/

  / SOC 2 Password Requirements: What Auditors Check

SOC 2 Password Requirements: What Auditors Check

Most teams walk into a SOC 2 audit expecting standard requirements for their password policy: minimum length, 90-day rotation, one uppercase letter, one symbol, and so on.
But there is no such checklist. The AICPA never published a list of mandatory password rules, and the federal guidance that most auditors lean on has thrown out half of what passed for best practice a decade ago. 

Beyond compliance, this is remains a crucial cybersecurity control: Stolen and brute-forced credentials still drive a large share of breaches, and password policies are the main way to mitigate this risk.

This guide covers what SOC 2 expects around passwords, where those expectations come from, and how to build a policy that satisfies an auditor without making your security worse.

SOC 2 Password Requirements

What Are SOC 2 Password Requirements?

SOC 2 password requirements are the access controls that a service organization implements to govern how passwords are created, stored, enforced, and retired, all in service of the Trust Services Criteria. The important word is controls, not rules. SOC 2 does not hand you a specification. It asks whether your controls are suitably designed and operating effectively to keep unauthorized people out of your systems.

 

The Role of Passwords in the SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria

The Trust Services Criteria, developed by the AICPA, are the evaluation standard for every SOC 2 report. Passwords sit inside the Security category, which is mandatory in all SOC 2 engagements, and specifically inside the Common Criteria series CC6, covering logical and physical access. Passwords are one of the most basic logical access controls you have, and one of the most scrutinized, because CC6 is usually the most evidence-intensive part of the entire audit.

Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less

Schedule Your Free SOC 2 Assessment Today

Relevant Common Criteria: CC6.1, CC6.2, and CC6.3

  • CC6.1 covers the controls that restrict logical access to systems, infrastructure, and data, this is where your password policy, MFA enforcement, and account lockout settings live.
  • CC6.2 governs how access is granted, modified, and removed, meaning your provisioning workflows, access reviews, and offboarding processes are all evaluated here.
  • CC6.3 focuses on the removal of access when it is no longer needed and the management of privileged credentials specifically.

Together, these three criteria map to the full lifecycle of a credential: creation, ongoing use, and retirement. An auditor working through CC6 will expect evidence at every stage.

 

Does SOC 2 Mandate Specific Password Rules?

No. The AICPA is explicit that the Trust Services Criteria do not define the controls an organization must have. You identify and implement controls that meet the criteria, and the auditor evaluates them. That means there is no AICPA-mandated minimum length, no required rotation interval, and no prescribed complexity formula. What the auditor checks is whether your stated controls exist, work, and reasonably prevent unauthorized access.

Insider note: Auditors rarely fail you for choosing a 10-character minimum over 12. They fail you when your written policy says one thing and your actual system configuration says another. Consistency between the policy document and the enforced setting matters far more than the specific number.

Why Password Requirements Matter for SOC 2 Compliance

Why Password Requirements Matter for SOC 2 Compliance

Preventing Unauthorized Access

Credentials are the front door. The 2025 Verizon DBIR found that stolen credentials remained the single most common initial access vector, appearing in 22% of breaches, and that brute force attacks against basic web applications nearly tripled year over year. Strong authentication controls are the difference between an attacker hitting a wall and an attacker walking straight in with a valid login.

Reducing Data Breach Risk

Weak or reused passwords feed credential stuffing, where attackers replay username and password pairs harvested from earlier breaches against your login pages. Reuse is rampant: research from Microsoft’s Digital Defense Report routinely finds that the majority of people reuse passwords across services. A single leaked password elsewhere becomes a working key to your environment unless your controls catch it.

Demonstrating Logical Access Controls to Auditors

SOC 2 is an attestation. It is not enough to be secure; you have to prove it with evidence. Well-designed password controls produce exactly the artifacts an auditor wants: configuration screenshots, enforcement logs, MFA reports, and access review records. Good controls and good evidence are two sides of the same coin, and an internal audit process that routinely collects this evidence makes the formal engagement significantly less stressful.

Core SOC 2 Password Requirements

Although SOC 2 prescribes nothing specific, a defensible password policy almost always addresses the same set of controls. These are what auditors expect to see and what your peers in compliance treat as table stakes.

Minimum Password Length

Length is the strongest single lever for password entropy, and modern guidance favors it over everything else. A common defensible baseline is at least 12 characters for standard user accounts, with longer requirements for service and admin accounts. NIST SP 800-63B recommends that verifiers support passwords up to 64 characters so that passphrases and password-manager output are never truncated, an important implementation detail that many teams overlook.

Password Complexity and Blocklists

Old-style complexity rules, one uppercase, one symbol, one number, are fading, and for good reason. They push users toward predictable substitutions without meaningfully raising entropy. The more effective control is a blocklist: screening new passwords against dictionaries of common and previously breached credentials and rejecting matches. Tools like Have I Been Pwned’s Pwned Passwords API make this straightforward to implement. This stops Password1! from sneaking through even though it technically satisfies a legacy complexity rule.

Password Rotation and History

Forced periodic rotation is the control most teams keep out of habit, and it is also the one that modern guidance most clearly discourages. Rotation pushes users toward predictable patterns, Spring2025 becoming Summer2025, without improving security in any measurable way. Password history settings, which prevent the immediate reuse of recent passwords, still have a place, but blind calendar-based expiry should be replaced with event-driven resets: force a change when there is evidence of compromise, not because the calendar says 90 days have passed.

Account Lockout After Failed Login Attempts

An account lockout policy, or rate limiting that throttles repeated failures, is your primary defense against online brute force and password spraying. Lock or delay after a defined number of failed attempts, log every lockout event for evidence, and make sure the threshold is low enough to catch an attack without generating so much friction that helpdesk tickets pile up. A lockout after five to ten attempts is a reasonable starting point for most environments.

Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)

MFA is the highest-impact control in this list. It blunts credential theft almost entirely, because a stolen password alone no longer grants access. Auditors increasingly treat MFA on critical and externally facing systems as effectively expected, even though SOC 2 does not name it as mandatory. Any organization that cannot demonstrate MFA coverage on email, the identity provider, cloud consoles, and privileged access should expect that gap to surface as a finding.

Pro Tip: Not all MFA is equal.

Not all MFA is equal. Phishing-resistant factors such as FIDO2 or WebAuthn security keys sit at the top tier. SMS and push-notification codes are far better than nothing but remain vulnerable to SIM swapping and push-bombing. Reserve the strongest factors for privileged accounts and anything internet-facing.

Secure Password Storage and Encryption

Passwords must never be stored in plain text. Store them as salted, one-way hashes using a slow, adaptive algorithm such as Argon2, bcrypt, or scrypt, as recommended by the OWASP Password Storage Cheat Sheet. Credentials in transit should be protected with encryption in transit using TLS, and vaulted secrets should be protected with encryption at rest. This is where password hashing stops a stolen database from becoming a usable credential dump, an attacker who exfiltrates properly hashed records gains very little.

Privileged and Admin Password Handling

Privileged accounts deserve stricter treatment under CC6.3. Apply least privilege, enforce MFA without exception, and manage shared or root credentials through a Privileged Access Management (PAM) tool or a secrets vault rather than a spreadsheet or shared document. Rotate privileged credentials on personnel change and after any suspected exposure. The risk associated with a compromised admin account is categorically different from that of a compromised standard user account, and your controls should reflect that.

How SOC 2 Password Requirements Align with NIST Guidelines

NIST SP 800-63B Recommendations

NIST SP 800-63B, the federal Digital Identity Guidelines, is the reference most auditors and security teams default to for password controls. Its fourth revision, finalized in the 2024–2025 window, sets a minimum length of 8 characters, recommends 15 or more when a password is the only authenticator, mandates screening against breached-credential lists, and tells verifiers to support long passphrases. Crucially, it also tells organizations to stop requiring arbitrary periodic rotation and to drop composition rules that don’t demonstrably improve security.

Where SOC 2 and NIST Overlap

SOC 2 does not require NIST compliance, and NIST is guidance rather than law. But the two fit together cleanly. SOC 2 asks whether your access controls are effective; NIST SP 800-63B describes what effective password controls look like in practice. Adopting SP 800-63B gives you a documented, authoritative rationale for every choice in your policy, which is exactly the kind of justification auditors respect. When a control choice is challenged during fieldwork, “we follow NIST SP 800-63B” is a much stronger answer than “we’ve always done it this way.”

Modern vs. Legacy Password Policy Approaches

The gap between legacy habits and current guidance is wide. Forced rotation every 90 days, mandatory complexity characters, and minimum-length requirements of 8 characters were all reasonable assumptions in an era before large-scale breached-credential databases existed. That era is over. The shift in thinking is fundamental: the old model tried to make passwords harder to guess by making them harder to remember, which backfired. The new model makes passwords harder to guess by making them longer and checking them against known compromised values.

Important: If your written SOC 2 password policy still mandates 90-day rotation and four-character-type complexity, you are not just out of date, you are out of step with the very guidance your auditor uses as a benchmark. Update the policy language before the audit, and document the risk-based reasoning behind each change.

Where to Enforce SOC 2 Password Controls

A policy means nothing if it is enforced in one place and ignored in three others. Map your controls to every layer where credentials grant access.

Identity Providers and SSO Systems

Your identity provider and Single Sign-On (SSO) platform are the highest-leverage enforcement point. Configure length, blocklist screening, lockout, and MFA centrally here, and the policy propagates to every connected application automatically. This is also where your cleanest audit evidence lives, a single configuration screenshot from Okta, Google Workspace, or a comparable IdP can cover dozens of downstream systems at once.

Endpoints and Workstations

Laptops and workstations need their own login controls, disk encryption, and screen-lock timeouts. Endpoint security tooling and device management platforms like Microsoft Intune let you enforce and report on these settings across the entire fleet, turning what would otherwise be a manual sampling exercise into a reportable dataset for auditors.

Cloud Applications and SaaS Tools

Every SaaS tool that holds company or customer data is in scope. Wherever possible, route access through SSO so the central policy applies. For tools that cannot federate, enforce MFA and strong passwords directly, and keep a record of the configuration. Auditors will ask about the tools on the periphery, the ones that weren’t connected to SSO because “it wasn’t worth the effort”, and gaps there can widen into findings.

Internal Systems and Databases

Databases, servers, and internal admin panels are prime targets and often the weakest link, because they get provisioned with default credentials and forgotten. Replace defaults immediately, vault service-account secrets, and restrict access by role under CC6.3. A database sitting inside the network perimeter with a default admin password is not a theoretical risk, it is a breach waiting to be discovered.

Building a SOC 2-Compliant Password Policy

Required Elements of a Password Policy

A defensible policy covers minimum length, blocklist screening, lockout thresholds, MFA scope, storage and hashing standards, privileged-account handling, and the conditions that trigger a forced reset. State each control as an enforceable setting, not an aspiration. If you cannot point to where a line is technically enforced in your environment, it does not belong in the policy as a stated control, auditors will look for the evidence, and “we expect users to comply” is not sufficient.

Documenting the Policy

The policy must be a written, version-controlled document with a named owner and a review date. Auditors will ask when it was last reviewed and who approved the current version. Tie each control back to the relevant Common Criteria so the mapping is obvious during fieldwork, an access control policy that links cleanly to CC6.1, CC6.2, and CC6.3 saves hours of back-and-forth and signals to the auditor that your program is deliberately designed rather than assembled under deadline pressure.

Communicating the Policy to Employees

A policy nobody has read is a finding waiting to happen. Distribute it during onboarding, require acknowledgment, and reinforce it through periodic security awareness training. The acknowledgment records themselves become evidence under CC6.1. Training delivery records support the people-and-process side of the criteria and demonstrate that your controls extend beyond technical configuration into human behavior.

Best Practices to Meet and Exceed SOC 2 Password Requirements

Best Practices to Meet and Exceed SOC 2 Password Requirements

Deploy a Password Manager

A password manager is the single most practical upgrade most organizations can make to their credential hygiene. It generates long, unique, random passwords for every account and removes the human incentive to reuse credentials. NIST guidance effectively assumes the use of one, which is why it requires support for 64-character passwords and paste functionality in login fields. Enterprise-grade options like 1Password Business also provide administrator reporting that doubles as audit evidence.

Enforce MFA Across All Critical Systems

Make MFA non-negotiable for email, the identity provider, cloud consoles, source code repositories, and any privileged access. The Snowflake-related breaches of 2024 were a stark reminder that a single account without MFA can compromise an entire environment, and that customers and auditors notice when the control was available and simply not enabled.

Train Employees on Credential Hygiene

Technical controls fail when people work around them. Teach staff why reuse is dangerous, how phishing harvests credentials, and why they should report a suspected compromise immediately rather than hoping the problem goes away. Document the training delivery and completion rates, these records serve as evidence that your organization treats security awareness as an operational discipline, not an annual checkbox.

Replace Default Credentials Immediately

Default and vendor-supplied passwords are among the most reliably exploited weaknesses in any environment. Build a step into every provisioning workflow that forces replacement before a system goes live, and audit periodically for systems that slipped through. The CISA Secure by Design guidance specifically calls out default credential elimination as a foundational expectation, it is not a sophisticated control, but failing to do it is an embarrassing finding.

Conduct Regular User Access Reviews

User access reviews under CC6.2 confirm that the right people still have the right access and that departed staff no longer have any. Pair them with clean offboarding procedures so credentials are revoked the day someone leaves, not the week after. Access reviews also surface orphaned service accounts and over-provisioned roles, the kinds of quiet risks that accumulate between audits and surface as findings when someone finally looks.

Monitor and Log Authentication Events

Log every login, failure, lockout, and privilege escalation, and review the logs for anomalies. Continuous monitoring supports a Zero Trust posture and gives you the authentication evidence auditors expect under CC6 and CC7. Without logs, you cannot prove that your controls worked during the audit period, and in a Type II engagement, the audit period can span twelve months.

Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less

Schedule Your Free SOC 2 Assessment Today

Proving Password Policy Enforcement to Auditors

Evidence Auditors Look For

Auditor evidence for password controls typically includes identity-provider configuration screenshots showing length and lockout settings, MFA enrollment and enforcement reports, blocklist or breach-screening configuration documentation, password hashing and encryption in transit documentation, and dated access-review records. The stronger the alignment between your written policy and the enforced configuration, the smoother the audit. Discrepancies between the two are where findings are born.

Common Pitfalls That Cause Audit Findings

The recurring failures are predictable, which makes them avoidable. A policy that contradicts the live configuration. MFA enabled for most accounts but quietly missing for a handful of admins. Offboarding that lags by days while terminated accounts remain active. Configuration screenshots with no timestamps, making it impossible to confirm they reflect the audit period. Each of these is a finding that an internal audit review before fieldwork begins would catch and resolve.

Automating Evidence Collection

Manual screenshot-gathering is slow and error-prone, especially for SOC 2 Type II, which tests controls over an extended period rather than at a single point in time. Compliance automation tooling that pulls configuration and access data continuously turns evidence collection from a pre-audit scramble into a background process. It also catches drift between audits, the moment when controls quietly slip out of alignment with the documented policy, before that drift becomes a finding.

 

Conclusion

SOC 2 does not hand you a password rulebook, and that is the point. The framework judges whether your access controls actually keep attackers out and whether you can prove it. The strongest policies now lean on length, blocklist screening, MFA, and secure hashing, while dropping the forced rotation and rigid complexity rules that modern guidance has abandoned. Align your policy with NIST SP 800-63B, enforce it consistently across every system, keep clean evidence, and password controls become one of the more manageable parts of your SOC 2 report rather than one of the hardest.

FAQs About SOC 2 Password Requirements

What does the AICPA say about SOC 2 password requirements?

The AICPA does not define specific password controls. The Trust Services Criteria state that organizations must identify and implement their own controls to meet the criteria, and the auditor evaluates whether those controls are controls are suitably designed and operating effectively.

SOC 2 sets no fixed minimum. Most organizations adopt at least 12 characters, drawing on NIST SP 800-63B, which sets an 8-character floor and recommends 15 or more when a password is the only authenticator.

No. SOC 2 does not require it, and current NIST guidance recommends against forced periodic rotation, advising password changes only when there is evidence of compromise.

MFA is not explicitly mandated, but it is treated as effectively expected for critical and externally facing systems. Auditors view its absence on key systems as a meaningful weakness in logical access controls.

Apply least privilege under CC6.3, enforce MFA, and manage shared and admin credentials through a Privileged Access Management tool or secrets vault. Rotate them on personnel change and after any suspected exposure.

Yes, where they access in-scope systems. The revised points of focus for CC6 explicitly call out contractor, vendor, and partner access, so anyone touching your environment should fall under equivalent controls.

A password manager generates and stores long, unique passwords, which directly supports strong authentication under CC6.1 and reduces reuse-driven breach risk. It also makes enforcing length and uniqueness practical across dozens of accounts without placing an unreasonable burden on employees.

Provide configuration evidence from your identity provider, MFA enforcement reports, blocklist and hashing documentation, and dated access-review records. Consistency between your written policy and the enforced settings is what auditors weigh most heavily, and an internal audit run before fieldwork begins is the most reliable way to confirm that consistency exists.

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

Compliance software collects the evidence. A consultant builds the system that evidence is meant to prove. That’s the real difference in the ISO 27001 consultant vs software decision, and most teams only figure it out after they’ve bought one and realized they still need the other. Below, we compare what each route covers, where it breaks down, and what it costs you in time, money, and your team’s hours. Short version: software on its own works for a small group of companies. For most SaaS and tech scale-ups trying to get an enterprise deal over the line, consultant-led implementation on a compliance platform is the faster and safer path to a certificate. Quick Answer: Consultant, Software, or Both? Software-only works if you already have an in-house security lead who’s taken a company through ISO/IEC 27001 before and has the time to own the project. Consultant-only still makes sense if you run mostly on-premise or legacy systems that platforms barely integrate with. For everyone else, which means most cloud-native companies under a few hundred people, a hybrid works best: a platform to handle evidence and monitoring, and a consultant to build the management system and stand behind it in front of an auditor. Here’s why. What an ISO 27001 Consultant Handles ISO/IEC 27001:2022 is a management system standard. Clauses 4 to 10 cover how you run information security, and Annex A lists 93 controls you pick from based on risk. Almost none of it is box-ticking. Most of it comes down to judgment calls about your business, and that’s what you’re paying a consultant for. Scoping, Gap Analysis and Risk Assessment Scope is the first decision you make, and the most expensive one to get wrong. Go too wide and you’ll spend months on controls for systems no customer asks about. Go too narrow and the certificate won’t get through the procurement review it was supposed to pass. A consultant scopes around the deals you’re trying to close, runs a gap analysis, and builds a risk assessment based on your real assets and threats. That’s the document auditors dig into hardest. ISMS Documentation and Policy Writing The standard asks for a specific set of documents: the ISMS scope, information security policy, risk assessment and treatment methodology, Statement of Applicability, risk treatment plan, and evidence of competence, monitoring, internal audit, and management review. A consultant writes these around how your company works day to day, instead of how a template imagines it works. Auditors check whether you follow your own procedures, so a mismatch shows up fast. Internal Audit and Certification Audit Support You need an internal audit before certification, and Clause 9.2 says the auditor has to be objective and impartial. In a small company, the people who built the ISMS can’t credibly audit it, so most teams outsource it through ISO 27001 internal audit services. A good consultant also gets your team ready for the Stage 1 and Stage 2 audits, joins the conversations that matter, and handles corrective actions if the auditor raises nonconformities.  What ISO 27001 Compliance Software Handles Compliance automation platforms, often called GRC platforms, have changed how cloud-native companies get certified. They’re very good at the repetitive, evidence-heavy side of the work. Automated Evidence Collection and Continuous Control Monitoring The platform plugs into your cloud provider, identity provider, code repos, HR system, and device management tools, then pulls evidence on its own. It’ll flag an unencrypted storage bucket, an ex-employee who still has access, or a laptop without disk encryption. For technical controls, that saves weeks of screenshots and spreadsheet tracking. Policy Templates and Annex A Control Mapping Most platforms come with a policy library and map each control to the ISO 27001 clauses and Annex A. You get a starting point and a clear view of which controls have evidence and which don’t. Auditor Access and Ongoing Compliance Tracking Auditors can log in and review evidence themselves, which cuts down fieldwork. After you’re certified, dashboards show when controls slip between surveillance audits, so you aren’t rebuilding evidence from scratch every year. Where Each Approach Falls Short Neither route covers everything by itself. The good news is that the ways each one fails are predictable, so you can plan around them. Limits of Compliance Automation Platforms A platform can tell you a control is failing. It can’t decide your scope, run your risk assessment, write a policy that matches your operations, convince your CTO to change the offboarding process, or explain to an auditor why you excluded a control from your Statement of Applicability. Templates can also make you feel further along than you are. A dashboard at 90% can hide an ISMS that won’t survive Stage 1, because the missing 10% is the management system itself. Insider Note: The Stage 1 problem we see most on software-only projects is a risk assessment copied straight from the platform’s default risk library. The risks are generic, the scores are almost identical, and nothing ties back to the company’s own assets. Auditors notice within minutes, and it weakens the Statement of Applicability that’s built on it. The other problem is ownership. Software assumes someone inside the company will drive the project. At most startups that’s a CTO or ops lead who already has a full-time job, and the subscription renews whether the work gets done or not. Limits of a Consultant-Only Approach A consultant working without automation spends billable days on things a platform does for free, like chasing screenshots, updating evidence trackers, and collecting the same proof again before every surveillance audit. You pay more and wait longer. You also end up with a program that’s only accurate on the day it’s handed over. Once the engagement ends, the evidence goes stale and year-two surveillance turns into a scramble. ISO 27001 Consultant vs Software: Side-by-Side Comparison Factor Consultant only Software only Hybrid (consultant + platform) Time to audit readiness 3 to 6+ months Highly variable; depends on internal expertise As little as 6 weeks for well-scoped

Uzbekistan regulates artificial intelligence through two documents. The first is Law ZRU-1115, signed on 21 January 2026. It amends existing legislation to define AI, stops anyone from basing decisions about people’s rights on AI output alone, and fines companies that process personal data unlawfully with AI. The second is the set of Ethical Rules approved by Order No. 3787, in force since 17 June 2026, which spell out what developers, implementers, and users actually have to do. Uzbekistan hasn’t passed a standalone AI act, and its rules don’t sort systems into risk tiers or require conformity assessments. The framework is short and blunt, and it’s already enforceable. Below we walk through what each document requires, who it applies to, how it stacks up against the EU AI Act, and what a company using AI in Uzbekistan should do next. Uzbekistan AI Regulation at a Glance (TL;DR) Instrument Date What it does Who it binds Law ZRU-1115 Signed 21 January 2026 Defines AI in law, sets general rules for AI-built information resources and systems, bans legally significant decisions based only on AI, adds fines for unlawful AI processing of personal data State bodies, organizations, website owners, anyone processing personal data with AI Order No. 3787 (Ethical Rules) Registered 14 March 2026, in force 17 June 2026 Sets eight mandatory ethical principles and lists rights and obligations for developers, implementers, and users Individuals and companies developing, implementing, or using AI in Uzbekistan Law No. 1125 (Personal Data amendments) Adopted 26 March 2026 Limits data localization to biometric, genetic, and local telecom user data, and allows cross-border transfers under conditions Personal data operators, including AI providers AI Strategy until 2030 (RP-358) 14 October 2024 Sets national targets for AI adoption, infrastructure, and skills Government bodies What Is Law ZRU-1115? The law’s official title is a mouthful: “On making additions and changes to certain legislative acts of the Republic of Uzbekistan in connection with the regulation of relations arising from the use of artificial intelligence.” Put simply, it’s an amending law. Instead of creating a new AI code, it writes AI into laws that were already on the books. When It Was Signed and When It Took Effect The Legislative Chamber of the Oliy Majlis adopted the bill on 12 August 2025, and the Senate approved it on 1 November 2025. President Shavkat Mirziyoyev signed it on 21 January 2026. You can read the official text in Lex.uz, Uzbekistan’s national legislation database. The law set out the principles and the penalties. The day-to-day detail arrived later with the Ethical Rules, which came into force on 17 June 2026. For compliance planning, treat mid-June 2026 as the point when the whole framework started applying. Why Uzbekistan Amended Existing Laws Instead of Passing a Standalone AI Act Uzbekistan wants more AI, not less. Its national strategy sets numeric targets for adoption, investment, and local computing capacity, and a heavy EU-style act would have worked against them. So lawmakers kept it light. They defined AI, drew two hard lines (human control over decisions that affect people’s rights, and protection of personal data), and left the Ministry of Digital Technologies to fill in the rest through secondary rules. Businesses get less legal certainty, and the government gets to move faster. Which Laws ZRU-1115 Changes For businesses, two amendments matter most. The Law “On Informatization” (ZRU-560-II, 2003) now contains a legal definition of AI, a new article on using AI in information resources and systems, duties for website owners, and updated powers for the ministry in charge. The Code on Administrative Liability now includes an offense for processing and spreading personal data unlawfully using AI. The Legal Definition of Artificial Intelligence in Uzbekistan Under the amended Law “On Informatization,” AI is a set of technological solutions that imitate human cognitive functions, including learning on their own and solving problems, and that produce results on specific tasks comparable to what a person could do. That’s deliberately broad. It covers generative AI, machine learning classifiers, recommendation engines, and most agentic systems. The Ethical Rules add a narrower term, the AI system: software built on AI that can find, collect, store, analyze, process, evaluate, and use data, and make decisions on its own based on that data. If your product makes a decision from data, or shapes one, assume it counts. Key Rules Introduced by Law ZRU-1115 General Principles for Using AI in Information Systems and Resources The new article in the Law “On Informatization” starts from harm. Information resources created with AI, and information systems running on AI, must not harm people’s life, health, freedom, honor, or dignity, or violate their other inalienable rights. The standard is short and open-ended. It gives regulators something to enforce against without saying in advance what counts as harm. Principle-based rules like this deserve to be taken seriously precisely because the edges are undefined. Human Oversight: No Decisions on Rights and Freedoms Based Solely on AI Most coverage leads with this provision, and it’s easy to see why. When someone makes a legally significant decision that affects human rights and freedoms, they can’t rely only on conclusions produced by AI systems or AI-built information resources. AI can feed into the decision, but a person has to make it. That applies to loan denials, benefit eligibility, hiring rejections, licensing outcomes, and disciplinary action. In each case, someone needs to look at the AI output and own the final call. Insider Note: In AI governance engagements, teams rarely struggle to show that a review step exists. What they struggle to show is that the reviewer could disagree, and sometimes did. If a human clicks “approve” on every AI recommendation and nobody ever records an override, auditors will see automation with a signature on top. Build the override path and log when people use it, starting on day one. Powers of the Authorized State Body (Ministry of Digital Technologies) ZRU-1115 makes the Ministry of Digital Technologies the authorized state body for AI. Among its new jobs, it’s

You can get a SaaS company ready for a SOC 2 audit in six weeks, but you’ll feel every one of them. Most published timelines say three to six months. For a company with no project owner, no identity provider, and nothing written down, that’s about right. A cloud-native startup that already has the basics in place and can protect some time is a different story, and it can fit the work into six hard weeks. This plan walks through that route one week at a time. Each week has an owner, an hour estimate, and a clear test for when it’s finished. The free Google Sheet version turns the plan into a tracker you can hand out to owners and update in your weekly standup. Before you start, know what you’re signing up for. At the end of week 6 you’ll be audit-ready, which isn’t the same as holding a Type II report. Nobody can get you a Type II in six weeks. This is also the do-it-yourself route, and it takes a lot of hours. We’ll show you where those hours go and what the faster option looks like. Is Six Weeks Realistic for Your Company? Six weeks works when most of the plumbing already exists and your job is to formalize it, fill the gaps, and prove it all works. It falls apart when you’re building the foundations and documenting them at the same time. Go through this table honestly before you promise a customer a date. Six weeks is realistic if… Plan for 10 to 16 weeks if… Your product runs on a major cloud provider You host on-premise or across several data centers You already use an identity provider with SSO Every tool has its own login and password You have fewer than about 50 employees You have multiple offices, subsidiaries, or products in scope One named person owns the project with 10 to 15 hours a week Compliance is “everyone’s job,” so in practice nobody owns it An engineer can give you 15 to 20 hours in weeks 3 and 4 Engineering is fully committed to a launch You only need the Security criteria You need Availability, Confidentiality, or Privacy on day one Landing mostly in the right-hand column doesn’t mean you should throw the plan out. Give each week two weeks instead of one and follow the same order. What “SOC 2 Ready” Means at the End of Week 6 SOC 2 doesn’t give you a certificate. An independent CPA firm examines your controls against the AICPA Trust Services Criteria and writes a report, and which of the two report types you go for decides what you can show a buyer after week 6. A Type I report checks whether your controls are designed properly on a single date. Once you’re ready, a Type I audit can start almost right away. A Type II report checks whether those controls kept working over an observation period of at least three months, and usually six to twelve. Most enterprise procurement teams want Type II in the end. Being “ready” at the end of this plan means your in-scope controls are in place, you can pull evidence for any of them on request, and your auditor is booked. From there you either start a Type I audit or open your Type II observation window. Plenty of buyers will sign with a Type I report plus a letter from your auditor saying the Type II period is underway. Important: The Type II clock doesn’t start until your controls are running. If readiness slips by a week, your Type II report slips by a week too. Founders who tell a prospect “we’ll have SOC 2 in Q3” often forget this and end up renegotiating the deal. Before Week 1: Four Decisions to Make First Settle these before the clock starts. If you change any of them halfway through, you’ll redo work. Scope. Decide which systems, teams, and data the report covers. For most SaaS companies that’s the production environment, the code repository, the identity provider, customer data stores, and any support tools that touch customer data. Corporate systems that never see customer data can usually stay out. Trust Services Criteria. Security (also called the Common Criteria) is mandatory. Availability, Confidentiality, Processing Integrity, and Privacy are optional. Report type. Pick Type I if a deal is blocked right now and the buyer will accept it. If there’s no deadline, go straight to Type II. You’ll need it eventually, and skipping Type I saves you an audit fee. Owner and tooling. Name one person who’s accountable for the plan, and decide where your controls and evidence will live. The tooling choice gets its own section below. Pro Tip: Adding Criteria Only add optional criteria when a customer contract or security questionnaire asks for them. Each one brings more controls to set up and more evidence to collect, and you can widen the scope in next year’s audit. Spreadsheet or Compliance Software: Choosing Your Tracking Tool Every SOC 2 program needs a system of record, meaning one place where each control, its owner, its status, and its evidence live. You can run it yourself in a spreadsheet or a GRC platform, or have a consultant implement it for you. The right choice depends mostly on which report you’re after and how much of your team’s time you can spare. A spreadsheet is free and familiar. It also makes you understand your own environment before you automate any of it. For a Type I, or for a small team with a tight scope, a well-built spreadsheet can take you all the way to the audit. Axipro’s free GRC workbook for SOC 2 and ISO 27001 covers all 33 SOC 2 Common Criteria plus the optional criteria, with evidence, risk, policy, and gap trackers built in. It has no macros and opens straight in Google Sheets or Excel. A GRC platform connects to your cloud, identity provider, code repository, and HR system.