Security questionnaire

Your questionnaire, already answered.

A self-serve CAIQ / SIG-Lite, pre-answered from the controls TrustFix actually enforces in code. Every answer links to its proof — the whitepaper section that describes the mechanism, or the compliance feature. Where a control is partial or on the roadmap, we say so.

Enforced in code todayMechanism exists, stated gapDisclosed roadmap itemNot present (honest)
IAM

Identity & access management

IAM-01
Is multi-factor authentication enforced for all users?
Yes

MFA is mandatory, not optional — TOTP and WebAuthn are both supported. TOTP is replay-protected by a monotonic counter and recovery codes are single-use. Authentication is first-party (TFID); the platform trusts no claim presented by the client.

Proof: Whitepaper §5
IAM-02
Is role-based access control enforced and re-verified per request?
Yes

Authorization re-reads the caller’s role from the database on every request against a strict hierarchy (Viewer < Member < Admin < Owner). Tampering with a session claim cannot escalate privilege; the highest (super-admin) privilege is gated by deployment configuration at module load. Three CI gates ratchet against authorization regressions.

Proof: Whitepaper §5
IAM-03
Do you support SSO (SAML / OIDC) and automated provisioning (SCIM)?
Yes

Enterprise SSO is supported via SAML 2.0 and OIDC, and inbound user provisioning/de-provisioning via SCIM 2.0 with an org-scoped bearer token. Provisioning events are anchored in the signed ledger.

Proof: Trust Center
IAM-04
Are sessions server-side and immediately revocable?
Yes

Sessions are opaque, server-side tokens; status and role are re-validated from the database on every request, so revoking a session or a member takes effect immediately. Honest boundary: sessions are not additionally bound to client IP/user-agent (a documented defense-in-depth roadmap item).

Proof: Whitepaper §5
EKM

Encryption & key management

EKM-01
Is customer data encrypted at rest?
Yes

Long-lived secrets (collector credentials, sensor secrets) are protected with AES-256-GCM authenticated envelope encryption — a random data key per operation, a 96-bit IV, and a 128-bit authentication tag. Encrypted secrets are stored as the base64 envelope only; a CI audit fails the build if any credential column holds plaintext.

Proof: Whitepaper §4
EKM-02
Are tenant secrets cryptographically isolated from one another?
Yes

The tenant’s organizationId and the credential kind are bound into the encryption context (AAD). The code refuses to encrypt or decrypt without a non-empty tenant identity, so a credential sealed for one tenant cannot be decrypted under another tenant’s context — GCM tag verification fails.

Proof: Whitepaper §4
EKM-03
Is there an HSM / FIPS 140-2 Level 3 key-protection path?
No

Stated honestly: there is no HSM / FIPS 140-2 Level 3 path today; the cryptography is software-based, with a pluggable KMS provider (software KMS or HashiCorp Vault Transit). Per-tenant separation is by application-layer encryption-context binding on a shared deployment master key, not a distinct hardware key per tenant.

Proof: Whitepaper §4.3
EKM-04
Are encryption keys rotated on a schedule?
Partial

A key-rotation routine exists but is not yet wired to a production scheduler; rotation is a documented roadmap item. We disclose this as a known gap rather than imply automatic rotation.

Proof: Whitepaper §10
EKM-05
Is data encrypted in transit?
Yes

HTTP Strict Transport Security is enabled with a two-year max-age, includeSubDomains, and preload; session cookies use the __Host- prefix with Secure/HttpOnly/SameSite. Honest boundary: TLS cipher-suite selection and certificate pinning are handled at the reverse proxy, not asserted in the application.

Proof: Whitepaper §4.2
DSI

Data isolation & governance

DSI-01
How is multi-tenant data isolation enforced?
Yes

Isolation is enforced structurally in layers: the data-access layer injects the caller’s tenant scope into every read/write and rejects a cross-tenant query before it reaches the database; a build-time CI gate scans every dynamic id-bearing route and fails the build if any is unscoped; Postgres row-level security policies back key tables; and the cryptographic AAD binding backstops secret access. Behavioral tests prove cross-tenant reads return "not found".

Proof: Whitepaper §3
DSI-02
What customer data does collection actually read?
Yes

Collectors are read-only and agentless, and read security-relevant metadata only — which identities and credentials exist, their configuration, age, and scope — not the secret values themselves. Connectors to secret managers read a secret’s metadata and never call the "retrieve secret value" API. Application source code is not part of the collected surface.

Proof: Whitepaper §6.1
DSI-03
Can data be kept within our own environment (residency / air-gap)?
Yes

The same codebase ships in three modes: hosted, self-hosted (nothing leaves to TrustFix), and fully on-prem / air-gapped where a process-wide runtime egress backstop blocks any connection that would leave the LAN. The mode is fail-closed — a misconfigured on-prem image defaults to the most restrictive (air-gap) posture.

Proof: Whitepaper §6
DSI-04
Do you maintain a current list of sub-processors?
Yes

The categories of third parties we use to deliver the service are published and kept current. We do not sell customer data.

Proof: Sub-processors
AAC

Audit, logging & assurance

AAC-01
Is there a tamper-evident audit trail of security-relevant actions?
Yes

Every scan, finding, proposed fix, and authority/identity/change event is recorded on an append-only, hash-chained, Ed25519-signed audit ledger with cryptographic inclusion proofs — so any reordering, deletion, or edit is detectable. Each entry is independently Merkle-provable.

Proof: Whitepaper §8.1 / §7
AAC-02
Can you produce auditor-ready control evidence?
Yes

The evidence engine maps signed, cryptographically-anchored artifacts to control identifiers across seven frameworks (SOC 2, ISO 27001, NIST 800-53, OWASP ASI, ISO 42001, NIST AI RMF, EU AI Act Annex IV), each with an honest per-control status, and exports signed bundles plus a NIST OSCAL export. A control is only marked satisfied when a real artifact backs it — a no-fabrication rule enforced by the engine.

Proof: Compliance evidence
AAC-03
Are evidence artifacts independently trusted-timestamped by an external time authority?
No

Stated honestly: artifacts are Ed25519-signed and Merkle-anchored on our own clock, but are NOT anchored to an independent external time authority, and the platform surfaces this truthfully. We do not imply independent trusted timestamping until it is built.

Proof: Whitepaper §8
AAC-04
Do you stream logs to an external SIEM with real-time alerting?
Partial

High-signal security events are structured, auto-redacting, and ledger-anchored, and identity/detection events are emitted in the OCSF schema. External SIEM/OTEL streaming and real-time alerting/IR automation are on the roadmap; today the response to a high-signal event is manual.

Proof: Whitepaper §10
GRC

Governance & compliance status

GRC-01
Do you hold a SOC 2 report?
Roadmap

TrustFix does not hold a SOC 2 report today; a SOC 2 program is in progress. A report is issued only by a licensed CPA firm over an observation period. We will link the report here once an independent auditor has signed off — and never claim "SOC 2 certified" before then. Note: "SOC 2 evidence export" is a product feature for your audit, not a statement about ours.

Proof: Whitepaper §8
GRC-02
Are you ISO 27001 certified?
Roadmap

No. We publish honest control mappings to ISO 27001:2022 Annex A (what enforces each control, and the gaps), but a certificate is issued only by an accredited certification body. Mappings are not a certificate, and we present them as mappings.

Proof: Whitepaper §7
GRC-03
Do you have a Data Processing Addendum?
Yes

A DPA covering our processing of personal data on your behalf is available, alongside the Privacy Policy, Terms, Acceptable Use, and Cookie Policy. (Current legal documents are working drafts pending counsel review, marked as such; executed versions are provided before they take effect.)

Proof: DPA
TVM

Threat & vulnerability management

TVM-01
Do you scan dependencies and secrets in CI?
Yes

Dependency scanning (high/critical severity blocks the build), secret-pattern scanning, a plaintext-at-rest audit that fails non-zero on any plaintext credential column, and a distroless/non-root sensor image measured clean of high/critical CVEs are all in CI.

Proof: Whitepaper §9
TVM-02
Has a third-party penetration test been performed?
Roadmap

Not yet on record. A continuous automated tenant-isolation and route-authorization suite runs on every build (BOLA/IDOR is structurally closed and CI-gated), and we have a scoped brief ready to hand a human tester. We do not claim a completed pen-test attestation until one exists.

Proof: Pen-test methodology
TVM-03
Is the sensor supply chain signed / SBOM-attested?
Partial

The sensor image is distroless and non-root, with per-integration allow-listing and CVE measurement. Cryptographic image signing, an SBOM, and build-provenance attestation are disclosed roadmap items.

Proof: Whitepaper §10
TVM-04
Do you have a responsible-disclosure channel?
Yes

Report a vulnerability to security@trustfix.dev. We acknowledge promptly and follow a coordinated 90-day disclosure timeline with safe harbor for good-faith research. A formal bug-bounty program is not yet published.

Proof: Trust Center
SEF

Incident & resilience

SEF-01
Do you have an incident-response and notification process?
Partial

Security events are logged and ledger-anchored, and we notify affected customers of material incidents under the terms of the agreement and DPA, posting them to the public status page. Automated detection/alerting and IR automation are on the roadmap; today triage of high-signal events is manual.

Proof: System status
SEF-02
Are backups and disaster recovery in place?
Partial

Backups are in place; full-scale air-gap packaging load-testing and an end-to-end disaster-recovery restore drill are disclosed roadmap items rather than completed exercises.

Proof: Whitepaper §10

This self-serve questionnaire reflects controls enforced by code and CI today; where an answer is Partial or Roadmap, the gap is stated rather than hidden. It is a description of controls and audit-readiness — not a certificate. For a full CAIQ v4 or SIG workbook mapped line-by-line, contact security@trustfix.dev.

Security Questionnaire (CAIQ / SIG) | TrustFix