Cone Proposal-to-Payment Security Assessment
Sales & CRM
Sell more, bill faster, and collect money effortlessly. Cone Proposal-to-Payment platform streamlines business tasks to send impressive proposals, e-Sign, and automate your invoicing, billing, and payment collections--in a unified, secure platform. Loss of revenue, valuable time, and delayed payments are the unfortunate outcome of unprofessional proposals or quotes, missed invoices, manual billing systems, and late renewals. Cone is on a mission to solve these broken workflows that cost business
9-Dimension Security Framework
Identity & Access Management
Compliance & Certification
AI Integration Security
NEWAPI Security
Infrastructure Security
Data Protection
Vulnerability Management
Breach History
Incident Response
AI Integration Security Assessment (9th Dimension)
Assess whether SaaS applications are safe for AI agent integration using Anthropic's Model Context Protocol (MCP) standards. Identify Shadow AI risks before they become breaches and make safer AI tool decisions than your competitors.
Last updated: January 16, 2026 at 05:53 AM
Assessment Transparency
See exactly what data backs this security assessment
Data Coverage
6/8 security categories assessed
Score based on 6 of 8 categories. Missing categories could not be assessed due to lack of public data or vendor restrictions.
Evaluation Friction
Evaluation friction estimates how long it typically takes to fully evaluate this vendor's security practices, from initial contact to complete assessment.
Transparency indicators show data completeness and vendor accessibility
Comprehensive Security Analysis
In-depth assessment with detailed recommendations
Security Analysis
Executive Summary
| Metric | Value | Assessment |
|---|---|---|
| Security Grade | F | Needs Improvement |
| Risk Level | High | Not recommended |
| Enterprise Readiness | 41% | Gaps Exist |
| Critical Gaps | 0 | None |
Security Assessment
| Category | Score | Status | Action Required |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🟢 Breach History | 100/100 | excellent | Maintain current controls |
| 🟡 Vulnerability Management | 85/100 | good | Maintain current controls |
| 🟠 Incident Response | 60/100 | needs_improvement | Monitor and improve gradually |
| 🟠 API Security | 50/100 | needs_improvement | Add rate limiting and authentication |
| 🟠 Infrastructure Security | 30/100 | needs_improvement | Review and enhance controls |
| 🟠 Data Protection | 30/100 | needs_improvement | Implement encryption at rest, TLS/HTTPS, and 1 more |
| 🟠 Identity & Access Management | 25/100 | needs_improvement | URGENT: Implement compensating controls immediately |
| 🟠 Compliance & Certification | 0/100 | needs_improvement | Review and enhance controls |
Overall Grade: F (27/100)
Critical Security Gaps
| Gap | Severity | Business Impact | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🟡 No public security documentation or audit reports | MEDIUM | 40-80 hours of security assessment overhead | Request security audit reports (SOC 2, pen tests) and security whitepaper |
Total Gaps Identified: 1 | Critical/High Priority: 0
Compliance Status
| Framework | Status | Priority |
|---|---|---|
| SOC 2 | ❌ Missing | High Priority |
| ISO 27001 | ❌ Missing | High Priority |
| GDPR | ❌ Missing | High Priority |
| HIPAA | ❓ Unknown | Verify Status |
| PCI DSS | ❓ Unknown | Verify Status |
Warning: No compliance certifications verified. Extensive due diligence required.
Operational Excellence
| Metric | Status | Details |
|---|---|---|
| Status Page | ❌ Not Found | N/A |
| Documentation Quality | ❌ 0/10 | No SDKs |
| SLA Commitment | ✅ Published | Formal SLA available |
| API Versioning | ✅ Yes | Breaking changes managed |
| Support Channels | ℹ️ 1 channels | Chat |
Operational Facts Extracted: 5 data points from operational_maturity enrichment
Integration Requirements
| Aspect | Details | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Setup Time | 3-5 days (manual setup required) | Estimated deployment timeline |
| Known Issues | Manual user provisioning may be required, Limited API automation capabilities, No automated user lifecycle management, Additional security controls needed | Implementation considerations |
Authentication Capabilities
| Method | Tier Requirement | Evidence Source |
|---|---|---|
| ✅ SSO (SAML/OAuth) | Enterprise | sso_discovery (90% confidence) |
Authentication Facts Extracted: 0 data points from auth_evidence enrichment
⚠️ Inherent Risk Consideration
Data Sensitivity: This application stores sensitive data:
- CRM contact information (names, emails, phone numbers, companies)
- Sales pipeline data (deal values, forecasts, customer interactions)
- Customer communication history (emails, calls, chat logs)
Risk Level: HIGH - Contains personally identifiable information (PII)
Compliance Requirements:
- GDPR - General Data Protection Regulation (EU)
- CCPA - California Consumer Privacy Act (US)
- SOC 2 Type II - Security, Availability, Processing Integrity
Compliance & Certifications
API Intelligence
Transparency indicators showing API availability and access requirements for Cone Proposal-to-Payment.
API Intelligence
API intelligence structure found but no operations extracted. May require manual review.
Incomplete API Intelligence
Our automated extraction found API documentation but couldn't extract specific operations. This may require manual review or vendor assistance.
View Vendor DocumentationAI-Powered Stakeholder Decision Analysis
LLM-generated security perspectives tailored to CISO, CFO, CTO, and Legal stakeholder needs. All analysis is grounded in verified API data with zero fabrication.
Security Posture & Operational Capabilities
Comprehensive assessment of Cone Proposal-to-Payment's security posture, operational maturity, authentication capabilities, security automation APIs, and breach intelligence.
Operational Data Not Yet Assessed
We haven't collected operational maturity data for Cone Proposal-to-Payment yet.
Authentication Data Not Yet Assessed
We haven't collected authentication and authorization data for Cone Proposal-to-Payment yet.
Security Automation APIs
Programmatic user management, data operations, and security controls
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions about Cone Proposal-to-Payment
Answer coming soon. Check back later for updates.
Recurly is PCI-DSS Level 1 compliant, a standard that specifies best practices and specific security controls. Cardholder data is sent directly to Recurly to minimize risk to your business. Recurly pr
Source: Search insights from Google, Bing
Compare with Alternatives
How does Cone Proposal-to-Payment stack up against similar applications in Sales & CRM? Click column headers to sort by different criteria.
| Application | Overall ScoreScore↓ | Grade | AI Security 🤖AI 🤖⇅ | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
46/100🏆 | C+ | N/A | View ProfileView | |
38/100 | D+ | N/A | View ProfileView | |
38/100 | D+ | N/A | View ProfileView | |
34/100 | D | N/A | View ProfileView | |
30/100 | D | N/A | View ProfileView | |
Cone Proposal-to-PaymentCurrent | 27/100 | F | N/A | |
27/100 | F | N/A | View ProfileView |
Security Comparison Insight
16 alternative(s) have higher overall security scores. Review the comparison to understand security tradeoffs for your specific requirements.