Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less.

/ SOC 2 Compliance Checklist: A Step-by-Step Guide

SOC 2 Compliance Checklist: A Step-by-Step Guide

Pedro Dias
February 13, 2026

SOC 2 compliance can sometimes feel like a needlessly complex Pandora’s box of documentation. But it shouldn’t be. That’s why today, we’ll show you how to easily become compliant with our 12-step SOC 2 compliance checklist.
In its simplest form, all the SOC 2 sections point to the same question:

Can you prove your controls work?

This SOC 2 Compliance Checklist guides you through the process from scoping through audit completion for both SOC 2 Type 1 and Type 2. It is practical, auditor-aligned, and written for teams that want clarity rather than theory.

If you want the short version: SOC 2 is not about tools or paperwork. It is about repeatable processes, clear ownership, and evidence that stands up to scrutiny.

Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less

Schedule Your Free SOC 2 Assessment Today

What is a SOC 2 compliance checklist?

A SOC 2 compliance checklist is a structured roadmap that maps your internal controls to the AICPA Trust Services Criteria and prepares your organization for a Type 1 or Type 2 audit.

For a full breakdown of SOC 2 requirements, read our detailed SOC 2 guide.

How to Use This SOC 2 Compliance Checklist

Think of this checklist as a living roadmap, not a one-time document. You should revisit it at four points: before scoping, during readiness, throughout evidence collection, and after the audit for continuous compliance.

Type 1 vs. Type 2: Which Checklist Items Change?

The core checklist does not change dramatically between Type 1 and Type 2. What changes is time and proof.

Type 1 evaluates whether controls are designed correctly at a specific point in time. Type 2 evaluates whether those same controls operated effectively over an observation period, usually 3, 6, or 12 months.

This means evidence for Type 2 must show consistency, such as quarterly access reviews, repeated vulnerability scans, and incident response tests that actually occurred.

Who Owns Each Workstream

SOC 2 is cross-functional by design. Security may lead, but it cannot succeed alone.

Engineering typically owns secure SDLC, change management, and logging. IT owns IAM, endpoints, and device management. Legal and HR contribute policies, onboarding controls, and training. GRC or compliance coordinates risk assessment, evidence, and auditor communication.

The fastest SOC 2 projects have named control owners with deadlines, not shared responsibility.

What “Audit-Ready” Really Means

Being audit-ready does not mean “we think we are secure.” It means you can produce clear, dated, and traceable evidence that maps directly to the Trust Services Criteria.

Auditors test design, then operation. They expect policies, tickets, screenshots, logs, and approvals. They also expect alignment. If your policy says quarterly, your evidence cannot show annual.

The AICPA provides the underlying standard, supported by SSAE 18 and AT-C 205.

Pre-Checklist: Confirm You Actually Need SOC 2

Not every company needs SOC 2 immediately. If your customers are SMBs, you may see lighter requirements. If you sell to enterprises, SOC 2 often becomes non-negotiable.

Security questionnaires are the strongest signal. When prospects ask about penetration testing, access reviews, and incident response evidence, SOC 2 is usually the cleanest way to respond at scale.

Alternatives like ISO 27001, PCI DSS, or HIPAA can be valid. But SOC 2 is uniquely customer-facing, especially in North America. ISO 27001 is excellent for global alignment, while SOC 2 maps directly to buyer trust.

The 12-Step Checklist

Step 1- Define Scope

Scoping mistakes cause more SOC 2 delays than any missing control.

Your scope must clearly define the services you provide, the systems that support them, and the access controls. Over-scoping increases cost and complexity. Under-scoping leads to auditor pushback.

In-scope systems usually include production cloud environments, CI/CD pipelines, support tooling, and identity providers. In-scope people include employees and contractors with access to customer data. Third parties are addressed as Subservice organization, using either the Carve-out method or Inclusive method.

Data classification and flows must identify PII, PHI, or payment data, and how it moves through systems.

Action Plan for Scoping

Define the Service Commitment
List In-Scope Systems
Identify In-Scope People
Document Third Parties
Map Data Flows
Validate Scope with Leadership

Step 2- Select the Trust Services Criteria

All SOC 2 reports include Security (Common Criteria). The others are optional but must be justified.

Availability focuses on uptime and disaster recovery. Confidentiality focuses on sensitive data protection. Processing Integrity focuses on system accuracy. Privacy applies when personal data obligations are central.

Your report must document why each criterion is included or excluded. Auditors look closely at this rationale.

Trust Service Criteria Action Plan

Confirm Security (Mandatory)
Assess Optional Criteria
Document Inclusion Rationale
Obtain Executive Sign-Off

Step 3- Choose the Audit Path and Timeline

Most teams benefit from a readiness assessment before audit. This is often referred to as a Readiness assessment or Gap analysis.

Type 1 audits can be completed in weeks once controls are ready. Type 2 timelines depend on the observation period. Six months is the most common balance between speed and credibility.

Define control owners early and create an evidence calendar. Late evidence is the enemy of clean audits.

Audit Path and Timeline Action Plan

Conduct Readiness or Gap Assessment
Choose Audit Type
Set Observation Period (Type 2)
Assign Control Owners
Build Evidence Calendar

Step 4- Pick an Auditor and Define the Engagement

Choose a CPA firm with real SOC 2 experience in your industry. Responsiveness matters more than brand name.

Confirm standards, testing approach, sampling expectations, and how subservice organizations are treated. The engagement letter should clearly state scope, period, and deliverables. A clear PBC list process avoids confusion later.

Action plan for finding an auditor.

Shortlist CPA Firms
Review Testing Approach
Clarify Subservice Treatment
Finalize Engagement Letter
Request Preliminary PBC List

Step 5- Perform a SOC 2 Gap Analysis

Map existing controls to the Trust Services Criteria. Missing policies, undocumented processes, and inconsistent evidence usually surface here.

Prioritize high-risk gaps first. Document known exceptions and compensating controls honestly. Auditors prefer transparency over perfection.

Gap Analysis Action Plan:

Map Controls to Criteria
Identify Missing Controls
Prioritize by Risk
Document Compensating Controls

Step 6- Build the Policy and Governance Foundation

Policies should reflect reality. Information security, access control, change management, incident response, vendor risk management, and BCDR must all exist, be approved, and be followed.

If Privacy is in scope, privacy notices, data handling, and retention policies must align with actual practices.

Governance Action Plan

Draft Core Policies
Align Policy to Reality
Obtain Formal Approval
Train Staff

Step 7- Implement Security (Common Criteria) Controls

This is where most effort goes. IAM, MFA, SSO, and RBAC must be enforced, not optional. Logging, monitoring, vulnerability scanning, and patch management must be operational.

Auditors expect encryption in transit and at rest, typically supported by KMS. Secure SDLC, change management, incident response, risk assessment, vendor reviews, and physical security all fall under this umbrella.

Common Control Implementation Action Plan

Enforce Identity Controls
Enable Monitoring
Implement Vulnerability Management
Encrypt Data
Operationalize Secure SDLC
Run Risk Assessment

Step 8- Availability, Confidentiality, Processing Integrity, Privacy

Only implement what is in scope. Availability requires uptime definitions, monitoring, and tested disaster recovery. Confidentiality focuses on data handling and disposal. Processing Integrity requires evidence that systems do what you promise customers. Privacy requires DSAR handling, consent, and cross-border controls.

Availability

Define uptime commitments.
Document monitoring thresholds.
Test BCDR annually.
Record test results and improvements.

Confidentiality

Classify confidential data.
Restrict access via RBAC.
Define disposal procedures.
Validate encryption controls.

Processing Integrity

Document system processing controls.
Define input validation mechanisms.
Monitor output accuracy.
Track customer issue resolution.

Privacy

Publish privacy notice aligned with practice.
Implement DSAR handling process.
Define data retention schedule.
Control cross-border transfers.

Step 9- Build the Evidence Package

Auditors test evidence, not intent. They expect a clear System description, control narratives, access reviews, change tickets, incident records, vulnerability scans, vendor SOC reports, training logs, and BCDR test results.

Evidence must be complete, dated, and traceable.

Evidence Package Action Plan

Draft System Description
Collect Control Evidence
Ensure Traceability

Step 10 — Run Internal Reviews

Before the auditor looks, you should. Control owners should sign off. Exceptions should be documented with root cause and corrective action. Management review is not optional.

Internal Review Action Plan

Control Owner Sign-Off
Document Exceptions
Management Review

Step 11 — Complete the Audit

Expect walkthroughs, sampling, and follow-up questions. Review the draft report carefully, especially scope language and subservice organization descriptions.

Audit Action Plan

Prepare for Walkthroughs
Respond to Sampling Requests Quickly
Review Draft Report Carefully

Step 12 — Maintain Continuous SOC 2 Compliance

SOC 2 is not annual busywork. Continuous monitoring, periodic access reviews, quarterly vulnerability scans, annual risk assessments, and vendor re-reviews keep you audit-ready.

Teams that treat SOC 2 as a one-time project struggle with every renewal.

Maintaining Compliance Action Plan

Schedule Recurring Reviews
Monitor Vendor Changes
Automate Evidence Collection
Track Metrics
Embed Compliance into Operations

Ready to Use This Checklist in Practice?

If you want to turn this SOC 2 compliance checklist into a clear plan with owners, timelines, and auditor-ready evidence, Axipro can help.

Our Achievement Plan guides teams from scope to SOC 2 readiness in as little as six weeks, combining human expertise with the right automation tools. Whether you need a readiness assessment, a full Type 1 or Type 2 audit, or help maintaining compliance, we simplify the process so your team can focus on growth.

Book a SOC 2 readiness call or request a checklist walkthrough today, and move from “working on compliance” to confidently audit-ready.

Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less

Schedule Your Free SOC 2 Assessment Today

Is this SOC 2 compliance checklist enough to pass an audit?

The checklist is designed to align with the AICPA Trust Services Criteria and reflects what auditors test in both Type 1 and Type 2 engagements. However, a checklist alone does not guarantee a clean report. Success depends on Accurate scoping, Clear control ownership, Proper documentation, Consistent evidence over time, and Management oversight. The checklist provides structure. Execution determines the outcome.

How should we use this checklist internally?

This checklist should function as a project management framework rather than a static document. Organizations should assign ownership for each step, define deadlines, and maintain an evidence tracker alongside the checklist. During readiness, it should be reviewed regularly to monitor progress and identify blockers. After certification, it should evolve into a quarterly governance tool to maintain continuous compliance rather than being archived as a completed project.

What is the most commonly overlooked step in the checklist?

Scoping is the most frequently underestimated step. Poor scope definition can result in expanded audit testing, increased costs, and delays due to auditor pushback. Another commonly overlooked area is evidence preparation. Many organizations implement controls but fail to collect clear, dated, and traceable documentation. Even well-designed controls can create audit friction if evidence is incomplete or inconsistent.

Can we exclude optional Trust Services Criteria to simplify the checklist?

Yes, but exclusions must be intentional and justified. Security, also known as the Common Criteria, is mandatory in every SOC 2 report. The inclusion of Availability, Confidentiality, Processing Integrity, or Privacy depends on customer commitments, regulatory requirements, contractual obligations, and data sensitivity. Auditors expect a documented rationale explaining why each optional criterion was included or excluded. Simply omitting criteria without explanation can raise concerns during review.

Who should own the checklist within the organization?

SOC 2 is inherently cross-functional. While security or GRC teams often coordinate the effort, engineering, IT, HR, legal, and executive leadership all play essential roles. The checklist works most effectively when each control area has a clearly defined owner with accountability for implementation, documentation, and ongoing monitoring. Shared responsibility without defined ownership frequently leads to gaps and delays.

How do we know when we are truly audit-ready?

You are audit-ready when every control has a designated owner, policies are formally approved and consistently followed, evidence is complete and traceable, and your system description accurately reflects your environment. Management should have reviewed and signed off on the program before the auditor begins testing. If your team can confidently walk an auditor through each checklist step with supporting documentation, you are prepared for a structured and efficient audit experience.

Axipro Author

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.

February 13, 2026
All Blog, SOC-2

Blog Highlights

Explore More Articles

August 21, 2026

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

PENTEST, SOC-2

August 18, 2026

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

AI Security, ISO 42001

August 14, 2026

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

Table of Contents