and assign a clear status: implemented, partially implemented, or missing. This step should be honest, not optimistic. Auditors test operating effectiveness, not intent. A “partially implemented” control is a signal that evidence will fail under scrutiny.

This visibility is the real value of the gap analysis. It allows you to prioritize remediation based on audit risk, not convenience. Industry data consistently shows that unresolved access controls and change management gaps account for a majority of SOC 2 audit exceptions.

 

Step 4: Implement and Map Controls Inside Drata

At this stage, controls shift from theory to observable behavior over time. Auditors do not care what should happen. They care what does happen, consistently.

Begin with access control execution. This means multi-factor authentication is enforced, single sign-on is actually used, access follows least-privilege principles, and user onboarding and offboarding are documented and repeatable. 

Change management must show evidence of discipline. Every production change should have an approval trail, testing proof, and a clear link between code, deployment, and release. Drata helps map this evidence, but the process must already exist. 

For incident response, auditors look for preparedness, not perfection. Detection mechanisms, response procedures, and post-incident reviews must be defined and followed when incidents occur. Even a “no incidents” period still requires proof that monitoring and escalation processes are active.

Risk management requires a maintained risk register, reviewed periodically, that demonstrates that leadership actively evaluates and responds to evolving threats. 

Vendor risk management must show due diligence before onboarding and ongoing monitoring afterward. Contracts, security reviews, and periodic reassessment matter because auditors treat key vendors as extensions of your system boundary.

If Availability is in scope, controls must demonstrate resilience. Backups should exist, recovery processes should be tested, and uptime should be monitored continuously. 

When controls are implemented this way, Drata becomes more than a tracker. It becomes evidence that your organization operates with intent, consistency, and accountability.

 

Step 6: Publish Policies and Align Employee Training

SOC 2 is not just about systems. It is about intent made visible. Policies are how auditors confirm that your organization understands its responsibilities and has formally committed to them.

Inside Drata, finalize and publish your core policies. Security, access control, incident response, and vendor management policies must be customized to your environment, formally approved by leadership, and acknowledged by employees. Generic templates are easy to spot and often trigger follow-up questions during audits.

Policy acknowledgment matters more than many teams expect. SOC 2 auditors routinely test whether employees have actually attested to policies, not just whether the documents exist. Drata’s automated attestation tracking removes ambiguity, which is exactly what auditors want.

Employee security awareness training is also required. This is not about depth. It is about consistency and coverage. Auditors look for proof that training occurred, that it is relevant to employee roles, and that completion records are maintained.

Step 7: Collect Evidence and Validate Readiness

This is the moment to pause and verify the facts before the auditor does.

Drata automates a large portion of evidence collection, but automation is never 100 percent. Certain artifacts remain manual or point-in-time by design. Examples include policy approvals, management sign-offs, risk review notes, and incident postmortems. These must exist, be current, and fall within the audit period.

Before inviting the auditor, run an internal readiness review. Look for missing screenshots, stale policy versions, disconnected integrations, or controls marked “implemented” without supporting proof. 

The most common readiness mistake is assuming that evidence collected automatically is automatically sufficient. Auditors test relevance and completeness, not tooling.

Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less

Schedule Your Free SOC 2 Assessment Today

Step 8: Prepare for the SOC 2 Audit Using Drata

Once the auditor is invited, Drata becomes the single source of truth for evidence requests, control mapping, and auditor questions. This centralization significantly reduces back-and-forth and prevents version confusion, which is one of the biggest time drains in traditional audits.

That said, auditors will still ask questions. Clarifications, compensating controls, and remediation plans are normal parts of a SOC 2 engagement. The AICPA explicitly frames SOC reporting as a dialogue, not a checklist exercise.

 

Teams that respond early and clearly tend to move through fieldwork faster and with fewer follow-ups.

Step 9: Pass the Audit and Respond to Findings

After testing is complete, auditors issue results. Minor findings or observations do not mean failure. They mean something needs to be clarified, adjusted, or formally documented.

What matters is how findings are addressed. Clear explanations, defined remediation steps, and realistic timelines signal control maturity.

Tracking remediation tasks in Drata ensures lessons learned carry forward rather than being rediscovered next year.

Step 10: Maintain Continuous Compliance

SOC 2 reports are issued annually, but expectations are continuous. Auditors and customers alike assume controls operate every day, not just during audit season.

Ongoing monitoring helps identify drift early. Access reviews, vendor reviews, and risk reviews should run on schedule, not be rushed weeks before renewal. 

This is the inflection point. Teams that operationalize compliance build confidence and speed over time. Teams that treat SOC 2 as a yearly sprint tend to burn out.

SOC 2 is not passed once. It is maintained deliberately.

Recommended Drata SOC 2 Timeline Example

Phase

Typical Duration

Scoping and integrations

Weeks 1–2

Control implementation and policies

Weeks 3–6

Readiness review and Type I audit

Weeks 7–8

Type II observation period

Months 3–6+

Conclusion: Your Next Steps to Get SOC 2 Audit-Ready in Drata

Drata can dramatically simplify SOC 2, but only when paired with clear scoping, ownership, and expert guidance. Automation accelerates good programs. It exposes weak ones.

If you want to shorten timelines, reduce audit risk, and avoid rework, a structured readiness approach matters.

Learn more about SOC 2 fundamentals from the AICPA SOC overview understand the background on SOC 2, and explore Drata’s platform capabilities.

If you want help scoping, implementing, or validating your Drata SOC 2 program, book a readiness assessment or request a demo. The right preparation turns compliance from a blocker into a growth asset.

FAQ: Drata SOC 2 Compliance

Does Drata guarantee I will pass a SOC 2 audit?
No. Drata provides structure and automation, not guarantees. Outcomes depend on control design and execution.

How long does SOC 2 take with Drata for a SaaS company?
Type I readiness often takes 6 to 8 weeks. Type II depends on the observation period.

What is the difference between continuous monitoring and the audit?
Monitoring tracks control health. The audit independently verifies control operation over time.

Which Trust Services Criteria should I choose first?
Security first. Add others only when justified by product behavior or customer demands.

What evidence is still manual?
Risk assessments, policy approvals, some vendor reviews, and exception documentation.

When should I involve an auditor?
Before heavy configuration to align expectations.

Can Drata help with vendor management?
Yes, but judgment and follow-up remain human responsibilities.

Axipro Author

Picture of Pedro Dias

Pedro Dias

Pedro has been writing online for over 10 years. With experience in all things programming, cyber security, and compliance, he is our editor-in-chief at Axipro.

Blog Highlights

Explore More Articles

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

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

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