Home
Services
Case Studies
Pricing
About Us
Contact

Case Studies

The Work in Practice

Learn More

Case - 01

Turning a Stalled GRC Platform Into a Working System

Client: Cloud Director, SaaS / Cloud Infrastructure
Frameworks: SOC 2 Type II · NIST CSF · CMMC

Engagement Type: GRC Platform Implementation & Optimization + Security Program Design

The Situation

The organization had purchased a leading GRC platform twelve months earlier. The implementation had stalled at roughly forty percent. Dashboards showed red across most control categories. Evidence collection was still manual. The SOC 2 Type II audit window was six months away.

The Cloud Director had inherited the implementation and had the technical depth to see what was wrong — but not the compliance architecture experience to rebuild it correctly while managing the cloud infrastructure team.

The platform had never been configured to the organization's actual AWS environment, data classification structure, or control ownership model. The existing setup reflected the vendor's default template — reasonable as a starting point, but not mapped to the SOC 2 trust service criteria the auditor would be applying, and disconnected from the NIST and CMMC controls the organization also carried obligations under.

What was needed was someone who understood both how the platform worked and how the frameworks required controls to be structured — and who could rebuild the implementation without starting from zero.

What DataKuff Did

The engagement opened with a full audit of the existing implementation, not to document what was wrong, but to identify what was salvageable. The control list was reasonable. The mapping, evidence requirements, and ownership assignments were not.

Controls were re-mapped to the organization's actual AWS environment and aligned across the three active frameworks; SOC 2 Type II trust service criteria, the applicable NIST CSF functions, and the relevant CMMC practices. Where obligations overlapped, the evidence architecture was consolidated so the same artifact satisfied multiple framework requirements.

Evidence collection was restructured so audit artifacts were produced as a byproduct of normal cloud operations, not collected manually by engineers with other jobs to do. Ownership was redefined across technical, operations, and compliance teams with clear assignment, cadence, and accountability.

Compensating controls were designed and documented for three technical areas where primary controls were operationally infeasible in the organization's architecture. Each was structured as a legitimate risk treatment decision with documented rationale — not an explanation for a gap.

By the time the engagement closed, the platform reflected the actual control environment, the dashboard was accurate, and the team could operate the system without outside support.

The Outcome

The SOC 2 Type II audit completed on schedule. The compensating controls held under assessor review. The organization entered its next certification cycle with controls already operational and evidence already collected.

The Cloud Director's team now runs the GRC platform as a live system — not a compliance artifact that gets updated before audits.

Case - 02

Security Documentation That Stopped Costing Deals

Client Role: Sales Executive (VP of Sales)
Engagement Type: Contract, RFP & Vendor Security Support + Audit Readiness

Industry: B2B SaaS / FinTech
Frameworks: SOC 2 Type I + Customer Security Questionnaire Library

The Situation

Three enterprise deals had stalled in the same quarter. The pattern was the same in each case: the prospect's security or procurement team had sent a security questionnaire, and the response had taken three to four weeks and still come back incomplete. One deal had moved to a competitor. The other two were in limbo.

The VP of Sales had escalated internally. The problem wasn't the product. The problem was that the company couldn't answer basic security questions in a way that gave enterprise buyers confidence. The questionnaires were being answered by engineers who didn't have time for them, using documentation that hadn't been updated in eighteen months.

There was no SOC 2 report. There was no security one-pager. There was no consistent story about what the company did with customer data. Every questionnaire was being answered from scratch. The CEO wanted to know how to fix it without hiring a full-time CISO. The Sales Executive wanted to know how to close the pipeline that was sitting open.

What DataKuff Did

The engagement opened in two parallel tracks: address the immediate pipeline problem and build the foundation that would prevent it from recurring.

The immediate priority was the two open deals. DataKuff reviewed the outstanding questionnaires, identified the control gaps driving the incomplete responses, and developed accurate, defensible answers for every open question. Legal reviewed the contract security language. Both deals closed within thirty days.

The parallel track was the foundation. A SOC 2 Type I readiness assessment identified the twelve control areas that needed to be formalized before the organization could credibly pursue certification. A prioritized remediation plan was developed, scoped specifically around what enterprise buyers in the FinTech segment were actually requiring.

A security questionnaire library was built — a maintained repository of accurate, consistent answers to the questions the sales team faced most frequently. Engineers were no longer in the loop. The sales team could respond to standard questionnaires in hours instead of weeks.

A security one-pager was produced for the sales deck — factual, specific, and written in language procurement teams and legal counsel recognized as credible.

The Outcome

Both open deals closed. The questionnaire library eliminated the three-to-four-week response lag. The sales team now has a repeatable process for handling security due diligence at every stage of the pipeline.

The organization is currently in the SOC 2 Type I process. The VP of Sales now includes security posture as a selling point in enterprise conversations rather than a liability.

Case - 03

Building a Security Program Legal Could Stand Behind

Client Role: Legal Consultant (General Counsel)
Engagement Type: Security Program Design + HIPAA Compliance + Contract Security Advisory

Industry: HealthTech / Digital Health
Frameworks: HIPAA · SOC 2 (in planning) · Contractual Security Obligations

The Situation

The organization was a digital health platform handling protected health information for employer-sponsored wellness programs. It was growing — and the growth was creating legal exposure the outside general counsel could see clearly and couldn't get the engineering team to address.

Three problems had converged. A major employer client had sent a Business Associate Agreement with security requirements the organization couldn't currently meet. A second client had flagged data handling practices that might not hold up under a HIPAA audit. And the company's cyber insurance renewal was asking questions about documented security controls that didn't exist in writing.

The outside general counsel had been trying to get the security program formalized for eight months. The response from the technical team was that everything was handled. The response from the business side was that nothing was documented. The gap between those two positions was the problem.

What legal needed was a practitioner who could translate between the technical reality and the contractual and regulatory obligations — and produce documentation that would hold up if anyone actually looked.

What DataKuff Did

The engagement opened with a joint session with both the general counsel and the technical leadership team — specifically to close the translation gap. The technical team walked through what was actually in place. DataKuff assessed which of those controls met the HIPAA and contractual standards and which didn't.

The assessment produced an honest picture: the organization's technical practices were stronger than the documentation suggested, but several contractual commitments in existing BAAs were not supported by current controls. That gap — between what had been agreed to in contracts and what was operationally in place — was the immediate legal exposure.

The remediation work addressed the contractual exposure first. Controls were documented against the specific requirements in the BAA, and the Business Associate Agreement review process was restructured so that legal had a defined input into what security commitments the company made before contracts were signed.

The HIPAA compliance program was built next — policies, access controls, incident response procedures, and a training program for staff who handled PHI. Each element was documented in language the outside general counsel could rely on and that would hold up under a regulatory inquiry.

The cyber insurance renewal was completed with full documentation of the control environment. The insurer's security questionnaire was answered accurately for the first time.

The Outcome

The BAA with the major employer client was executed. The flagged data handling practices were corrected and documented. The cyber insurance renewed with improved terms.

The outside general counsel now has a defined process for security review before any contract with security provisions is signed. The organization has a HIPAA compliance program it can defend — not a set of informal practices it hopes no one examines closely.