Ask HN: Why does SOC 2 feel so hard for early-stage startups?

Posted by asdxrfx 3 days ago

Context: I’m working on a compliance preparation tool for early-stage startups, and I’ve spoken with many teams going through SOC 2 / ISO 27001. I’m posting here to sanity-check my understanding and learn what others found most painful before the audit. Most teams don’t delay SOC 2 because they don’t care about security or because customers aren’t asking. They delay because it’s extremely unclear how to start.

You Google “SOC 2” and you’re immediately hit with: - 100+ controls - Type I vs Type II - Trust Services Criteria - Tooling vs auditors vs consultants - The result is that many startups treat SOC 2 as a tooling problem.

They wait until a deal is blocked, then: - Sign up for Vanta or Drata - Hire a consultant - Try to “speedrun” compliance

What actually hurts them isn’t missing controls — it’s missing readiness. No clear asset inventory, no ownership, no risk model, no vendor tracking, no idea what evidence even exists yet.

By the time tools or auditors enter the picture, everything is reactive and expensive.

For those of you who’ve been through SOC 2: - What helped you most before the audit? - What do you wish you had done 3–6 months earlier? - Did you start with tools, docs, or internal processes first?

Genuinely curious how others approached this.

Comments

Comment by mlitwiniuk 1 day ago

Understanding what a control actually means is the first "aha" moment. And it feels like you've cracked the code. Then you realize that's maybe 10% of the work. Each control needs sub-controls (because "Access Control" is actually 15 different things). Those sub-controls need evidence. That evidence needs to be versioned (auditors love asking "show me this policy as it existed 6 months ago"). Your policies need to map to controls. Your controls need to map to risks. Your risks need treatment plans.

Oh, and you'll need vendor assessments - because your auditor will ask about that AWS subprocessor you forgot you were using.

And business continuity plans. And an incident management process.

And then, right at the end, you discover the System Description — this dense narrative document that ties everything together and somehow needs to exist before your Type I audit.

I went through ISO 27001 in 2019 and thought "never again." Then I built a tool to make it survivable and got SOC 2 Type I using it (humadroid.io). Took way longer than I expected, and I already knew the domain.

Not trying to discourage — just a heads up that the iceberg goes deep. Happy to answer questions if you're heading down this path.

Comment by ivoryweb 1 day ago

This framing resonates more than most SOC 2 discussions I’ve seen. The confusion isn’t really about controls — it’s about not knowing what order things are supposed to exist in. What you said about everything feeling reactive once tools and auditors enter the picture really hits. It feels like people are forced to “pick a lane” before they even understand what the lanes are, so every decision compounds uncertainty instead of reducing it. I’ve noticed that most early teams don’t lack effort or intent — they lack a clear mental model for readiness. Without that, it’s impossible to tell whether you’re preparing, over-preparing, or just creating artifacts that won’t survive contact with an audit anyway. The hardest part seems to be that none of this is obvious upfront. You only realize what you should’ve done earlier after you’ve already paid for tools, consultants, or rewrites. By then, everything feels heavier and more expensive than it needed to be. Genuinely curious — before SOC 2 became a deadline, what signals would have helped you realize you weren’t “ready” yet, instead of just “behind

Comment by reval 2 days ago

Tone at the top is most important - if this is not valued at an organization level, it will be tough sledding. Next is knowledge - you don’t know what you don’t know. However, one you learn - usually through a gap assessment with an audit firm - you are now going to remedy and get into the audit. This is bad because you will miss point three. Automation is a must. Automated compliance monitoring, automated rituals (document reviews scheduled by a tool, etc), automated rituals whatever you can. Without this, you will create a ton of work for yourself.

This process is hard because there is tension between ticking boxes and being effective. The most well meaning people will get caught in a box ticking exercise if a critical contract depends on it.

It doesn’t have to be this way, but if you want it to be easy, start before clients start asking. Focus on being effective and automated so that you don’t feel pressured to tick boxes.

Comment by asdxrfx 2 days ago

Absolutely agree about the tone. I've seen teams where compliance becomes one person's problem instead of a company priority, and it shows during the audit.

On the knowledge gap: the gap assessment route works, but it's expensive upfront and still leaves you building the foundation afterward.

What I've been exploring is the step before the audit: getting teams organized enough that when they do engage a consultant or tool, they're not starting from zero, which would result in faster compliance.

I'm building a platform (Lumoar) focused exactly on this pre-audit organization phase, helping early-stage teams get structured before the compliance pressure hits.

Curious: in your experience, what's the biggest mistake teams make when they're under contract pressure to get SOC 2 done quickly?

Comment by reval 2 days ago

The biggest mistake is accepting controls that they cannot manage. I mentioned automation earlier for this reason. If your controls place undue stress on the business then you’ve just created more work instead of enabling success.

Compliance can be a business enabler if done correctly or a burden if treated like a side project.