Table of Contents

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

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 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.

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

31% of organizations have caught former employees accessing SaaS applications after their departure (source). Seventy percent of intellectual property theft happens in the ninety days surrounding a resignation announcement. The pattern is so consistent that auditors now treat termination day as one of the highest-risk windows on the security calendar. This article is a working employee offboarding checklist for IT, security, and HR teams who want to close that window cleanly. It walks through ten steps that revoke access without leaving gaps, then covers edge cases (remote workers, hostile exits, lost devices), the manual-versus-automation tradeoff, and post-offboarding monitoring. Use it as a baseline and adapt it to your environment. What Is Employee Offboarding and Why Does Access Revocation Matter? Employee offboarding is the structured process of separating a person from an organization: removing their access, recovering company property, documenting their exit, and updating records. The access revocation piece is the part where most programs fail quietly. Accounts get disabled in the identity provider but stay active in a dozen SaaS tools. Badges get collected but VPN tokens stay valid. The person is gone; the keys to the building are not. Why Employee Offboarding Is a Critical Security Risk Offboarding fails because access has multiplied faster than the processes designed to manage it. The average enterprise now operates somewhere between 275 and 660 SaaS applications depending on size, with employees touching dozens of them each week. Each application is a separate place that needs to be cleaned up, and each one creates an independent point of failure. The departing employee is a particularly acute version of this risk because the motivation to walk away with something often peaks during the same window that access is supposed to be revoked. The Cost of Leaving Access Open After Departure The financial picture is well documented. The 2025 Ponemon Cost of Insider Risks report puts the average annual cost of insider-related incidents at $17.4 million per organization, with containment taking an average of 81 days. Even when a departed employee never actively misuses their access, the existence of a forgotten account is enough to compromise a SOC 2 audit, trigger a breach notification, or create the credentialed beachhead that an outside attacker eventually exploits. The cases keep appearing. Cash App was breached in 2022 when a former employee accessed the records of 8 million customers after leaving. In May 2024, FinWise Bank disclosed that a former employee accessed internal systems after departure because access had never been fully revoked. Intel sued a former engineer in 2024 for downloading roughly 18,000 sensitive files in the days before he left. Ponemon’s 2025 report found that containment costs scale steeply with time. Incidents resolved in under 30 days averaged about $11 million, while those over 90 days averaged $17 million. The biggest variable is not detection capability. It is how fast access actually came down on day one. Compliance and Legal Implications of Incomplete Offboarding Access revocation is not a “best practice.” It is an explicit control requirement in nearly every framework against which an organization is likely to be audited. NIST SP 800-53 control PS-4 requires that on termination, organizations disable system access within an organization-defined time period, terminate or revoke any authenticators, and retrieve organizational property. ISO/IEC 27001 includes equivalent expectations under its Annex A controls for termination of employment. The AICPA Trust Services Criteria for SOC 2 cover this under Common Criteria CC6.2 and CC6.3, and auditors routinely pull a sample of terminated employees and verify timestamps in the identity provider against the HR system. GDPR adds a separate dimension. If a former employee still has access to the personal data of EU residents, that constitutes unauthorised processing under Article 32, and it is the controller’s responsibility, regardless of intent. HIPAA does the same for protected health information. Whatever the framework, the question an auditor or regulator will ask is the same: how quickly was access revoked, and can you prove it? Who Is Responsible for Employee Offboarding? Offboarding fails most often because no one owns the whole process. Four groups need to be in the loop, and each one has a distinct job. HR and People Operations HR is the source of truth for the termination event. Their job is to capture notice of departure, set the official last day, communicate timing to the rest of the business, and serve as the trigger that starts every downstream task. If HR does not record the termination in the HRIS, nothing automated will fire. IT and Security Teams IT executes the access teardown. They disable accounts in the identity provider, revoke SSO and OAuth tokens, remove SaaS application access, suspend email, and recover devices. Security teams typically run the audit trail and post-offboarding monitoring, and they are the ones answering when an account flagged six months later turns out to belong to a person who left in March. Legal and Compliance Legal handles NDA reminders, IP assignment confirmations, non-disclosure obligations, and any contractual surprises. Compliance owns the documentation: the evidence trail that proves the offboarding actually happened and met the relevant control requirements. For regulated industries this becomes audit evidence; for everyone else it becomes legal cover. Direct Managers Managers know things HR does not. They know which shared drives the person owned, which third-party vendors they had standing access to, which client passwords they may have rotated themselves, and which projects need a transition plan. A solid offboarding process forces the manager into the workflow with a checklist of role-specific items, because no central team can guess them. Employee Offboarding Checklist: 10 Steps to Revoke Access Without Leaving Gaps This is the core sequence. The order matters: starting with notification and inventory before disabling accounts means you do not lock the person out of a system you still need them to hand off. Step 1: Initiate Offboarding Immediately Upon Notice of Departure The moment notice is given — resignation, termination decision, or end of contract — the offboarding workflow should start. This means

The Drata Agent is the part of Drata’s compliance stack that actually touches employee devices. It is a lightweight, read-only desktop application that runs in the system toolbar, reads a narrow set of security configuration settings, and reports them back to the Drata platform on a daily schedule. If a SOC 2 or ISO 27001 audit depends on showing that every endpoint has disk encryption, screen lock, antivirus, a password manager, and automatic updates enabled, the Agent is the thing that produces that evidence. This guide covers exactly what it does, how it works, how to install it on macOS, Windows, and Linux, and what to do when it stops syncing. What Is the Drata Agent? The Drata Agent is a desktop application built with Electron, the same framework used by Slack, VS Code, and Discord. It uses osquery, an open-source endpoint instrumentation tool created at Facebook and now maintained as a Linux Foundation project, to query the operating system for specific configuration values. The Agent runs from the system toolbar — the menu bar on macOS, the system tray on Windows, and the indicator area on Linux — and synchronises once per day with Drata’s backend. The full source code of the Agent has been open source since June 2023. Anyone can audit the code on Drata’s GitHub organisation, including security teams that need to validate it before deploying to the fleet. The Agent supports the latest two major versions of each operating system. On macOS, that currently means macOS 26 (Tahoe) and macOS 15 (Sequoia), with Agent version 3.9.0 or higher. On Windows, it covers the two most recent stable versions Microsoft actively maintains. On Linux, only LTS distributions are supported; Ubuntu 22.04 LTS and 24.04 LTS are the current supported targets.   What the Drata Agent Does (and Does Not Do) The Agent collects a tightly scoped list of configuration data points — specifically the items that map to typical SOC 2 and ISO 27001 device-level controls. The Agent does read: disk encryption status (FileVault, BitLocker, LUKS); screen lock and screensaver configuration; installed antivirus or endpoint protection software; installed password manager applications; operating system version and update status; the list of installed applications and browser extensions for Chrome, Firefox, and Internet Explorer (used to detect AV and password manager presence); and the operating system identifier and machine serial number for asset attribution. The Agent does not read keystrokes, browsing history, file contents, clipboard data, screen contents, network traffic, or any application data. Access is strictly read-only at the system-preferences level. The Agent cannot make changes to the device, push configuration, or remediate failed controls. If a check fails, the employee or IT team fixes it manually; the Agent simply observes whether the fix worked on the next sync. Important: Read-only does not mean invisible. The Agent enumerates installed applications and browser extensions to detect antivirus and password manager presence, and this list is sent to Drata. If that level of visibility is a concern for privacy or works council requirements, address it before rollout — not after. How Does the Drata Agent Work? Once installed and registered, the Agent runs continuously in the background. It performs scheduled checks, reports results to Drata, and updates itself when new versions ship. Synchronization Process The Agent syncs once per day. The sync runs at the first opportunity each calendar day: typically, the first network connection after the device was off or asleep, the moment the user logs in if the Agent autostarts, or any manual trigger from the toolbar menu. The data sent is small — a structured report of the configuration values the Agent read, plus the Agent version and machine identifier. There is no telemetry of user activity. When the sync succeeds, the device’s compliance status in Drata updates within a few minutes. When it fails, the device may show an Unable to get data status, and the corresponding controls in Drata will appear unconfirmed until the next successful sync. Automatic Updates The Agent updates itself. When a new version is released, the Agent shows a notification asking the user to allow the update. Updates are mandatory — running an outdated Agent eventually causes registration and sync failures. Linux installations through Ubuntu’s package manager auto-update via the system updater starting with version 3.6; AppImage installations and Arch AUR builds need to be updated manually or through the AUR helper.   Prerequisites Before Installing the Drata Agent Before installation, three things need to be in place. First, the device user needs an active Drata account with employee onboarding tasks assigned. Second, the operating system must be a supported version. Third, the user needs administrator rights on the device to install the application, since it registers a startup item. The user will also need access to their work email during installation. Registration uses a magic-link verification flow, and the verification email arrives within a minute of clicking Register Drata Agent in the Drata UI. How to Install the Drata Agent on Mac There are two practical paths on macOS: install through Homebrew Cask, or download the signed installer directly from MyDrata. Installation via Homebrew The Drata Agent is published as an official cask in the Homebrew repository, which is the cleanest install method for engineers who already use Homebrew for package management. The cask requires macOS 12 (Monterey) or newer. The install command is: brew install –cask drata-agent After Homebrew finishes, open Drata Agent.app from /Applications, then return to MyDrata and click Register Drata Agent. A magic-link email arrives shortly after. Open the link, copy the token portion of the URL, paste it into the Agent’s register dialog, and confirm. Run or Build the Drata Agent on Mac For organisations that want to build from source rather than use the published package, the GitHub repository contains the full Electron build pipeline. Build prerequisites include Node.js and electron-builder, and the osquery binaries need to be supplied separately. Drata explicitly notes that locally built packages are not signed and that production registration requires an

Most SOC 2 auditors will pick a handful of recent hires from your employee list and request one specific artifact: the completed background check, dated before the start date, sourced from a documented vendor. If you cannot produce it, that is an exception in your report. The control sits inside CC1.4, the Common Criteria provision the AICPA derives from COSO Principle 4, and it is one of the most reliably tested items in a first-year SOC 2 examination. Background screening is not the most technically complex part of SOC 2. It is, however, one of the most procedurally fragile. The policy looks simple on paper. Then a contractor starts a week early because someone needed help shipping a release, the vendor screening gets postponed, and a year later an auditor finds the gap in twenty minutes. This guide explains what SOC 2 actually requires when it comes to background checks, what auditors look for in practice, and how to build a screening programme that holds up under sampling. What Is a SOC 2 Background Check? A SOC 2 background check is the pre-employment screening a service organisation performs to verify that the people it hires can be trusted with access to systems and data inside the SOC 2 scope. It is the operational evidence that supports the abstract principle baked into the Trust Services Criteria: the organisation hires competent people of sound integrity, and it can prove it. In practice, that means a documented check performed by a third party that returns verified information about identity, criminal history, employment history, and, depending on the role, education and credit. The check is run against every new hire before they get logical or physical access to systems within scope. The result is stored, mapped to a named employee, and retrievable on demand. It is worth being clear on one thing: SOC 2 does not prescribe what a background check must contain. The AICPA criteria describe outcomes, not procedures. Your policy is what defines what gets checked, on whom, and how often. The auditor then tests whether you followed your own policy.   Why SOC 2 Background Checks Are Important Insider risk is one of the few attack vectors that perimeter security cannot fix. An employee or contractor with legitimate credentials and undisclosed motives sits inside the network from day one. Background checks are how mature security programmes reduce the probability of that scenario before it begins. According to the Verizon 2024 Data Breach Investigations Report, insider threats continue to represent a persistent and costly category of security incidents, reinforcing why personnel vetting remains a foundational control. Auditors care for a related reason. The Control Environment criteria (CC1) sit at the top of the SOC 2 framework because everything else rests on the assumption that the people running the controls are competent and trustworthy. Skip the screening step, and the rest of the audit is built on a weaker foundation. That is why background check evidence is one of the first things auditors sample, and why a missing or late check shows up as an exception even when the rest of your control environment is strong. Insider Note: Auditors do not just check that the screening happened. They check the timing. A background check completed two months into employment is often treated the same as no check at all, because access to in-scope systems was granted before the control was operative. Time stamps matter as much as the document. SOC 2 Background Check Requirements Which Trust Service Criteria Require Background Checks? Background checks are explicitly referenced in the Common Criteria that apply to every SOC 2 engagement, regardless of which optional Trust Services Categories you include. The two controls that matter most are CC1.1 and CC1.4. CC1.1 establishes the entity’s commitment to integrity and ethical values. Background checks support this by demonstrating due diligence in selecting people who meet the organisation’s standards of conduct. CC1.4 is more direct: it derives from COSO Principle 4, which states that the entity demonstrates a commitment to attract, develop, and retain competent individuals in alignment with objectives. Within CC1.4, evaluating individual backgrounds is named as a specific point of focus. That is the hook auditors use. Because these are Common Criteria, they apply regardless of whether you are scoping Security only or adding Availability, Confidentiality, Processing Integrity, or Privacy. There is no version of SOC 2 that escapes them. Who Needs to Be Background Checked for SOC 2? The short answer: anyone whose role gives them logical or physical access to systems, data, or facilities within your SOC 2 scope. The longer answer requires you to draw the line in your own policy and stick to it. At a minimum, this includes full-time employees who join the organisation after the policy is in place. Most mature programmes extend the requirement to part-time employees, contractors who receive credentials, and outsourced personnel performing in-scope work. Vendors are usually handled differently — through contractual flow-down requirements rather than direct screening — but the principle is the same: people inside the trust boundary must be vetted. Roles with privileged access (engineers with production credentials, finance staff with payment system rights, support personnel handling customer data) often warrant deeper screening than baseline roles. Documenting this risk-based approach in your policy is good practice and helps you defend the design of your control during the audit. What Types of Checks Must Be Performed? The Trust Services Criteria do not specify which checks to run. That decision sits with the organisation, informed by role, jurisdiction, and regulatory context. A common baseline for SOC 2 purposes covers several distinct areas. Identity verification confirms the candidate is who they claim to be. Criminal history — national, state, or county-level depending on jurisdiction — flags relevant offences. Employment verification confirms the work history disclosed during hiring. Education verification matters for roles where credentials are material. For positions touching finance, payments, or fiduciary responsibility, a credit check may be appropriate. For roles with global reach, a global