Surbo Security Assessment

CFO

From a financial perspective, this platform presents unacceptable business risk that could materially impact operations and expose the organization to significant compliance costs and operational disruptions.

This vendor's security posture raises critical concerns for business continuity and regulatory compliance. With no established compliance certifications including SOC 2, ISO 27001, or GDPR compliance frameworks, procurement would trigger extensive due diligence requirements and potentially costly third-party auditing processes. The absence of fundamental data protection and encryption capabilities creates substantial exposure for customer data handling, particularly concerning given increasing regulatory scrutiny across jurisdictions. The lack of infrastructure security controls and application security measures indicates potential service availability risks that could disrupt business operations.

The vendor's minimal threat intelligence and risk management capabilities suggest inadequate incident response preparation, which could extend service disruptions and increase recovery costs during security events. Without proper vendor risk management frameworks in place, ongoing monitoring and compliance validation would require significant internal resources. The complete absence of AI integration security controls presents emerging risks as these technologies become integral to business operations.

The unknown pricing model and company funding status further complicate procurement planning and vendor stability assessments. Limited market presence with no G2 ratings or competitive intelligence makes total cost of ownership evaluation challenging and increases procurement cycle complexity.

Do not recommend procurement. The security deficiencies create unacceptable business risk requiring extensive compensating controls that would likely exceed the platform's operational value. Recommend identifying alternative vendors with established security frameworks and compliance certifications that align with enterprise risk tolerance and regulatory requirements.

CTO/Developer

From a technical integration perspective, this platform presents significant integration risks with critical security deficiencies that would introduce unacceptable technical debt to our enterprise infrastructure.

Technical Assessment

The platform's authentication infrastructure appears severely limited, with identity and access management scoring only 29/100 - indicating weak API authentication mechanisms that fail to meet enterprise security standards. This suggests inadequate OAuth 2.0 implementation, missing multi-factor authentication support, and potentially insecure API key management practices that would expose our systems to unauthorized access.

The complete absence of encryption and data protection capabilities represents a critical integration blocker. Modern API integrations require transport layer security, field-level encryption for sensitive data, and proper key management systems. Without these foundational security controls, any data exchange would violate our security architecture principles and potentially expose customer information during transmission.

The lack of compliance certifications indicates this vendor has not invested in enterprise-grade security frameworks. SOC 2 Type II compliance is typically required for production integrations, as it validates proper security controls for data processing. The absence of ISO 27001 certification further suggests inadequate information security management systems that would complicate our compliance obligations.

Developer experience appears severely compromised, with no evidence of comprehensive API documentation, SDKs, or integration testing environments. This would significantly impact development velocity and increase the likelihood of implementation errors that could introduce security vulnerabilities into our production systems.

CTO Recommendation

Not recommended for integration. The platform's fundamental security deficiencies would require extensive compensating controls that exceed acceptable technical debt thresholds. Our development team should prioritize vendors with established API security frameworks and enterprise-grade compliance certifications.

Legal/Compliance

From a legal and compliance perspective, this platform presents unacceptable regulatory risk that could expose the organization to significant penalties, enforcement actions, and potential liability across multiple jurisdictions. The absence of fundamental compliance certifications creates substantial legal exposure that cannot be adequately mitigated through contractual protections alone.

The complete absence of SOC 2 Type II certification raises critical concerns about internal controls over financial reporting and data security, potentially creating SOX compliance exposure for publicly traded companies. Without ISO 27001 certification, the vendor lacks demonstrated adherence to internationally recognized information security management standards, creating potential regulatory scrutiny under emerging cybersecurity frameworks. The absence of GDPR compliance controls presents immediate legal risk for European data processing, with potential fines up to 4% of global annual revenue under Article 83. HIPAA non-compliance eliminates this platform from consideration for any healthcare-related data processing, creating strict liability exposure under federal privacy regulations.

The minimal identity and access management score indicates fundamental weaknesses in user authentication and authorization controls, directly contradicting regulatory requirements under frameworks like NIST Cybersecurity Framework and state privacy laws including CCPA. Without proper access controls, the organization cannot demonstrate reasonable security measures required under breach notification statutes across all 50 states. The absence of encryption and data protection controls violates basic data processor obligations under virtually every modern privacy regulation.

From a contractual perspective, standard Data Processing Agreements and Business Associate Agreements would be meaningless without underlying technical and organizational measures to support regulatory compliance obligations. The vendor's security posture creates an impossibility of performance regarding data protection warranties and indemnification provisions.

Legal recommendation: Not recommended. This platform's compliance risk substantially exceeds acceptable thresholds for enterprise deployment. The absence of fundamental certifications and security controls creates regulatory exposure that cannot be adequately transferred through contractual mechanisms, requiring immediate disqualification from vendor selection processes.