Skip to main content

Vanta is a pretty good tool

 On a project I've been working on, I've been preparing for SOC 2 Type II certification. My responsibilities have mostly been on the engineering/IT side, ensuring that our SaaS is deployed and developed according to SOC 2 processes.

This isn't something a developer would willingly or enthusiastically take on, right?


I can’t believe I’m saying this out loud, but actually... it hasn’t been that bad. The biggest reason for this has definitely been Vanta.



Vanta has distilled the rather hard-to-decipher process descriptions into actionable items. As far as I know, SOC 2 isn’t a one-size-fits-all (SaaS provider) certification; it differs according to the stack - which makes sense. Plugging in all our services, from cloud providers to issue trackers, spits out a tailored task list.


The task list can even include literal Terraform code examples, which you can copy-paste with minor changes. You could kind of get a similar list from AWS Audit Manager or AWS Security Hub, but Vanta is cloud-agnostic.


It’s like a ticketing template on steroids - or one of those rare automated security tools that actually proves useful. It ensures that secure practices continue in our organization, not only during the audit period but continuously. It also provides a trust center page for transparency where the customers eventually can download our SOC 2 report 🤞


The biggest benefit is definitely the automated integration with cloud providers. If you add all third-party services, you can get an offboarding and access review list out of the box.


Regarding process documentation, Vanta provides pre-filled document templates based on some basic information you provide about your organization - saving at least some time. They also outline the steps clearly, making it easier to follow.


Committing to a process like SOC 2 is something that, on the whole, is good for an organization. Sure, all of these certifications have their oddities, and some requirements can feel like pure waste. But as with a well-structured codebase, clearly defined boundaries in all-around engineering process are a definite plus.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Bird is causing high CPU on my macOS

There is no lack of people complaining about MacOS Tahoe, mostly about rounded corners and inconsistent design decisions. I have not paid that much attentention to that, but there is one mac bug i have paid attention to. It hasn't been a visual or ux but rather few system processes pegging the CPU. trustd , alongside with ecosystemd and ecosystemanalyticsd all reported high CPU usage. I can't exactly recall when this started, it might have predated my Tahoe upgrade but anyway, the trio of processes all had high CPU usage. Sure, it may have been the virtual efficiency cores and whether it affeced battery life or slowed down other processes i don't know to be hon...

I'm not a passionate developer

A family friend of mine is an airlane pilot. A dream job for most, right? As a child, I certainly thought so. Now that I can have grown-up talks with him, I have discovered a more accurate description of his profession. He says that the truth about the job is that it is boring. To me, that is not that surprising. Airplanes are cool and all, but when you are in the middle of the Atlantic sitting next to the colleague you have been talking to past five years, how stimulating can that be? When he says the job is boring, it is not a bad kind of boring. It is a very specific boring. The "boring" you would want as a passenger. Uneventful.  Yet, he loves his job. According to him, an experienced pilot is most pleased when each and every tiny thing in the flight plan - goes according to plan. Passengers in the cabin of an expert pilot sit in the comfort of not even noticing who is flying. As someone employed in a field where being boring is not exactly in high demand, this sounds pro...

How my work has changed in the past few years

When I started at my current job 3ish years ago, we had nothing but a few PowerPoint slides and a Figma prototype. I recall talking with one of the founders, whom I had worked with some 10 years ago, and pointing out that the very next step after PowerPoint and Figma was still the same as it had always been: translating those slides and mockups into CRUDs, forms, and other basic building blocks. Sure, all the new fancy tools and frameworks (we had jQuery then) help, but I still had to tinker with very basic primitives like tables and forms. I could not just say, "here is a table, here is a form." Well, yes, technically I could, but I still needed to write a lot of code to make a working form or table. This was around the time of GPT-3, Copilot beta, and very early Cursor. I did attempt to use them, but they could only perform very basic tasks and were pretty much useless for frontend work. We, being one of the first-wave "ChatGPT wrapper" startups has naturally pus...