CCM security requirements: what to ask a vendor before you sign
Ask every CCM vendor for its current SOC 2 Type 2 report and ISO/IEC 27001 certificate, check that both cover the modules you’re buying, and check FedRAMP or GovRAMP status yourself if you’re public sector. Then go past the SaaS boundary: customer data also sits in templates, test data, archives, print and mail partners and AI features. Get subprocessors, AI data use and data return at exit written into the contract.
Running the final security review on a customer communications platform? CCM security requirements go further than most SaaS reviews, because a CCM platform touches customer data in more places than the vendor’s own cloud. Names, addresses, account numbers and health details flow into templates, test files, archives, print partners and now AI features.
This checklist covers what to ask for, what each certificate actually proves, and where your data goes. It ends with a copyable vendor security questionnaire you can paste into an RFP or a renewal. Still shortlisting? Start with the customer communications management software guide.
Start with the evidence, then follow the data
Do it in this order. Collect the attestations first, because they’re quick to check and they knock out weak vendors early.
Then map every place your customer data will sit and ask about each one. That second step is where CCM reviews usually fall short.
- Pick evidence over claims. A logo on a trust page isn’t a report. Ask for the report itself under NDA, check its dates, and check what’s in scope.
- Public sector? Check the FedRAMP Marketplace or GovRAMP status yourself before you take a vendor’s word for it.
- Regulated data? Get the processor terms, business associate agreement or third-party clauses signed before production data moves.
- Leaving a platform? Agree data return and deletion now, while you still have bargaining power. Our SmartCOMM contract renewal guide covers the timing.
What each certification proves, and what it doesn’t
Each attestation answers a different question, so ask for the right one. The standards bodies define them; vendors only describe them.
| Evidence | What it tells you | What to ask for | Where to check it |
|---|---|---|---|
| SOC 2 Type 2 | An independent CPA tested controls for security, availability, processing integrity, confidentiality or privacy, including whether they operated | The full report, the period it covers, the trust areas in scope, and any exceptions | Request from the vendor under NDA |
| SOC 2 Type 1 | Control design and implementation only, with no tests of whether controls operated | A Type 2 instead, or a date when one will exist | Request from the vendor |
| SOC 3 | Same trust areas as SOC 2, less detail, freely shareable | Use it as a teaser, then ask for the SOC 2 | Often public |
| ISO/IEC 27001:2022 | An information security management system meets the standard’s requirements; certification is optional, and one from an accredited body adds confidence, so ask | The certificate, its scope statement, the certification body and its accreditation | Certification body named on the certificate |
| CSA STAR | Level 1 is a self-assessment; Level 2 is a third-party attestation or certification | Which level, and the date | CSA STAR Registry |
| FedRAMP | A cloud offering’s security package was assessed for US federal use at a stated impact level | The impact level and which products the listing covers | FedRAMP Marketplace |
| GovRAMP (formerly StateRAMP) | A state and local government cloud security program | Status and the product it covers | GovRAMP |
| PCI DSS v4.0.1 | Card data handling meets the PCI SSC standard | Compliance evidence, if card numbers reach the platform | Request from the vendor |
Two traps catch most reviewers. First, scope: a certificate can cover one hosting region or product while you’re buying another module. Second, carve-outs: the AICPA’s own evaluation tool notes that when a SOC report uses the carve-out method, the subservice organizations’ names may not be provided. Your print partner can sit outside the report entirely.
Registries help. The CSA STAR Registry, for example, lists Quadient Cloud with a Level 1 CAIQ self-assessment renewed in June 2026. That’s useful, but a self-assessment isn’t an audit, so you’d still ask for the audited reports. For anything not in a public registry, request the report rather than relying on a vendor page.
Public sector: FedRAMP, GovRAMP and FedRAMP 20x
Federal agencies need a FedRAMP authorization for cloud services in scope. FedRAMP says an authorization “is not an endorsement,” and agencies presume its assessment adequate at or below the stated impact level, so match the level to your data.
The program is changing. FedRAMP says 20x, its new assessment approach, is “here to stay,” and it plans to stop accepting new Rev5 certifications on June 11, 2027. Ask any vendor mid-process which path it’s on and its target date.
Check what a listing covers. The FedRAMP Marketplace lists Adobe Experience Manager Managed Services at Moderate since June 2019, but confirm the forms and document generation parts you need sit inside it. State, local, tribal and education buyers should ask about GovRAMP, which StateRAMP rebranded to in February 2025. More on public sector fit in CCM software for government, and on vendor fit in our Adobe AEM Forms review.
Where customer data goes in a CCM program
A generic SaaS questionnaire stops at the vendor’s cloud. CCM data goes further, and the copies outside the composition engine are the ones that leak.
Each stop holds personal data. Dashed cards are the ones a standard SaaS security questionnaire usually misses.
Often missed by a generic SaaS security questionnaire
- Data feeds and APIs
- Data held
- Policy, billing, claims or account extracts, often full records
- Who holds it
- Your systems and the CCM platform
Ask: Do you receive only the fields each template needs, and how are feeds encrypted in transit?
- Templates and content Often missed
- Data held
- Hard-coded names, sample addresses, signatures, account numbers left in drafts
- Who holds it
- CCM platform, authors, implementation partner
Ask: Can you scan templates and content blocks for personal data before publishing?
- Test and preview data Often missed
- Data held
- Production extracts copied into dev, test and preview environments
- Who holds it
- Vendor, systems integrator, your developers
Ask: Are non-production environments protected like production, and can you mask or synthesize test data?
- Composition and hosting
- Data held
- Every merged document during processing
- Who holds it
- CCM vendor and its cloud provider
Ask: Which regions, which cloud provider, and who at the vendor can access production?
- AI features Often missed
- Data held
- Template text, prompts and sometimes customer data sent to a model
- Who holds it
- CCM vendor and any model provider
Ask: Which model, where it runs, whether our data trains it, and can we switch it off?
- Print, mail and digital delivery Often missed
- Data held
- Print streams with names, addresses and account details; email and SMS payloads
- Who holds it
- Print and mail partner, email and SMS providers
Ask: Is each delivery partner a named subprocessor, with its own audit evidence?
- Archive and retrieval
- Data held
- An exact copy of every document sent, kept for years
- Who holds it
- CCM vendor or a separate archive provider
Ask: Where is the archive stored, how long, and who can search it?
- Exit Often missed
- Data held
- Templates, content, archive, logs, backups
- Who holds it
- Everyone above
Ask: How do we get it all back in open formats, and how do you prove deletion, backups included?
Based on the CCM data flow from feed to archive. Questions map to the questionnaire lines below.
The next four sections go deeper on the stops that catch reviewers out.
PII in templates, test data and archives
Personal data ends up in places nobody planned. Authors paste a real customer’s letter into a template to test layout. Developers copy last month’s production batch into a test environment. Archives keep every statement for years.
- Templates: ask for tooling that finds personal data in content, and lock down who can publish. Approval workflow and audit trail lines are in the questionnaire.
- Test data: treat non-production as production unless the data is masked or synthetic. Ask who at the vendor and your integrator can see it.
- Archives: agree retention by document type and region. An archive copy is still personal data under GDPR and still PHI under HIPAA.
- Card numbers: the PCI SSC says to mask the card number whenever it’s displayed and render it unreadable anywhere it’s stored. If statements or notices carry card numbers, ask how the platform handles both, and ask for the attestation that matches PCI DSS v4.0.1.
If you’re consolidating platforms or migrating, run a template clean-up first. Our template rationalization guide shows how.
Subprocessors: print and mail partners count
Your CCM vendor may hand print streams to a print and mail partner, send email through one provider and SMS through another. Each is a subprocessor holding your customers’ data.
The rules are clear on this. The UK ICO says a processor can’t engage another processor without the controller’s “prior specific or general written authorisation,” and must tell you about changes so you can object. HHS requires business associates to make subcontractors that handle PHI agree to the same restrictions. US bank regulators’ third-party guidance says subcontracting can pose “additional or heightened risk” and notes that contract audit rights often cover the third party and its relevant subcontractors.
Ask for the full subprocessor list, with each one’s role, location and evidence. Then ask how you’ll hear about changes and how long you get to object.
AI features and how your data is used
Most CCM vendors now ship AI writing, translation or readability features. They’re useful, but they can send your content, and sometimes customer data, to a model you didn’t review.
IDC research director Amy Machado, quoted in a Messagepoint press release in September 2026, said buyers should weigh how AI “capabilities address governance, authorization, auditability, and data protection.” Turn that into four questions: which model, where it runs, whether your data trains it, and whether you can switch it off by role or environment. NIST’s AI Risk Management Framework, released in January 2023 for voluntary use, gives your risk team a shared vocabulary for the rest. For one vendor’s AI roadmap in detail, see Smart Communications AI.
Data residency, processor terms and HIPAA
Where data sits matters as much as how it’s protected. Ask for the regions used for production, backups, disaster recovery, support access and archives, not just the primary region.
- GDPR: the processor contract must cover subprocessors, security under Article 32, audits, breach support and deletion or return of data. The ICO’s checklist lists every required term.
- HIPAA: HHS says a cloud provider is still a business associate even when it stores only encrypted PHI without the key. Storing ePHI overseas is allowed with a BAA, but HHS says it may increase risk, so factor location into your risk analysis.
- US banking: the interagency guidance says contracts typically prohibit a third party’s use and disclosure of customer information.
Need a hosting model your security team controls? Compare SaaS, private cloud and self-hosted options in our cloud CCM guide. Healthcare buyers should also read CCM software for healthcare payers.
Data return and deletion when you leave
Exit is where CCM contracts are weakest. You need templates and content back in a usable form, plus years of archive, and proof that the vendor deleted the rest.
The regulators agree on the principle. The EDPB says that on termination the processor must, at the controller’s choice, delete or return the data. HHS sample business associate terms require return or destruction of PHI at termination where feasible. US bank guidance calls for “timely return or destruction” of the bank’s data. In the EU, DORA’s recital 74 says financial entities’ ICT contracts should provide exit strategies with mandatory transition periods.
- Format: templates, content blocks, rules and archive with metadata, in documented formats.
- Timing: a transition period long enough to run both platforms in parallel.
- Deletion: a written method and certificate. Name a method from NIST SP 800-88 Rev. 2 (September 2025), the federal guide to media sanitization.
- Backups: how long they persist after deletion, and when they expire.
Planning the move itself? The CCM migration guide and migrating off SmartCOMM cover parallel runs and cutover.
Vendor security questionnaire you can copy
These lines turn the checks above into a questionnaire. Untick what doesn’t apply, set each line to Mandatory or Desirable, then copy the lines or download a CSV. The section weights let you score answers alongside the CCM RFP template and the CCM vendor scorecard.
Suggested priorities suit a regulated enterprise sending print and digital. Lines marked ‘if applicable’ depend on your sector and region.
43 requirements across 9 sections. Suggested section weights total 100%.
Free to reuse. Regulatory lines use US, EU and UK rules as examples, so swap in the rules that apply to you.
How to score the answers
Treat every Mandatory line as a knock-out. Then weight the rest with your scorecard.
A “yes” without evidence counts as unproven. A report with exceptions isn’t a fail, but ask what changed since. Comparing finalists on everything else too? See the CCM benchmark and SmartCOMM alternatives.
Next, plan delivery with the CCM implementation guide, and if you still need budget sign-off, use the CCM business case calculator.
Get a vendor shortlist for your requirements
Tell us what you run today and what you need. We reply with the two or three platforms that fit, and why.
Email hello@ccmcompared.comWe only share your details with a vendor if you ask us to.
Frequently asked questions
Is a SOC 3 report enough for a CCM security review?
Usually not. The AICPA says SOC 3 reports cover the same trust areas as SOC 2 but without the same level of detail, which is why they can be shared freely. Ask for the full SOC 2 report under NDA.
Does a print and mail partner need its own security evidence?
Yes. It receives your print files, which carry names, addresses and account details. Ask whether it is named as a subprocessor, and ask for its own report if the CCM vendor’s SOC 2 carves it out.
Does a CCM vendor need FedRAMP authorization?
Only if it hosts the platform for a US federal agency. Agencies can check the FedRAMP Marketplace directly. State and local buyers often look to GovRAMP, the program formerly called StateRAMP. If you self-host the software in your own authorized environment, your authorization covers it instead.
Do we need a HIPAA business associate agreement with a CCM vendor?
If the vendor creates, receives, stores or sends protected health information for you, yes. HHS says a cloud provider is still a business associate even if it only stores encrypted data and lacks the key.
What is the difference between CCM security and the CSA Cloud Controls Matrix?
They share an acronym. This page covers security for customer communications management software. The Cloud Controls Matrix is the Cloud Security Alliance’s control framework, which underpins its STAR program.
Sources
- AICPA: SOC 2 reporting on an examination of controls at a service organization
- AICPA: SOC 3, SOC for Service Organizations: Trust Services Criteria for General Use Report
- AICPA non-authoritative tool: Documentation of use of a type 2 service auditor’s report (copy hosted by Schneider Downs)
- ISO: ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Information security management systems
- FedRAMP: The FedRAMP authorization process (Consolidated Rules for 2026)
- FedRAMP: FedRAMP 20x
- FedRAMP Marketplace: Adobe Experience Manager Managed Services
- GovRAMP: StateRAMP announces rebrand to GovRAMP (February 2025)
- Cloud Security Alliance: What is the CSA STAR program?
- Cloud Security Alliance STAR Registry: Quadient Cloud
- EUR-Lex: Regulation (EU) 2016/679, General Data Protection Regulation
- EDPB: Guidelines 07/2020 on the concepts of controller and processor in the GDPR
- ICO: What needs to be included in the contract? (controllers and processors)
- EUR-Lex: Regulation (EU) 2022/2554, Digital Operational Resilience Act (recital 74)
- HHS: Business associate contracts, sample provisions
- HHS: Guidance on HIPAA and cloud computing
- Federal Reserve, FDIC, OCC: Interagency guidance on third-party relationships, risk management (2023)
- OCC, Federal Reserve, FDIC: Third-party risk management, a guide for community banks (May 2024)
- NIST SP 800-88 Rev. 2: Guidelines for media sanitization (September 2025)
- NIST: AI Risk Management Framework
- PCI Security Standards Council: Just published, PCI DSS v4.0.1
- PCI Security Standards Council: PCI data storage do’s and don’ts
- BNN Bloomberg (press release): Messagepoint named a Leader in the 2026 IDC MarketScape (IDC comment on AI governance)
CCM Compared is independent and not affiliated with Smart Communications or any vendor named here. Product names are trademarks of their owners and are used to identify products only. See our methodology and disclosure. Spotted an error? Request a correction.