Sumsub Security Assessment

CFO

This platform presents unacceptable business risk that could impact operations and compliance costs. With a security score of 17/100 resulting in an F grade, Sumsub demonstrates fundamental security deficiencies that create substantial operational and financial exposure for enterprise adoption.

The absence of critical security certifications poses immediate compliance challenges. Without SOC 2 Type II or ISO 27001 attestations, our organization would face significant audit complexity and potential compliance gaps that could delay contract execution and increase due diligence costs. The lack of GDPR compliance documentation is particularly concerning given our European operations, potentially exposing us to regulatory scrutiny and requiring extensive legal review before procurement approval.

The vendor's security architecture shows critical gaps across essential operational areas. Zero-rated encryption and data protection capabilities create unacceptable data exposure risks that could impact business continuity and customer trust. Without adequate application security measures, we face potential service disruption risks and data integrity concerns that could affect our operational reliability.

From a vendor risk management perspective, the absence of established security frameworks indicates immature operational processes that typically correlate with business instability. This security posture suggests the vendor may lack the operational discipline necessary for enterprise-grade service delivery, potentially leading to performance issues and support challenges.

The incomplete security assessment across multiple critical dimensions indicates either vendor opacity regarding their security posture or genuine security deficiencies. Both scenarios present procurement risks, as we cannot adequately evaluate ongoing operational risks or establish appropriate contract terms and service level requirements.

Do not recommend procurement. The security deficiencies present material business risks that outweigh potential operational benefits. Recommend evaluating alternative vendors with demonstrated security maturity and compliance attestations that align with our enterprise risk tolerance and operational requirements.

CTO/Developer

From a technical integration perspective, this platform presents critical integration risks with fundamentally inadequate API security and virtually non-existent developer documentation.

The technical assessment reveals severe deficiencies that would create substantial integration challenges. With an overall security score of 17/100, Sumsub demonstrates poor API design fundamentals and minimal investment in developer experience. The identity and access management capabilities score only 29/100, indicating weak authentication mechanisms that would require extensive custom security wrappers to meet enterprise standards. More concerning is the complete absence of data protection measures, compliance frameworks, and application security controls - all critical components for secure API integration.

The lack of established security certifications suggests this vendor has not invested in enterprise-grade technical infrastructure. Without SOC 2 compliance or ISO 27001 certification, integration would require building custom security monitoring, audit logging, and compliance reporting mechanisms from scratch. This represents significant technical debt that would consume development resources indefinitely. The absence of documented breach history, while potentially positive, more likely reflects limited security monitoring capabilities rather than robust incident response procedures.

For a 5,000-employee enterprise, integration would necessitate building extensive security scaffolding around their APIs, including custom authentication layers, data encryption wrappers, and comprehensive logging systems. The development velocity impact would be severe, with engineering teams spending more time on security remediation than feature development. Ongoing maintenance costs would escalate as security patches and compliance updates would require custom implementation rather than vendor-managed solutions.

CTO Recommendation: Not recommended for integration. This platform would introduce unacceptable technical debt requiring extensive custom security development that outweighs any functional benefits. Recommend evaluating established vendors with proven enterprise security frameworks and comprehensive developer tooling.

Legal/Compliance

From a legal and compliance perspective, this platform presents unacceptable compliance risk that could expose the organization to significant regulatory penalties and contractual liabilities. With a comprehensive security assessment revealing critical deficiencies across all regulatory domains, proceeding with this vendor would constitute negligent risk management.

Critical Compliance Deficiencies

The absence of fundamental regulatory certifications creates immediate legal exposure. Without SOC 2 Type II certification, we cannot demonstrate adequate vendor oversight to auditors, potentially triggering compliance violations under Sarbanes-Oxley Section 404. The lack of ISO 27001 certification indicates insufficient information security management systems, failing to meet baseline requirements for financial services regulations and government contracts.

Most concerning is the absence of GDPR compliance framework. Processing European personal data through this platform would violate GDPR Article 28 requirements for adequate processor safeguards, exposing the organization to fines up to 4% of annual revenue. Similarly, the lack of HIPAA compliance framework prohibits any healthcare-related data processing, creating potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

The vendor's deficient encryption and data protection controls suggest inadequate contractual protections around data processing, retention, and breach notification procedures. This creates liability exposure under state breach notification laws and sector-specific regulations like CCPA, which requires reasonable security measures for personal information.

Legal Recommendation

Not recommended - compliance risk exceeds acceptable threshold. The vendor's inability to demonstrate basic regulatory controls makes contractual risk mitigation impossible. Any data processing agreement would be fundamentally flawed due to the vendor's failure to maintain adequate security safeguards required under modern data protection regulations.