Why self-hosted team chat is a different decision for SaaS engineering
For a technology or SaaS company, self-hosted team chat is worth considering when the chat tool has become part of production operations. If Slack carries incident channels, deploy alerts and on-call handoffs, and your customers ask for SOC 2 evidence about how internal communications are retained, access is granted and availability is protected, then the chat platform is in scope for your own controls. Mattermost, Rocket.Chat and Matrix can all run in your cloud account, but they differ in edition features, bot and integration models and high availability design. The right choice depends on which bots and integrations your engineers depend on, which paid edition features you need for SSO and retention, and how much availability your incident response requires.
Once chat carries incident response, it sits inside your security boundary and your availability design. Access runs through your identity provider, so SSO and directory sync decide who can join incident channels and when accounts are removed. Retention settings and exports become evidence for the SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria your auditor tests, and the audit trail of admin actions and file access needs to be retrievable for a Type 2 observation period. On the availability side, the chat platform has to be up when your production systems are not. Mattermost high availability requires redundant application servers, database servers and load balancers, plus shared file storage that every node can mount, and it is limited to the Enterprise and Enterprise Advanced plans. Rocket.Chat multi-instance designs also need a paid plan. Confirm these edition boundaries against current vendor documentation before you commit.
Which requirements shape a self-hosted team chat build
This table maps the requirements most likely to shape a self-hosted chat build for a technology or SaaS company to their source and to the build decision they force. Read each row as a question to settle with your auditor and platform team before choosing an edition.
| Requirement | Where it comes from | What it means for the build |
|---|---|---|
| SOC 2 common criteria CC1 to CC9 | AICPA 2017 Trust Services Criteria, which apply to every SOC 2 report | Chat is in scope as part of the system description. Map access, change, logging and incident controls for chat to these criteria and name the chat platform as a component. |
| Type 1 versus Type 2 evidence | AICPA guidance on SOC 2 Type 1 (design as of a date) and Type 2 (operating effectiveness over a period) | A Type 2 report needs controls to have operated across the whole observation period. Keep access reviews, admin change logs and configuration baselines running continuously, not only before the audit. |
| Retention and export evidence | Set by your own policy and the auditor, not by SOC 2 itself | Define retention periods for channels, direct messages and files, and test an export that an auditor can read. Confirm the retention period and evidence format with your company's auditor before configuring anything. |
| SSO and MFA | Trust Services Criteria on logical access; identity provider records | Enforce SAML or OIDC sign-on with MFA through your identity provider, and sync users and deprovisioning from the directory. Check which SSO and directory sync features your chosen edition includes. |
| High availability | Availability criteria, and the platform's own deployment requirements | Mattermost HA needs redundant application servers, database servers and load balancers, plus shared file storage such as S3, an S3-compatible service or NAS. Rocket.Chat recommends a three-member MongoDB replica set. Confirm which tier includes these features. |
| Upgrade cadence and support windows | Vendor release and end-of-life policies, and your change management controls | Mattermost ships server versions monthly and publishes support end dates per release. Rocket.Chat standard releases get 6 months and LTS releases 12 months of support. Plan a recurring upgrade cycle with staging tests, since unsupported versions can lose client connectivity. |
| GDPR Article 28(3) processor terms | GDPR, where chat holds EU personal data and you use a vendor or hosting provider | Document instructions for processing, confidentiality, security measures and sub-processor terms in contracts with any party that operates or hosts the chat service for you. Confirm these terms with your legal team. |
| Audit logging of user actions | SOC 2 logging and monitoring criteria; audit controls expected in many frameworks | Forward chat admin, login and file events to your central log store. Confirm which audit trail features the edition provides, since some are limited to paid plans. |
Which open-source chat platform fits an engineering team
Three self-hosted chat platforms cover most engineering requirements, but each carries a different license model, operating footprint and paid-feature boundary. The fourth card explains how to match those differences to your integrations, chat-ops workflows and edition budget before you commit.
Mattermost for chat-ops teams
Mattermost ships compiled binaries under the MIT license and runs as a single Linux binary backed by PostgreSQL, which keeps the operating footprint small for a platform team. SSO (SAML, OIDC, OAuth) and AD/LDAP sync start at the Professional plan, while high availability clustering requires Enterprise. An HA cluster also needs shared file storage such as S3, an S3-compatible service or NAS on every node, not local disk. Confirm that your incident bots and deploy integrations work on Mattermost's plugin and webhook model before migrating.
Rocket.Chat for broad feature coverage
Rocket.Chat is MIT licensed except for the enterprise directories, so you must check which features you use fall inside the separate enterprise license. It requires MongoDB 8.0 or later running as a replica set, and a three-member replica set is strongly recommended for high availability. The free Starter plan includes single sign-on, MFA and LDAP or Active Directory authentication for up to 50 users, while multi-instance and microservice designs require a paid plan. Standard releases are supported for 6 months, so plan an upgrade cadence that your team can sustain.
Matrix through Synapse for federation
Synapse, the Matrix homeserver maintained by Element, is licensed under AGPL-3.0, which applies if you modify and offer it to users over a network. Operating it means scaling the homeserver and its database, and the design choices (worker processes, database and media storage) change with user count and federation traffic. Matrix suits engineering organizations that must chat with vendors, partners or subsidiaries on their own servers. Confirm the bot and integration coverage you need, because Slack-style app ecosystems do not map directly onto Matrix bridges and bots.
Choosing by integration and edition needs
Start from your must-have integrations: CI/CD notifications, incident paging, on-call tools, and the bots your engineers already use in Slack. Map each one to a platform and confirm parity per platform, because no open-source chat product guarantees Slack bot and integration parity. Then price the edition you need: SSO, high availability and audit features sit behind paid tiers on Mattermost and Rocket.Chat, so the paid-feature list should drive the quote. Ask each partner for a written compatibility list and a SOC 2 evidence plan for retention and access logs.
What a Slack migration can and cannot carry
History import and integration migration are separate projects, and most teams underestimate the second. Rocket.Chat's import tools accept full Slack workspace exports, a list of Slack users in CSV, and a generic CSV importer for other sources. Mattermost data is moved by converting its export into that CSV format. Confirm each path against the current import documentation for your chosen platform before you commit to a date, because the export format, the supported object types and the handling of attachments are the details that decide what arrives intact.
Slack apps, slash commands, incoming and outgoing webhooks and custom bots almost never move as they are. Each one depends on Slack's app framework, its tokens and its event payloads, so the realistic plan is to rebuild them against the target platform's bot and webhook APIs. Start with an inventory: list every app, slash command, webhook URL, bot and scheduled post, record the owning team and the systems each one calls, and mark which are still used. Then confirm, item by item, that the target platform offers an equivalent for each. Incident channels that page on-call tools and deploy notifications usually carry the most operational risk, so they should be rebuilt and tested first.
Three history questions need explicit decisions before import. Slack Connect shared channels involve people from other organizations, so decide whether their history is imported, archived or left in Slack, and check how their identities are represented after migration. Edited and deleted messages may not reflect the original state in an export, so agree with compliance what evidence is kept and what is accepted as a record. Finally, map each Slack user to a directory identity, since mismatched emails, departed staff and bot accounts will otherwise create duplicate or orphaned users that break attribution in the archive.
Which integrations incident response and chat-ops depend on
During an incident, engineers work in chat while alerts, deployments, tickets and runbooks feed the channel. Each of these connections is a separate integration with its own credentials, payload format and failure mode, so a migration from Slack rarely carries them over unchanged. Plan them as a list to rebuild and test, not as history to import.
On-call and paging alerts
Paging tools such as alert managers and on-call schedulers post alerts into a channel and open incident threads. The chat platform must accept inbound webhooks with a per-integration token, and the paging tool must be configured to send to the new endpoint. Check whether acknowledgements from chat reach the paging system, because a Slack app that acknowledged alerts will not do so after a switch. Rebuild escalation routing and test it with a scheduled drill before go-live.
CI/CD and deployment notifications
Build pipelines and deployment tools post success, failure and rollback messages to release channels. These usually authenticate with a bot token or an incoming webhook stored in the pipeline's secret store, so each secret must be recreated on the new platform and rotated. Confirm which slash commands, such as deployment approvals or rollbacks, depend on Slack-specific app features and need a replacement rather than a port.
Ticketing and incident records
Incident tickets in an ITSM or issue tracker are often created from a chat command and linked back to the incident channel. The chat app must hold a service account with permission to create and update tickets, and the ticket system must store the channel link. Slack history does not carry these links, so decide whether incident timelines are exported as records or kept as archived threads. Confirm how the chosen platform's export preserves thread structure before you rely on it for post-incident reviews.
Status pages and runbook links
Responders open runbooks, dashboards and status page updates from links pasted into the incident channel, and some bots post status updates automatically. Links to a wiki or runbook host keep working only if the host is reachable from the chat network and the SSO session is valid for the responder. Rebuild the status page update bot and confirm that runbook links resolve from inside the network you use during an incident, because the chat platform itself may be the first component a responder cannot reach.
What SOC 2 auditors ask for from chat and which component produces it
This table maps the evidence a SOC 2 examination typically requests for a self-hosted chat platform to the identity, platform and operating records that produce it. Read it as a checklist to set up before the observation window opens, not after the auditor asks. DeployOpen prepares these controls and evidence, but an independent CPA firm issues the SOC 2 report.
| Evidence | What the auditor tests | Component or record that produces it |
|---|---|---|
| User access reviews | Access is granted, changed and removed only by approved requests, and reviewed on a schedule | Identity provider group exports, Mattermost or Rocket.Chat user and team membership reports, and signed review sign-offs |
| Directory sync and deprovisioning | Leavers and contractors lose chat access within the period the company defines | LDAP or SCIM sync logs from the directory, plus a sample of disabled accounts matched to HR offboarding tickets |
| Admin and privileged action logs | Changes to system settings, roles, integrations and retention are attributable and reviewed | Platform audit logs forwarded to a central log store, with access to those logs restricted to separate reviewers |
| Retention configuration and export records | Retention rules match the documented policy, and deletion or export runs are repeatable | Retention policy export, configuration snapshots, and dated export job records for sampled requests |
| Change records for upgrades | Monthly or support-window upgrades are tested, approved and rolled back if needed | Tickets for each release, staging test results, and deployment logs tied to the vendor release version |
| High availability failover tests | Failover to a standby node or database replica works and recovery times are measured | Dated failover test reports, load balancer and database failover logs, and corrective actions for failed steps |
| Data processing terms with vendors | Hosting providers, managed database services and support vendors are bound to documented processing terms | Signed contracts or data processing addenda, sub-processor lists and vendor review records |
| Incident channel records | Incident communication is captured, time-stamped and linked to the incident ticket | Dedicated incident channel exports, pinned timelines, and post-incident review documents referencing the channel |
How a chat migration from Slack moves from pilot to production
This sequence takes an engineering organization from a Slack inventory to a highly available, audited chat platform, with each phase closing on a written artifact that the next phase depends on. It keeps integrations, identity and retention decisions ahead of the cutover so the switch does not depend on memory or goodwill.
Inventory scope and integrations
Start by listing every Slack workspace, channel class, user group, guest account, app and bot, webhook and incident-related integration that engineering depends on. Mark which ones have a direct equivalent on Mattermost or Rocket.Chat, which need a rebuild, and which should be retired. Confirm with the vendor which features your target edition supports before you commit, since bot and integration parity varies. The output is an integration inventory with an owner and a disposition for each item, signed off by engineering leads and the security team.
Design identity and access controls
Define how users are provisioned from your identity provider, how SSO and directory group mapping work, how guests and contractors are handled, and who may create public channels, private channels and integrations. Check which SSO and directory sync features your chosen edition includes, because the paid tier requirements differ between platforms. The output is an access design record that maps roles, groups and admin rights, reviewed against your existing joiner, mover and leaver process.
Run a pilot with one team and one incident channel
Deploy a non-production instance and onboard one engineering team, including a dedicated incident response channel with the alerting bots your on-call rotation uses. Run a real on-call exercise and a simulated incident so the team tests paging, escalation and status updates in the new tool. Capture friction in a pilot findings log covering notifications, mobile behavior, bot failures and missing features. The pilot is complete when the team signs off on the findings and the open gaps have a decision and owner.
Migrate history and rebuild bots
Import the agreed Slack history using the import method your platform supports, and rebuild each retained bot or webhook against the new platform's API or incoming and outgoing hook model. Validate a sample of imported channels, users and attachments against the source export, and record which content did not migrate. Decide up front how much history you need and whether attachments remain accessible. The output is a migration report with reconciliation results and a rebuilt-integration register with tested endpoints.
Set up retention, export and audit evidence
Configure message and file retention policies, legal hold procedures, audit log settings and export tooling according to the requirements your compliance team set for SOC 2 evidence, including the access reviews and change records auditors will ask for. Test an export end to end and confirm that the audit trail captures admin actions and access changes. Confirm which of these functions are in your edition. The output is a retention and evidence record listing each control, where its evidence is stored and who reviews it.
Build high availability and test failover
Build the production topology with redundant application servers, a highly available database layer, shared file storage that every node can reach, and redundant load balancers. Confirm that the platform's high availability mode is included in the edition you purchased, and do not use local file storage in a cluster. Run planned failover tests that stop each component, measure user impact and verify that messages and files survive. The output is a failover test report with recorded results, the defects found and a retest record.
Cut over with a tested runbook
Write a cutover runbook that covers the freeze window for Slack, the final incremental import, DNS and SSO changes, client rollout, rollback criteria and the communication plan for staff and partners. Rehearse the runbook on a copy of production and assign a named decision-maker for go or no-go. Keep Slack in read-only mode for a defined period so people can find old content. The output is a signed cutover runbook and a post-cutover checklist with results recorded.
Establish the upgrade routine
Set a standing process for applying platform releases, tracking each version's support end date, testing upgrades in staging, and scheduling production windows. Include mobile and desktop client compatibility in the test plan, since unsupported server versions can break client connections. Assign owners for monitoring security advisories and for retaining evidence of each patch. The output is an upgrade calendar and runbook that a named team operates and that your compliance evidence references.
Which architecture fits your concurrent user count and team footprint
Rocket.Chat's published reference architecture suggests one application instance backed by a MongoDB replica set for up to 500 concurrent users. This is the simplest topology to run, and it fits many engineering organizations that are moving off Slack in stages. Rocket.Chat 8.x requires MongoDB 8.0 or later, and a three-member replica set is strongly recommended for high availability, so the database tier is the part to plan carefully even when the application tier is small.
- Database: MongoDB 8.0 or later running as a replica set, with three members recommended for failover.
- Runtime: Node.js is bundled in the official Docker image and Helm chart, so you do not install it separately on the host.
- Editions: A single instance does not require a paid plan by itself, but SSO, MFA, LDAP or Active Directory group mapping and tamper-evident audit trails are paid-plan capabilities for most controls you will need for SOC 2 evidence.
- File storage: Plan local or network storage sized for uploads and retention, with backup of both the database and the file store.
- Mattermost comparison: Mattermost describes itself as running as a single Linux binary with PostgreSQL. Its high availability clustering is available only on Enterprise and Enterprise Advanced plans.
Confirm current edition terms, user limits and reference thresholds with Rocket.Chat before you commit, because plan features change between releases.
Above 500 concurrent users, Rocket.Chat's reference architectures move to multiple load-balanced instances linked by NATS. Above 5,000 users, the vendor suggests microservices on Kubernetes using the official Helm chart. The multi-instance and microservice designs require a paid plan, so the edition decision is made before the infrastructure design, not after it. This tab covers the design that most growing SaaS platform teams will need.
- Load balancing: Several application instances behind a load balancer, coordinated through NATS.
- Database: The MongoDB replica set must be sized for the write load of the whole deployment, not for one instance.
- Shared storage: Confirm how uploaded files are shared across instances and how they are backed up.
- Mattermost equivalent: Mattermost high availability requires redundant application servers, redundant database servers and redundant load balancers, plus read replicas for scaling reads. Its cluster needs shared file storage on Amazon S3, an S3-compatible service or NAS mounted on each node, because local file system storage risks corrupting files.
- Failover testing: Run failover tests against the database and file store before go-live, since the design depends on both staying available.
Ask both vendors and your implementation partner to confirm which tier of edition includes clustering and whether your user count falls within the supported design.
When your engineers collaborate with customers, vendors or sister companies on their own servers, the design changes again. Federation, where two servers exchange messages and identities, is a native part of the Matrix protocol, which Synapse implements. Mattermost and Rocket.Chat handle external collaboration differently, usually through guest accounts, shared channels or bridges, and their support for these varies by edition. Federation also widens the trust boundary, so the domains you accept and the retention rules that apply to external messages need to be decided with the design.
- Trust boundary: Decide which external domains may connect, and document the allow-list as a control.
- Retention: Messages from partner servers may sit outside your retention policy, so confirm how they are preserved and exported.
- Identity: Confirm how guest and external identities are authenticated and removed when a project ends.
- Protocol fit: Synapse is licensed under AGPL-3.0 and its current release is v1.163.0. Mattermost and Rocket.Chat rely on their own server model, so cross-company messaging needs its own validation.
- Bridges: Bridges to Slack or Teams let partners who stay on those platforms reach your channels, but they add a component that must be secured and monitored.
Confirm with each vendor whether shared or federated channels are supported in your edition, and test the external trust path before it carries production traffic.
What to ask an implementation partner before choosing a chat build
Start by asking how the partner will inventory what your Slack workspace actually does today. Ask for a written list of installed apps, incoming and outgoing webhooks, slash commands, bots and scheduled posts, with an owner and a business purpose for each, because most migration surprises come from integrations nobody remembered. Ask which of them the chosen platform can replace natively, which need a rewritten webhook or bot, and which will be dropped with sign-off. Ask how they will check Mattermost or Rocket.Chat bot and webhook behavior against your incident and deploy pipelines before cutover, and who signs off on the list. Ask also how they will handle the release cadence: which support line they recommend, who applies each upgrade, and how they confirm the platform stays inside its published support window. Mattermost publishes monthly server releases and support end dates, and Rocket.Chat versions reach end of life, so the answer should name the calendar and the owner.
Next, ask how they will prove the platform recovers before your engineers depend on it during an outage. Request a written failover test plan that covers application node loss, database primary failover, shared file storage and the load balancer, with pass criteria and a record of the result. Ask whether the edition you need includes the clustering or multi-instance design you plan to run, and which features that edition requires, such as SSO, directory sync, audit trails or high availability. Ask who buys each paid feature and who renews it. For retention and export, ask how message and file retention policies are configured, where audit logs are stored, how a sample export is produced for an auditor, and what written procedure documents it. These records become SOC 2 evidence for the availability and monitoring controls, so ask the partner to hand over the configuration exports, test records and runbooks as deliverables.
Finally, ask how the partner will handle incidents affecting the chat platform itself, since that channel is often the one your team uses to coordinate the response. Ask for the escalation path, the on-call hours, the severity definitions and an out-of-band channel for when the platform is down. Require a fixed-scope statement of work that lists systems, environments, integrations in scope, deliverables, acceptance criteria and the evidence package at close, and confirm in writing what is excluded, such as custom bot development or ongoing administration. DeployOpen plans, implements, hardens and documents self-hosted platforms in your own infrastructure, and it prepares evidence for assessments without issuing audit reports, so the statement of work should say which artifacts go to your auditor and who presents them.
Common questions about self-hosted chat for engineering teams
What drives the cost of moving off Slack to self-hosted chat?
The cost is driven less by the software license and more by the people and infrastructure around it. Mattermost and Rocket.Chat core editions are free to download under their licenses, but SSO, high availability and air-gapped operation sit behind paid plans that are priced by quote, so the license line depends on which features you need. Other components include servers or cloud accounts, database and file storage, backups, a migration of Slack history, rebuilding integrations and bots, and staff time to operate the platform. Ask any partner to split the quote into one-time work (design, migration, integration rebuild, hardening) and recurring work (upgrades, monitoring, support), and to state which paid plan features the price assumes.
How long does a Slack migration take, and what sets the timeline?
The timeline depends on the size of the workspace, how much history must move, how many integrations and bots depend on Slack, and how many identity and retention rules must be in place before users arrive. Rocket.Chat's import tools accept full Slack workspace exports, and Mattermost documents its own Slack migration path, but both still require mapping users, channels and files and testing the result. The longest items are usually integration rebuilds and approval of the retention design, not the data copy itself. Ask for a written plan that separates a test migration, a pilot group and the final cutover, and confirm the duration with the partner against your own workspace.
What does a self-hosted chat project need from our engineering and security teams?
Engineering staff need to own the hosting platform, the database, file storage, networking, load balancers and the deployment pipeline, and they need to rebuild any Slack apps as webhooks, slash commands or bot integrations. Security staff need to define SSO and directory sync, role and channel access rules, retention and legal hold requirements, logging and audit review, and the secrets and backup procedures. Both teams should agree on who approves each monthly or support-window upgrade. Expect the platform team to be the long-term owner, so name that owner before the design is signed off.
Can an internal team run self-hosted chat on its own?
An internal team can run it alone if it already operates Linux, containers, PostgreSQL or MongoDB, and identity systems, and if it can absorb regular upgrades and on-call response. The harder part is keeping pace with releases, since Mattermost publishes a new server version each month and Rocket.Chat says unsupported versions can lose access to official mobile and desktop clients. Many teams split the work: internal staff own daily operation, while a partner handles the initial build, hardening, migration and periodic upgrades under a written scope or retainer. Decide this before procurement, using a skills inventory of your own environment.
How do monthly or support-window upgrades affect chat operations?
Upgrades affect chat operations because chat is a live dependency for incident response, so each change must be tested against your integrations, SSO and mobile clients before production. Mattermost lists its release dates and support end dates on its server releases page, and extended support releases carry longer windows, so check which line you run and when it ends. Rocket.Chat standard releases are supported for 6 months and LTS releases for 12 months, and after end of life cloud-connected services stop working. Build a staging environment, a rollback plan, a patch calendar and a maintenance window policy into the operating model from the start.
What does high availability require for database and file storage?
High availability requires redundant application servers, redundant database servers and redundant load balancers, and the database and file layers must support failover without losing data. For Mattermost, the high availability cluster requires shared file storage such as Amazon S3, an S3-compatible service or a NAS mounted on each node, because local file system storage will not work correctly and risks corrupting files. Rocket.Chat 8.x requires MongoDB 8.0 or later as a replica set, with three members strongly recommended for high availability. Clustering in Mattermost is available only on Enterprise and Enterprise Advanced plans, and Rocket.Chat multi-instance designs require a paid plan. Ask for a failover test plan and the recovery objectives your business has set before go-live.
Does a self-hosted chat platform satisfy SOC 2 by itself?
No. SOC 2 is an examination of an organization's controls, so a chat platform can support evidence but cannot satisfy the criteria alone. The AICPA 2017 Trust Services Criteria apply through the security common criteria CC1 to CC9, and an auditor will look at access reviews, change management, logging, backup, incident response and vendor management across the whole system. A Type 1 report covers control design at a point in time, while a Type 2 report tests operating effectiveness over a period. Chat evidence such as SSO enforcement, retention settings, audit logs and admin access reviews is useful, but the organization still has to define and operate the controls and provide them to an independent CPA firm. DeployOpen prepares systems and evidence for compliance assessments but does not issue SOC 2 reports.
Which chat features do we need a paid plan for before we start?
List the features your engineering and security requirements depend on before comparing editions. SSO through SAML, OIDC or OAuth and AD or LDAP user sync are included in Mattermost from its Professional plan, while high availability clustering and FIPS 140-3 compliance begin at Enterprise. Rocket.Chat's free Starter plan includes LDAP, single sign-on, multi-factor authentication and retention, but its tamper-evident audit trails, LDAP and SAML group mapping and built-in failover are listed among paid plan features. Confirm current entitlements on each vendor's pricing and plan pages, since packaging changes, and ask any partner to put the edition choice in the written scope.
How DeployOpen scopes, builds and supports self-hosted team chat
DeployOpen plans, implements, customizes, integrates, hardens, backs up, upgrades, documents and supports self-hosted open-source platforms inside your own cloud accounts, data centers or air-gapped networks. For engineering-led chat, we start from your Slack integrations, incident channels and SOC 2 evidence needs, then write those requirements into a fixed scope before any build work begins.
How we scope
- We inventory your Slack apps, bots, slash commands and webhooks, and mark which ones need a replacement or rewrite.
- We map incident response channels, on-call paging and chat-ops runbooks to the platform features your plan supports.
- We agree in writing which Mattermost or Rocket.Chat edition covers SSO, retention and high availability before work starts.
How we build
- We deploy the chosen chat platform, its database and shared file storage in your own environment, with a documented upgrade path.
- We configure SSO, directory sync, retention settings and audit logging, then test them against the controls your auditor will sample.
- We run a failover test and a migration rehearsal with sample Slack exports before any production cutover.
How we hand over
- You receive architecture diagrams, configuration records, runbooks for incident channels and bot operations, and the integration inventory.
- We document the evidence trail for SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria controls, such as access reviews, retention settings and change records, for your auditor to assess.
- We train administrators on release cadence, pre-upgrade testing and rollback so your team can run the platform after handover.
How we support
- Ongoing support, upgrades and continuous security testing are available as retainers, and they can be scoped to your release cycle.
- Retainers can cover monthly server releases, patch testing against your integrations, and periodic failover drills.
- Security testing of the deployment, including applications, APIs and infrastructure, can be added to the retainer or scoped separately.
