Reach SOC 2 Compliance in 6 Weeks or Less.

/ The Delve Compliance Leak: What It Means for SOC 2 Certification

The Delve Compliance Leak: What It Means for SOC 2 Certification

Pedro Dias
March 24, 2026

In March 2026, an anonymous whistleblower published what may be the most detailed exposé of compliance fraud the technology industry has ever seen. The target: Delve, a Y Combinator-backed startup valued at $300 million that promised to get companies SOC 2 certified in days using AI. The allegation: that Delve had been fabricating audit evidence, generating auditor conclusions before any auditor reviewed client data, and getting unaccredited Indian certification mills to rubber-stamp the results.

If you work in tech and care about security compliance, or if you were a Delve customer, this story matters to you.

What Actually Happened

Delve was founded in 2023 by MIT dropouts Karun Kaushik and Selin Kocalar. The pitch was compelling: use “agentic AI” to compress months of painful compliance work into a few days. By mid-2025, the company had raised $32 million in Series A funding, claimed over 1,000 customers in 50 countries, and had become one of the most talked-about names in the compliance automation space.

Then, in December 2025, an email went out to hundreds of Delve clients. It alleged that Delve had leaked a publicly accessible Google spreadsheet containing hundreds of confidential audit reports, and that those reports were fraudulent. Delve’s CEO dismissed it as “an AI-generated email with falsified claims.”

That denial turned out to be harder to sustain than expected.

In March 2026, the anonymous account Deepdelver published a detailed technical analysis of the leaked database. The findings were striking. Across 533 leaked reports covering 455 companies, the same auditor conclusion language appeared word for word, including an identical grammatical error. Auditor conclusions and test results had been generated before any client even provided their company information. The auditors signing off were not the US-based CPA firms Delve had advertised, but Indian certification mills operating through empty shell addresses.

Inc. Magazine covered the initial story in detail. Read the full article here.

Claim your free review

Free Migration For Companies Affected by Delve

Axipro is currently offering Delve-affected companies a free 30-minute compliance review plus complimentary migration to Vanta or Drata. Our certified compliance experts will tell you exactly which situation you are in, identify any real gaps, and guide your migration so your next audit is clean.

Will Affected Companies Lose Their SOC 2 Certification?

The short answer is no, not automatically.

SOC 2 reports are issued by independent CPA firms, not by compliance platforms. Delve was the evidence collection and preparation tool. The auditor signed off separately. There is no central SOC 2 registry, no revocation authority, and no body that automatically invalidates a certificate because the platform used to prepare it has been accused of fraud.

The certificate exists. It is technically still valid.

But a certificate is only as credible as the evidence behind it. If the controls it claims were in place were never actually implemented, if the board meeting minutes were identical boilerplate, if the penetration test never happened, if the device security screenshots were one-off manual uploads rather than evidence of continuous monitoring, the certificate is not a record of real compliance. It is a document waiting to be challenged.

The moment a Delve client goes to renew with a reputable auditor, that auditor will look at the evidence. They will find gaps. That renewal failure is when the certificate effectively collapses, and it almost always happens at the worst possible time. Review our SOC 2 compliance checklist to understand exactly what a legitimate audit requires.

The Three Situations Every Delve Client Is In Right Now

Not every Delve client faces the same risk. Understanding which situation you are actually in is the most important thing you can do right now.

Situation 1: Your controls are real, just poorly documented. Your underlying security practices are solid. Delve’s platform generated sloppy evidence around them, but the controls themselves exist. A gap assessment, a cleanup, and a fresh audit with a reputable firm is all you need. Manageable.

Situation 2: You have gaps between what your certificate claims and what exists. Some controls were implemented, some were not. The Delve platform made it very easy to click through pre-populated forms and never notice the difference. These gaps are fixable — but only if you find them before your next renewal, your next enterprise customer review, or your next M&A process does. For a deeper understanding of what a proper gap analysis involves, see our detailed guide to gap analysis.

Situation 3: Significant controls were never implemented. This creates real commercial, contractual, and in some cases legal exposure. It is particularly serious for companies that handle health data under HIPAA or process EU resident data under GDPR, and for any company that has won government or federal contracts on the basis of these certifications.

All three situations look identical from the outside right now. Your certificate exists. Your trust page is live. Nothing has visibly broken. The only way to know which situation you are in is to actually look

The Consequences Nobody Is Fully Reporting

Most coverage of this story has focused on Delve itself. The more important story is what happens to Delve’s clients over the next 12 months.

The enterprise customer risk. Delve’s questionnaire AI was answering vendor security questionnaires on behalf of clients, claiming controls, MDM systems, penetration tests, backup restoration simulations, that the platform demonstrably never verified. Delve clients were making specific false representations to their own enterprise customers during procurement. If any of those customers later suffers a breach and traces it back to a vendor that misrepresented its security posture, the liability chain is clear. This is one of the common pitfalls in SOC 2 that organisations rarely anticipate until it is too late.

The HIPAA exposure is more serious than reported. The Deepdelver report identifies multiple Delve clients that process protected health information for millions of US citizens. Under HIPAA, penalties for compliance violations escalate from fines to criminal charges depending on whether the violation was knowing or unknowing. The critical legal threshold here is December 2025. Companies that received the breach notification email and took no meaningful action after that point have a documented timestamp of when they were put on notice. The distinction between unknowing and knowing violation may hinge on that date.

GDPR creates cross-border exposure. Under Article 83 of the GDPR, fines can reach 4% of global annual revenue or €20 million — whichever is higher. GDPR applies to any company processing data of EU residents, regardless of where the company is incorporated. Delve claimed clients in 50+ countries. Many of those clients will have EU exposure they are currently unaware of.

The M&A trap. Compliance certifications are material facts in acquisition due diligence. If a Delve client is acquired or raises a significant funding round, any investor’s legal team doing thorough due diligence will examine the audit evidence behind the SOC 2 certificate. That examination will find the gaps.

Why Switching to Vanta or Drata Alone Will Not Fix This

The instinct for most Delve clients right now is to migrate to Vanta or Drata as quickly as possible. Both are legitimate, well-regarded platforms. Drata is trusted by names like Wispr Flow, which publicly announced its migration after the scandal broke. But software collects and organises evidence. It does not verify that the controls behind that evidence actually exist.

What compliance requires	Software platform alone	Human expert oversight
Verify controls are implemented	Relies on self-reporting	Independent assessment of real operations
Catch gaps between policy and practice	Cannot detect undeclared gaps	Structured gap assessment against actual systems
Continuous monitoring evidence	Tracks what you connect	Verifies what is worth connecting
Defensible audit documentation	Template-generated	Expert-reviewed and evidence-backed
Accountability if gaps are found	Platform disclaims liability	Consultant stands behind the work

If your controls were not real under Delve, they will not become real because you are now tracking them in a different dashboard. Switching platforms without a gap assessment first is repainting a house with a cracked foundation. It looks better. The problem is still there. That said, migrating to the right platform, with the right guidance, is absolutely the correct long-term move. Click here to see how Axipro and Drata make SOC 2 happen in weeks, not months.

What the Right Remediation Actually Looks Like

For most companies, this is a solvable problem. Start by pulling your existing Delve audit reports and reviewing them against your actual systems. Compare what the reports claim, on MDM, penetration testing, board meetings, backup simulations, against what you can actually evidence today. Next, commission an independent gap assessment with a certified compliance expert. This is the step most companies skip when they are in a hurry to move on. It is also the step that determines whether you remediate on your own terms or get caught out by an auditor, a customer, or a regulator. Once you understand your real compliance posture, choose your new platform with clear eyes. Getting guidance before committing to a new annual contract is worth the time, see our comparison of Vanta vs Drata to understand which platform suits your organisation’s needs. If you have ongoing customer relationships where your Delve certification was a material factor, consider proactive communication. Getting ahead of potential questions is almost always better than fielding them reactively.

Claim your free review

Free Migration For Companies Affected by Delve

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.

March 24, 2026
All Blog

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