A Variety of Assessments to Meet
Your Needs
Readiness Assessment
Dimemetrics conducts readiness assessments to help your organization evaluate its current control environment against necessary control objectives or criteria. Our goal is to furnish clients with actionable insights regarding their preparedness and overall readiness, facilitating successful audits.
Do service organizations define the control objectives?
Indeed, for a SOC 1 report, service organizations must conduct a risk assessment to identify the various risks relevant to their specific services and infrastructure. The risk assessment yields control objectives, which are typically the inverse of the identified risks, to mitigate those risks. For instance, if a risk is identified as "unauthorized logical access to data or systems," the corresponding control objective would be "to ensure logical access to data and systems is authorized." It is the service organization's duty to determine which objectives pertain to their service offering's scope. Control objectives can range from broad to specific, depending on the service organization's needs. While service auditors may offer lists of potential control objectives for educational purposes, it is ultimately up to the service organization to decide which are relevant to their service offering's scope.
Why does my customer want me to get a SOC report?
The SOC 1 report allows organizations to demonstrate a robust stance to their customers concerning their control environment, which is pertinent to processes affecting the client's financial reporting controls. Issuing this report annually can provide clients with an extra layer of confidence. The absence of such a report could be harmful as SOC 1 reports are increasingly becoming a norm for third-party service organizations. Furthermore, not having a SOC 1 report could be disadvantageous, as it is becoming a standard expectation for third-party service providers. Clients might terminate contracts, and prospects might disregard a service provider that hasn't completed a SOC 1 evaluation. Potential clients could be lost even before there's an opportunity to engage them.
What is the minimum duration of the reporting period?
Although there is no mandated minimum duration for a SOC Type 2 reporting period, the AICPA recommends a minimum of six months. This recommendation is based on the belief that a Type 2 report covering less than six months may not be considered useful by a user entity or its auditor. Nonetheless, service organizations are permitted to opt for a shorter reporting period if justified by specific circumstances. For instance, a newly launched service that requires a Type 2 report might only have been operational for three months at the time the report is needed. In such cases, the initial Type 2 report would cover a three-month period, with subsequent reports extending to the standard six months. In these situations, the service organization should explain the rationale for the shorter review period in the system description section of the initial report.
Can a SOC report fulfill multiple customer requests?
Indeed, lacking a SOC 1 report can lead an organization to face numerous audit inquiries from its customers and their auditors. Frequent customer visits can impose undue demands on the organization's resources. A SOC 1 report provides a unified source of information for all customers and auditors, often fulfilling the requirements of the client's financial auditors.
What are the key benefits of a SOC report?
The question often arises: Why obtain a SOC 1 report, aside from immediate client or prospect requirements? Key benefits include: - Building trust and confidence with current and potential customers - Attaining an independent, third-party assessment of controls - Providing a single examination to satisfy multiple customer inquiries - Obtaining assurance that the controls in place meet management's expectations - Increasing market share
When referring to SSAE16 or SOC 1, what is the difference and how do you use these acronyms appropriately?
In essence, the SSAE No. 16 standard is the attestation standard for generating a SOC 1 type report. There are multiple SSAEs, each for different reporting types. SSAE No. 16 is specifically utilized for attesting to a service organization's controls that may affect their clients' internal controls over financial reporting. Although the terms are often used interchangeably due to their close connection, they are distinct. In terms of the 'audit,' there isn't a universally correct approach; however, 'SSAE 16 examination' is likely the most precise term. For the resulting document, the term 'SOC 1 report' is appropriate.
Private company: Is a SOC report applicable?
A SOC report is commonly requested by organizations (user entities) that rely on services from a service organization (providers of critical client services) and their auditors (user auditors). A SOC report is necessary when a company (the 'Service Organization') offers outsourced services that impact the financial statements of another company (the 'User Organization'). This is particularly true if the User Organization is publicly traded. Industries that typically require SOC reports include: - Payroll Processing - Loan Servicing - Data Center/Co-Location/Network Monitoring Services - Software as a Service (SaaS) - Claims Processing Examples where SOC reports are not applicable: - Non-service organizations - Controls of a service organization not related to ICFR (such as regulatory compliance or privacy) Companies must determine which type of SOC report is most suitable for them: - SOC 1 - focuses on controls relevant to user financial reporting - SOC 2 - addresses concerns about security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, or privacy - SOC 3 - provides a seal and a simplified report on controls
Can a SOC 1 be leveraged for a SOC 2?
In recent years, technology-based service organizations have increasingly adopted the SOC 2 report. Consequently, organizations that have completed SOC 1 examinations are now frequently requested by their clients to also undertake a SOC 2 examination. While this additional examination may appear challenging, it is crucial for retaining and attracting new customers. Many controls are common between SOC 1 and SOC 2 examinations. In such cases, service auditors can utilize the documentation from the SOC 1 controls/criteria for the SOC 2 examination. The extra effort needed to prepare the additional report should be minimal, provided that the time periods for both examinations coincide.
Can I include multiple subservice organizations within my SOC 1?
In early 2011, the AICPA introduced its Service Organization Control (SOC) reporting framework. This framework aims to distinguish between the various types of AICPA reports that service organizations should provide to their clients. The SOC 2 report, entitled “Report on Controls at a Service Organization Relevant to Security, Availability, Processing Integrity, Confidentiality, or Privacy,” is intended to address a wide range of reporting requirements regarding a service organization's controls through a CPA firm’s independent attestation report. The scope of a SOC 2 report is defined by the client and the auditor, who use one or more of the Trust Service Principles (TSPs), as the client has specified, to assess if the client's information system has adequate control activities to fulfill the criteria for the chosen principles. Additionally, the client decides whether a “Type 1” or “Type 2” examination will be conducted for the SOC 2 report.
Can I have disaster recovery controls within my SOC 1 test of controls matrix?
The concise answer is no. The detailed explanation is that the AICPA views disaster recovery as forward-looking controls, which are not permissible in the audited portion of the SOC report, as it is a historical analysis. Nonetheless, controls concerning redundancy and availability may be included. Disaster recovery, however, is usually found in Section 5 (Additional Information Provided by Management), or the service organization might explore other evaluations (like SOC 2 or ISO certification) for assurance. Controls regarding redundancy and availability are includable, when fitting, but disaster recovery customarily appears in Section 5 (Additional Information Provided by Management), or the service organization may evaluate alternative assessments addressing disaster recovery (such as SOC 2, ISO certification, etc.).
Is it important to have formally documented policies and procedures?
In the audit planning phase, organizations often conduct a thorough and formal examination of their policies and procedures to ascertain compliance with audit guidelines. Formal, clear, and detailed policies and procedures that articulate a company's internal processes are vital for a successful audit. The significance of policies and procedures lies in their role as the cornerstone of a business's internal workings. For instance, a detailed policy and procedure document on data backup and replication aims to give relevant staff, such as systems administrators, a clear understanding of the business goals. Employees require guidance to perform their roles effectively. Hence, policies and procedures should be overseen by a designated policy owner, whose responsibility includes annual review and approval to ensure the document remains current and reflective of business operations. Accessibility of policies and procedures for employees is also crucial. Increasingly, companies utilize a corporate intranet as a centralized repository for employees to access policy and procedural documents. In the absence of an intranet, it is advisable to distribute the latest versions of these documents to all employees annually. In conclusion, policies and procedures form the structural basis of a company's operations, making it imperative for businesses to maintain and update their documentation in line with ongoing business activities.
What if I don't want any IT General Controls in my SOC report?
A SOC report is required to encompass a comprehensive set of control objectives pertinent to internal controls over financial reporting (SOC 1) or the relevant trust services criteria (SOC 2). Omitting pertinent ITGC controls could lead to a qualification regarding the fairness of presentation and/or control design. Such issues should be addressed during the planning phase with the service auditor to assess the potential impact on the SOC report.