Table of Contents

Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less.

  / What Are the Deliverables for a SOC 2 and ISO 27001 Engagement?

What Are the Deliverables for a SOC 2 and ISO 27001 Engagement?

After a SOC 2 and ISO 27001 engagement, there are two documents out of the whole pile that actually close deals: the SOC 2 attestation report and the ISO 27001 certificate. Everything else your engagement produces exists to create those two, support them, or keep them alive for another year.

Companies routinely ask their auditor for a SOC 2 certificate, which doesn’t exist. They send a prospect their full ISMS documentation when a one-page certificate would have done. They pay for six months of readiness work and then can’t say what they’re holding at the end of it.

So here’s the full list. What a SOC 2 engagement produces, what an ISO 27001 engagement produces, what a combined program produces, and who gets to see each one.

SOC 2 and ISO 27001 Engagement

Understanding SOC 2 and ISO 27001 Engagement Outputs

The Core Difference: Report vs. Certificate

SOC 2 is an attestation. A licensed CPA firm examines your controls against the Trust Services Criteria under standards set by the AICPA, then writes up what it found and signs an opinion. No certificate. No logo from the AICPA. No pass or fail stamp. What you get is the report, and it usually runs 60 to 120 pages.

ISO 27001 is a certification. An accredited certification body audits your Information Security Management System (ISMS) against ISO/IEC 27001:2022, and if you conform, it issues a certificate of registration. The certificate itself is a page or two. All the detail lives behind it, in your ISMS documentation and the audit reports the certification body writes as it goes.

SOC 2 Engagement Deliverables

SOC 2 Engagement Deliverables

The SOC 2 Attestation Report

The report is the engagement. The AICPA’s illustrative SOC 2 report lays out the standard structure: auditor’s report, management’s assertion, system description, the Trust Services Criteria in scope, and the controls tested with their results.

  • A Type I covers control design at one point in time.
  • A Type II covers whether those controls actually operated over a period, usually three to twelve months, and most enterprise buyers now won’t accept anything else.

Independent Auditor’s Opinion Letter

First section of the report, and the first thing anyone experienced turns to. It gives the scope, the examination period, and the auditor’s conclusion.

  • An unqualified opinion means the description held up and the controls worked.
  • A qualified opinion means the auditor found something material, and every serious reviewer will want to talk about it.

Management Assertion

Your leadership signs a written statement stating that the system description is accurate and that the controls were properly designed and are operating. It reads like a formality, and it isn’t. The auditor’s entire examination runs against what management asserts here, so overstating anything creates real exposure.

System Description

Usually the longest part of the report, and you write it, not the auditor. It covers the services in scope, your infrastructure, software, people, processes, how data moves, which subservice organizations you depend on, and the complementary user entity controls your customers have to run on their side for your controls to hold up.

Trust Services Criteria Applied

Security (the Common Criteria) is in every SOC 2. Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, and Privacy are optional, and the report names exactly which ones you picked. Whatever you decide during scoping ends up printed in a document your customers read for the next several years.

Description of Tests of Controls and Results (Type II)

The matrix: every control, what the auditor did to test it, and what came back, including exceptions. Reviewers spend most of their time here, because the exceptions tell them things the opinion letter won’t.

Bridge Letter / Gap Letter

Your report covers a fixed window, so one ending December 31 leaves a hole for a customer doing diligence in June. A bridge letter from your management, not the auditor, confirms that nothing material changed in the control environment between the report’s end date and today. You’ll write these often enough to keep a template.

Management Letter and Observations

Plenty of auditors also send an internal-only letter covering observations, minor exceptions, and suggestions that never reached the threshold of a qualified opinion. It’s the closest thing to free consulting you’ll get before next year’s audit starts.

Insider Note: Ask early whether your auditor issues a management letter, and whether exceptions land in the report body or only in that letter. Firms handle this differently, and the answer decides what your customers see versus what stays behind your firewall. It rarely comes up in the proposal, but it changes how the finished report reads to a buyer.

ISO 27001 Engagement Deliverables

ISO 27001 Engagement Deliverables

ISO 27001 Certificate of Registration

The document everyone asks for. It names the certified legal entity, states the ISMS scope, identifies the certification body, carries an accreditation mark from a body recognized under the International Accreditation Forum such as UKAS or ANAB, and shows the validity dates. It’s good for three years as long as you pass annual surveillance audits.

Read the scope statement carefully, on your own certificate as much as anyone else’s. A certificate covering one office or one product line says nothing about the rest of the business.

Statement of Applicability (SoA)

After the certificate, this is the document buyers request most. The Statement of Applicability runs through all 93 Annex A controls in ISO/IEC 27001:2022, says which apply to you, justifies the ones you excluded, and records where each stands. Auditors use it as the map of your control environment, and larger customers increasingly want to see it or a summary of it during diligence.

Risk Assessment and Risk Treatment Plan

Your methodology, the register it produced, and the Risk Treatment Plan showing what you decided to do about each significant risk: mitigate it with a control, transfer it, avoid it, or accept it. ISO 27001 is built around risk, so these documents are what justify every control decision recorded in the SoA.

Information Security Management System (ISMS) Documentation

The policy and procedure set, plus the operational records that prove any of it happens. Information security policy, access control, incident management, supplier security, business continuity, and the rest. When a consultancy builds your ISMS, this pile is most of what they hand over at the end.

Internal Audit Report

You have to audit yourself before the certification body does. The internal audit report, done in-house or outsourced, is a mandatory record and one of the first things an external auditor asks to see.

Management Review Records

Minutes and outputs from leadership’s formal review of the ISMS: audit results, changes in risk, incidents, and what the business decided to do about them. Missing records, or records that were obviously written the week before the audit, are a reliable way to collect a nonconformity.

Stage 1 Audit Report (Documentation Review)

Stage 1 is a readiness check. The auditor reads your scope, risk assessment, Statement of Applicability, and the evidence that you’ve run an internal audit and a management review, then decides whether you’re ready for Stage 2. The report comes back as a list of things to close first.

Stage 2 Audit Report (Certification Audit)

Stage 2 tests whether any of it is true. The auditor samples evidence across your operation to confirm the controls you selected are running, then writes up the findings with a certification recommendation.

Surveillance Audit Reports

In years one and two, the certification body samples part of the ISMS rather than reviewing the whole thing, checking that it still runs and still improves. Each visit produces a report, and each report becomes evidence at the next one.

Nonconformity and Corrective Action Reports

Findings are graded.

  • A minor nonconformity is an isolated slip.
  • A major nonconformity points to something systemic and can hold up or suspend certification.

Each one generates a corrective action plan (CAP) with root cause analysis and proof you closed it, and the auditor will pull those up next visit.

Important: Certificates get suspended between audits. Skip a surveillance visit, leave a major nonconformity open, or let the ISMS go quiet for six months, and the certificate is at risk well before the three years are up. You don’t earn it once. You keep earning it.

Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less

Schedule Your Free SOC 2 Assessment Today

Shared Deliverables in a Combined SOC 2 + ISO 27001 Engagement

Somewhere around 70 to 80 percent of the underlying work is the same for both frameworks, which is why combined programs have become the default for companies selling into the US and internationally at once. Run properly, you end up with one set of artifacts instead of two stacks that slowly drift apart.

Unified Policy and Procedure Set

One set of policies mapped to the Trust Services Criteria and Annex A at the same time. Keep two sets, and you’ll maintain both badly, and eventually they’ll contradict each other in front of an auditor.

Consolidated Risk Register

A single register feeding the ISO 27001 risk treatment process and SOC 2’s risk assessment criteria under CC3. You maintain it once, and both auditors sample from it.

Shared Evidence Repository

Access reviews, change tickets, training records, vendor assessments, all collected once and tagged to both frameworks, usually inside a GRC platform like Vanta or Drata. Most of the cost savings people expect from a combined engagement actually come from here.

Combined Control Matrix / Crosswalk

A mapping document showing how each control you’ve implemented satisfies specific Trust Services Criteria and specific Annex A controls. Without the crosswalk, “collect once, comply twice” stays a slogan.

Integrated Gap Assessment Report

One readiness assessment scored against both frameworks, producing one prioritized remediation list rather than two that compete for the same engineers.

Pro Tip: Line up your SOC 2 Type II Observation

Line up your SOC 2 Type II observation window with the ISO surveillance schedule before either clock starts. Companies that stagger them by a few months end up in audit season permanently, fielding evidence requests every month of the year. One shared calendar takes a surprising amount of pressure off the team doing the collecting.

Pre-Engagement Deliverables (Readiness Phase)

Readiness has its own outputs, and they usually come from a consultancy rather than the auditor or certification body, since independence rules cap how much hands-on help the certifying party can give you.

Readiness Assessment Report

An evaluation of where you stand against every applicable requirement, with gaps rated by severity and by how much work they’ll take. This is the Readiness Assessment Report that turns “we should probably get SOC 2” into a plan with a number attached.

Scoping Document

Names the systems, locations, entities, people, and for SOC 2 the Trust Services Categories in scope. What you decide here flows straight into the system description and the scope line on your certificate, so it deserves an hour of executive attention rather than a signature.

Remediation Roadmap

The sequenced plan for closing each gap, with owners and dates, normally built backward from the date your Type II window opens or your Stage 1 audit begins.

Control Design Documentation

Written descriptions of each control: what it does, who runs it, how often, and what evidence it leaves behind. Auditors test against these descriptions, so vague control language produces exceptions you didn’t need to have.

Post-Engagement Deliverables

Final Report Distribution Package

For SOC 2, the signed report plus guidance on who can receive it, since SOC 2 reports are restricted-use documents that go out under NDA. For ISO 27001, the certificate, the certification body’s rules for using its mark, and the final audit report.

Customer-Facing Trust Documentation

Most companies build a trust page or a security packet: the ISO certificate, a SOC 3 summary if they have one, penetration test summaries, and pre-written answers to the questions everyone asks. Your engagement deliverables feed it. The packet is what sales actually sends.

Renewal and Continuous Monitoring Schedule

A Renewal and Continuous Monitoring Schedule covering the next SOC 2 observation period, surveillance dates, internal audits, management reviews, access reviews, and policy refreshes. Skip it and year two turns into the same scramble as year one, which is the thing everyone swore wouldn’t happen again.

Corrective Action Tracking

A live register of exceptions, nonconformities, and observations from every audit, with status and closure evidence. Your next SOC 2 auditor and your surveillance auditor will both open with the same question: what happened to last year’s findings?

Who Receives Each Deliverable?

Internal Stakeholders

Leadership signs the management assertion and receives the management letter, the audit reports, and any nonconformities. Security and engineering own the ISMS documentation, the control matrix, and the corrective action register. Boards now tend to expect a summary of both audit outcomes as part of cyber risk oversight.

Customers and Prospects

Customers get the SOC 2 report under NDA, the certificate freely, and a bridge letter when they ask. Bigger ones may push for the SoA, penetration test summaries, or specific policy excerpts. Almost none of them have a legitimate claim on your full ISMS documentation, and handing it over sets a precedent you’ll regret.

Regulators and Third Parties

Regulators, cyber insurers, and partners generally take the certificate and the SOC 2 report as primary evidence. Insurers have started pricing against them, and a current Type II plus a valid certificate visibly shortens the underwriting questionnaire.

Timeline of Deliverables Across the Engagement Lifecycle

Kickoff Phase Outputs

Scoping document, engagement letters, readiness assessment, and remediation roadmap. On the ISO side, your initial risk assessment and a draft SoA land here too.

Fieldwork Phase Outputs

Evidence requests and responses, control design documentation, interim findings, the Stage 1 report, and for a Type II, the evidence accumulating through the observation window itself.

Reporting Phase Outputs

Draft and final SOC 2 report, the management assertion, the Stage 2 report, the certification decision, and the certificate. This phase compresses badly when fieldwork evidence was messy, which is the most common reason timelines slip.

Ongoing Maintenance Outputs

Bridge letters, surveillance reports, annual internal audit reports, management review records, updated risk assessments and SoA versions, and next year’s Type II. The stream doesn’t stop after certification. It settles into a rhythm.

Worth Knowing: SOC 2 reports carry no formal expiration date, but the market treats one as stale about 12 months past the period end. That makes a Type II less a project than a subscription, and what buyers really want is an unbroken chain of reports with no uncovered months in between.

Worth Knowing: SOC 2 Reports

SOC 2 reports carry no formal expiration date, but the market treats one as stale about 12 months past the period end. That makes a Type II less a project than a subscription, and what buyers really want is an unbroken chain of reports with no uncovered months in between.

Let Axipro help you build a business continuity plan that's practical, compliant, and audit-ready.

Schedule Your Free Assessment Today

In Summary

SOC 2 gets you a long, restricted-use report built from an opinion letter, a management assertion, a system description, and control test results, refreshed every year and bridged in between.

ISO 27001 gets you a public three-year certificate backed by the SoA, the risk treatment plan, your ISMS documentation, and the Stage 1, Stage 2, and surveillance reports behind it. Running both together adds shared artifacts, one policy set, one risk register, and one evidence repository, which is what makes doing both cheaper than doing either one twice.

Know what each document is for, who’s allowed to read it, and when the next one is due, and the whole engagement starts paying for itself in vendor reviews.

Frequently Asked Questions

Is the SOC 2 report the same as an ISO 27001 certificate?

No. The SOC 2 report is a detailed attestation from a CPA firm, shared under NDA. The ISO 27001 certificate is a short public document from an accredited certification body. Related questions, completely different artifacts.

Yes, and plenty of companies now do exactly that. The CPA firm still issues the report and the certification body still issues the certificate, but one evidence collection effort, one policy set, and one audit calendar sit behind both.

A SOC 2 report covers its stated period and is generally accepted as current for around 12 months after that period ends. An ISO 27001 certificate lasts three years, assuming you pass the annual surveillance audits and keep the ISMS running.

You own the ISMS documentation, the policies, the risk register, the SoA, and the system description. The auditor keeps their workpapers. The report and certificate are issued to you, but the report carries distribution restrictions and the certificate comes with rules about how you can use the certification body’s mark.

No. The SoA is a control-by-control inventory against Annex A with justifications for anything excluded. The system description is a narrative about your services, infrastructure, and processes written for someone reading the report. Same subject matter, different structure and different audience.

Public: the certificate, a SOC 3 report if you commission one, and whatever summary you put on your trust page. Under NDA: the SOC 2 report, the SoA in most cases, bridge letters, and audit findings. Not shared at all: internal audit workpapers, the raw risk register, and detailed corrective action records.

Yes. Each one produces a report, plus any nonconformities raised and the corrective action records that close them. Updated SoA versions, internal audit reports, and management review minutes pile up alongside, and the recertification audit in year three goes back through the whole trail.

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