Addressing Common Misconceptions in SOC 2

Organizations, in some way or another, need to demonstrate their security posture across various compliance frameworks and standards. Among these, SOC 2 often faces the most scrutiny from security practitioners and IT professionals. While some criticisms are valid, many are rooted in misconceptions. Let’s clarify these misunderstandings and explore how to maximize the value of SOC 2 reports. 

Myth 1: SOC 2 Lacks Stringent Standards and Requirements

While it is true that the AICPA’s Trust Services Criteria (TSC), the foundation of SOC 2 examinations, does not prescribe specific control requirements, this does not mean SOC 2 lacks rigor. Unlike rigid compliance frameworks that dictate specific controls, SOC 2 is designed as a reporting framework that evaluates whether an organization meets its service commitments.

SOC 2 reports provide a detailed assessment of how a system operates and whether its controls are effectively implemented (especially in a Type II report). To gain value from a SOC 2 report, it is essential to carefully review the scope, control implementation and testing results. This enables organizations to gain insight into the system’s design, operation and existing security measures.

Myth 2: SOC 2 is Not Useful Because It Covers a Past Period

A common concern about SOC 2 reports is that they assess a historical period, typically spanning 12 months. Some argue that evaluating past performance does not accurately reflect an organization’s current security posture.

However, all audits—whether financial or security-related—examine a past period to provide insight into future decision-making. SOC 2 reports demonstrate how controls have performed over time, helping stakeholders assess their effectiveness and consistency. By analyzing these reports, organizations can identify security trends, evaluate risk exposure and make informed decisions about ongoing compliance efforts.

Myth 3: SOC 2 Reports Lack Oversight and are Produced by Low-Quality Auditors

The market has seen an increase in SOC 2 reports being issued with minimal scrutiny. However, this does not diminish the credibility and value of SOC 2 itself—rather, it highlights the importance of vetting auditors properly.

To validate an auditor’s legitimacy, organizations should check their standing on the AICPA website. All SOC 2 audit companies are required to undergo periodic AICPA peer reviews, which assess their audit quality and standards. If an audit company is not listed on the AICPA peer review website, this is a red flag to avoid working with them or accepting the credibility of their reports. Additionally, audit companies with deficiencies in their peer review reports may warrant further scrutiny.

Leveraging SOC 2 for Security and Trust

SOC 2 reports offer transparency into a service provider’s security, governance and risk mitigation practices. They provide assurance regarding how well an organization upholds its service commitments and security measures. However, it is up to the user to conduct due diligence, such as reading the report thoroughly and evaluating the auditing organization’s credibility, to make informed decisions about security and compliance.

By understanding the true value of SOC 2 and dispelling misconceptions, organizations can better leverage these reports to enhance trust, mitigate risks, and strengthen their security posture. If you’re ready to take the next step with a SOC 2 report, contact a Sikich representative today.