Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
07/06/2026 9:12 pm
TL;DR: SOC 1 and SOC 2 both attest to control design, but they serve different assurance goals: SOC 1 focuses on controls affecting financial reporting, while SOC 2 evaluates security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality, and privacy, according to StrongDM. For IAM teams, the real question is whether access controls are scoped and evidenced for the right trust boundary, not just whether an audit is in flight.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by StrongDM: The Differences Between SOC 1 vs SOC 2
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams decide between SOC 1 and SOC 2?
A: Choose SOC 1 when the service you provide can affect a customer’s financial reporting.
Q: Why do identity controls matter in a SOC 2 audit?
A: Identity controls show who can access systems, how privilege is approved, and whether access is removed when it is no longer needed.
Q: What breaks when access governance is weak in a SOC environment?
A: Weak access governance breaks the audit trail.
Practitioner guidance
- Map audit scope to control impact Identify whether the systems, roles, and service accounts in scope can affect financial reporting or broader security and privacy obligations.
- Preserve operating evidence for access controls Retain approvals, recertifications, revocations, and session records long enough to support Type 2 testing.
- Treat service accounts as audit-scoped identities Include API keys, service accounts, and privileged machine credentials in the same governance process as human admin access.
What's in the full article
StrongDM's full blog post covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- How to decide whether client billing, collections, or reporting workflows make SOC 1 the right assurance path.
- The difference between Type 1 and Type 2 evidence expectations for controls that touch identity governance.
- Practical examples of when SOC 2 applies to hosted systems, cloud services, and data handling.
- The compliance context around right-to-audit requests and why organisations ask for SOC reports.
👉 Read StrongDM's guide to SOC 1 vs SOC 2 differences for audit scope decisions →
SOC 1 vs SOC 2 , what does this mean for IAM controls?
Explore further
08/06/2026 9:03 am
SOC 1 vs SOC 2 is really an evidence-boundary decision, not a paperwork choice: the audit type follows the control objective that the identity programme supports. If privileged access can alter financial reporting, SOC 1 relevance increases; if the issue is broader protection of systems and data, SOC 2 is the better fit. Practitioners should treat audit scope as an identity architecture question, not a compliance afterthought.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- Only 5.7% of organisations have full visibility into their service accounts, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own SOC evidence for service accounts and privileged access?
A: Identity, security, and audit teams should share ownership, but the operational evidence usually sits with IAM and PAM owners. The key is to make service accounts, admin tokens, and approval records visible enough that a Type 2 auditor can test them without manual reconstruction.
👉 Read our full editorial: SOC 1 vs SOC 2: what identity teams should evaluate
