What Is a Security Review? Definition, Process, and Best Practices

Security reviews help organizations identify gaps in their security controls, policies, and processes before they become larger security or compliance issues. Regular reviews can uncover control gaps, outdated access, vendor risks, and technical weaknesses before they become larger security or compliance issues.

But as systems, vendors, and compliance requirements grow, security reviews can quickly become difficult to manage. Evidence gets scattered across tools, teams spend time chasing screenshots and approvals, and changing environments can make review results outdated faster than expected. In this article, we’ll explain how security reviews work, best practices to follow, and how to make the process easier to manage. 

What is a security review?

A security review is a structured evaluation of an organization’s security controls, policies, processes, and technical safeguards to confirm they are working effectively.

Security reviews typically focus on a defined area, such as a system, vendor, access model, or set of framework-related controls, rather than the entire security program. Unlike a security audit, which is more formal and often conducted by an independent third party against specific compliance requirements, a security assessment generally takes a broader, risk-focused view of an organization’s security posture. Security reviews are typically internal, conducted more frequently, and focused on verifying that existing controls and processes continue to operate effectively.

Internal security or compliance teams usually conduct security reviews, sometimes with support from external consultants for additional expertise or objectivity. Reviews commonly cover policies, security controls, third-party vendors, user access, and technical testing such as vulnerability scanning or penetration testing. For SMBs pursuing SOC 2 or ISO 27001, regular reviews can identify gaps earlier, keep evidence and documentation current, and reduce surprises when a formal audit begins.

Types of security reviews

Most organizations use several types of security reviews rather than relying on a single approach. The right review depends on what needs to be evaluated and what triggered it, such as onboarding a new vendor, releasing a product update, preparing for an audit, or completing a scheduled security check. Here are the types of security reviews:

Internal reviews

Internal reviews are conducted by an organization’s own security, compliance, IT, or engineering teams to check whether controls and processes are operating as expected. For example, a company might conduct a quarterly review of user access, policy exceptions, and security controls or run an internal review after a major infrastructure change.

External or independent reviews

External reviews involve an independent consultant, security specialist, or auditor who provides an objective view of the organization’s security posture. Companies may use these reviews before pursuing a certification, responding to customer due diligence, or reporting security risks to leadership or the board.

Technical reviews

Technical reviews examine the security of systems, applications, infrastructure, and configurations in practice. Depending on the scope, they can include code reviews, cloud configuration reviews, vulnerability testing, and penetration testing. A company might conduct a technical review after a major product release or infrastructure change to identify vulnerabilities before they can be exploited.

Vendor or third-party security reviews

Vendor security reviews assess whether suppliers and service providers introduce unacceptable security or data risks. They are commonly performed before onboarding a vendor and periodically throughout the relationship, using tools such as security questionnaires, SIG questionnaires, or CAIQ assessments. For example, a company may review a SaaS provider before allowing it to process sensitive customer data.

Compliance-focused reviews

Compliance-focused reviews evaluate security controls against the requirements of a specific framework or regulation, such as SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, HIPAA or SOX ITGC. They help teams identify missing evidence, control gaps, or areas that require remediation before a formal audit or customer request. For example, an organization preparing for SOC 2 may review its controls and supporting evidence before the audit period begins.

Comparison of security review types

Review type	Primary focus	Common trigger	Example use case
Internal review	Control effectiveness	Scheduled cadence	Quarterly review of access controls and policy exceptions
External or independent review	Objective validation	Audit or certification preparation	Independent review before certification
Technical review	System and application security	New release or architecture change	Cloud configuration review after an infrastructure change
Vendor or third-party review	Supplier security risk	Vendor onboarding	Security questionnaire before approving a SaaS provider
Compliance-focused review	Framework alignment	Upcoming audit	SOC 2 readiness review before an audit

The security review process: Step-by-step

An effective security review process gives every stage a clear scope, owner, output, and deadline. Without that structure, reviews can quickly become scattered across spreadsheets, email threads, tickets, and one-off evidence requests, making it harder to track findings, assign remediation, and confirm that issues have actually been resolved. Here are the eight steps to follow in the security review process:

Step 1: Define scope and objectives

Start by defining exactly what the review will cover and what it needs to achieve. The scope might include specific systems, applications, vendors, security controls, data environments, or business processes.

Connect the scope to a clear trigger, such as onboarding a new vendor, preparing for an audit, responding to a customer security request, launching a new product, or completing a scheduled internal review. A defined scope prevents unnecessary work and gives reviewers clear criteria for determining what needs attention.

Step 2: Gather documentation and evidence

Collect the documentation needed to understand how controls are designed and how they operate in practice. Depending on the review, this may include security policies, access logs, system configurations, change tickets, previous audit reports, risk assessments, vendor documentation, and technical test results. Check that evidence is current, relevant to the review scope, and sufficient to demonstrate that controls are operating as intended. 

Step 3: Assess controls against a standard or internal baseline

Compare security requirements with what has actually been implemented. Reviewers should confirm that controls exist, operate consistently, and produce the right evidence. The baseline may include internal policies, customer requirements, or frameworks such as SOC 2, ISO 27001, GDPR, and HIPAA. For teams managing multiple frameworks, this can also support continuous compliance by identifying overlapping controls.

For example, Perion used Scytale to automate 71 ITGC controls and achieve 100% population coverage instead of relying on manual sampling.

Read more

Step 4: Identify gaps and vulnerabilities

Record any differences between expected and actual security practices. Findings might include missing evidence, outdated policies, excessive user permissions, misconfigured systems, unclear control ownership, or controls that are not operating consistently.

Where the review includes applications or infrastructure, vulnerability scans, configuration checks, and penetration testing findings should feed into the same review process. Keeping technical and compliance findings connected provides a clearer picture of overall security risk.

Step 5: Engage stakeholders

Security reviews often require input from teams beyond security and compliance. IT, engineering, legal, procurement, HR, and leadership may need to validate findings, provide additional evidence, explain existing processes, or take ownership of remediation.

Engaging these stakeholders early helps prevent delays. Instead of identifying issues in isolation and assigning them later, teams can confirm the context behind a finding and establish ownership while the review is still underway.

Step 6: Document findings and prioritize remediation

Each finding should contain enough information for the responsible team to take action. Document the affected system or asset, control gap, supporting evidence, potential business impact, remediation owner, and target completion date.

Prioritize findings using a risk-based severity scale rather than treating every issue equally. Factors such as exploitability, data sensitivity, customer impact, regulatory exposure, and potential operational disruption can help determine which issues require immediate attention and which can be addressed over time.

Step 7: Remediate and re-test

Once remediation is complete, update the supporting evidence and re-test the affected control or system. The goal is to confirm that the corrective action resolved the original issue rather than simply recording that a task was completed.

For example, if a review identifies excessive user permissions, removing that access is only part of the remediation. The team should verify that permissions now match approved roles and retain evidence showing the control is operating correctly.

Step 8: Report results and set the next review cadence

Finish with a clear report covering the review scope, key findings, remediation status, unresolved risks, responsible owners, and any follow-up actions. Leadership should be able to quickly understand what was reviewed, where risk remains, and what happens next.

Finally, establish when the area will be reviewed again. The cadence might be quarterly, annually, before an audit, after significant system changes, or based on the level of risk involved. This turns security reviews into a repeatable process rather than a one-time exercise and reduces the need to rebuild evidence and context from scratch each time.

Security review best practices

A strong security review program supports security compliance by building consistent operating habits, not just documenting a process. These practices can help teams reduce repetitive work, improve evidence quality, identify issues earlier, and keep reviews manageable as requirements change.

Run reviews on a consistent cadence

Set a predictable review schedule instead of waiting for audits or customer requests. Regular reviews help teams identify and address gaps before they become urgent. 

Centralize evidence collection

Keep policies, logs, screenshots, tickets, approvals, and other supporting evidence in one place. Using a security review checklist alongside centralized evidence helps teams track what has been collected, identify what is missing, and avoid repeated requests across reviews and audits. 

Involve cross-functional stakeholders early

Bring engineering, IT, procurement, legal, and leadership into the process when their systems or responsibilities are in scope. Early involvement makes it easier to validate findings, establish ownership, and resolve issues without unnecessary back-and-forth.

Prioritize findings based on actual risk

Evaluate issues based on business impact, exploitability, data sensitivity, and exposure rather than relying on severity scores alone. This helps teams direct limited resources toward the vulnerabilities and control gaps that create the greatest risk.

Align reviews with relevant frameworks

Align review criteria with the frameworks and regulations that apply to your organization. This keeps reviews focused on relevant requirements and makes it easier to maintain compliance as obligations change. 

Automate evidence collection and monitoring

Automate recurring evidence collection and control monitoring wherever possible instead of relying on screenshots, spreadsheets, and manual follow-ups. Continuous visibility also helps teams identify control drift between scheduled reviews rather than discovering it during the next audit.

Document decisions and exceptions

Record why risks were accepted, remediation was delayed, or exceptions were approved, along with the responsible owner and supporting context. A clear decision history strengthens the audit trail and helps future reviewers understand why previous choices were made.

Treat vendor reviews as ongoing

Continue monitoring suppliers after onboarding, particularly when their services, access levels, security posture, or subprocessors change. Ongoing oversight helps teams identify new third-party risks before they create larger security or compliance gaps.

Common challenges in security reviews

Even with a defined process, security reviews can become difficult to maintain at scale. Manual workflows and fragmented information can slow reviews, create gaps, and make it harder to keep findings current. Here are some of the common compliance challenges that can affect security reviews:

Reactive scheduling

When reviews only begin in response to an audit, customer request, or major deal, teams have less time to investigate findings and remediate issues properly. This can turn routine review work into a last-minute compliance exercise. 

Limited resources

Small security and compliance teams often manage a growing number of systems, vendors, controls, and framework requirements with limited resources. When reviews rely on spreadsheets, emails, and manual follow-ups, ownership becomes harder to track and important tasks can easily be missed.

Scattered evidence

Evidence is often spread across ticketing systems, cloud platforms, file storage, inboxes, and other tools. Without a centralized source of truth, reviewers spend valuable time finding screenshots, approvals, logs, and policies, while the same evidence may need to be collected repeatedly for different reviews, frameworks, and customer requests.

Changing security environments

Security environments can change faster than static reviews can capture. New vendors, infrastructure updates, access changes, and evolving framework requirements can quickly make previous findings and evidence outdated. Repeated vendor security questionnaires add to the workload, particularly when teams rebuild responses manually instead of reusing existing information and continuously monitoring changes.

How Scytale simplifies security reviews

Scytale simplifies security reviews by replacing scattered spreadsheets, manual evidence requests, and disconnected workflows with one centralized compliance platform. Automated evidence collection keeps supporting documentation current, while a centralized control library maps controls across 80+ frameworks. This allows teams to reuse evidence and review work across multiple requirements instead of starting from scratch each time.

Vendor risk management and security questionnaire workflows make third-party reviews easier to manage, while continuous monitoring helps identify control drift between formal review cycles. Combined with support from dedicated GRC experts, Scytale helps teams spend less time chasing evidence and coordinating reviews and more time addressing the risks that matter.

FAQs about security review