RestfulSyncBuilt to the standard legal scrutiny demands.
RestfulSync is engineered to enterprise-grade security and compliance frameworks. Independent audits and formal certifications are underway. This page tracks that work in the open, and it will be updated with verified results and downloadable documentation as each review is completed.
The frameworks, tests, and certifications described below are the standards we are building and auditing against. They are targets in active progress, not completed or independently verified attestations. We will publish audit reports, test results, and certification documentation on this page as each one is finalized.
Auditing against four rigorous frameworks.
An independent AI compliance audit is being conducted against four of the most demanding AI-governance and security frameworks available. It covers the compliance architecture, jurisdiction enforcement logic, forensic hash integrity, adversarial resistance, and evidence chain-of-custody controls.
Audit in progressAI management systems
The international standard for responsibly developing and operating AI systems. For RestfulSync it governs the Compliance Decision Engine that applies recording-consent law across 51 jurisdictions.
AI risk management
A structured approach to managing risk across the AI lifecycle. The runtime compliance-verification flow is being assessed against Govern, Map, Measure, and Manage.
Adversarial resistance
The critical security risks in AI-agent systems. An adversarial testing suite, jailbreak, prompt injection, roleplay induction, and context burial, is being run against the AI compliance layer.
Security controls
The federal security-control framework referenced by FISMA. The security architecture, row-level security, WORM retention, MFA, SAML, evidence-log export, is being assessed against applicable control families.
51-jurisdiction enforcement, under continuous test.
The Compliance Decision Engine applies jurisdiction-specific recording behavior in real time. These are the enforcement rules its automated test suite covers. Results will be published here once the formal review is complete.
Verification in progressOne-party consent states; gated user initiation before audio capture.
Under testAll-party consent; overt protocol with auto video-only fallback.
Under testContext-specific treatment for communication type, privacy context, and jurisdiction-specific requirements, with video-only fallback where audio cannot be authorized.
Under testWashington, Connecticut, Nevada, Missouri, Oregon, and D.C. apply their own controlled runtime rules rather than one shared exception.
Under testAll 51 jurisdictions; invite, accept, and revoke GPS tracking.
Under testMulti-participant; the most restrictive profile applied immediately.
Under testMuted device in Profile B/C switches to video-only.
Under testUnder-13 data collection blocked until VPC is validated server-side.
Under testUnder-18 accounts route SOS to 911 and emergency contacts only.
Under testGPS or VPN ambiguity defaults to the strictest profile.
Under testEmergency calling bypasses every subscription and payment check.
Under testRole boundaries, tested across every admin role.
Role-based access control is being tested across every administrative role and permission domain in the platform, spanning the backend API, direct database access patterns, and browser UI role boundaries. The full results become part of the compliance documentation package as the review completes.
Hardening in progressRole boundary testing across roles, domains, and access-control logic.
Coverage spans five administrative roles and six permission domains, with TypeScript validation on backend and admin and production builds on both. The modules under test:
Design-arounds implemented at the engineering level.
A Freedom to Operate analysis is being conducted against existing safety-application patents. The design-around constraints it identified are implemented as mandatory backend rules, not recommendations, and are covered by the test suite.
FTO review in progress · Patent PendingOn-device Safe Walk timers
Session timers run on the local device. The backend does not schedule or send missed check-in notifications. The phone sounds a local alarm when the timer expires. Timer expiration does not send an automatic alert; the user must choose Alert Contacts or SOS to escalate.
No subgroup escalation
No different alerts to different contact subsets. All designated contacts are notified at once on explicit SOS activation.
No pre-event buffer
No continuous pre-event recording. Recording begins at explicit user-initiated session start; no background pre-capture exists in the architecture.
No clearinghouse layer
No third-party call-center decision layer. SOS puts a call to 911 in front of the user and, on eligible plans and where it is available, alerts an integrated emergency support service.
SMS without live-map URLs
Pre-Trip SMS uses the native device composer, text-only, no live-map links. On-device reverse geocoding represents location.
Active IP protection
Provisional applications filed, with a nonprovisional in preparation, covering the core safety architecture, evidence-delivery system, and AI compliance engine.
SOC 2 is on the roadmap, and the architecture is built for it.
Enterprise buyers in healthcare, government, and legal verticals often require SOC 2 Type II before contract execution. The security architecture is built to the controls SOC 2 evaluates; the formal certification process is planned.
Security architecture
WORM, RLS, SAML, TOTP, and audit logging built into the core.
In placeIndependent audit
NIST 800-53 controls assessed within the AI compliance audit.
UnderwaySOC 2 Type I
Point-in-time controls assessment, on the roadmap.
PlannedSOC 2 Type II
Twelve-month operating-period assessment, planned.
RoadmapIf your organization requires SOC 2 Type II before contract execution:Request the compliance documentation package as it is finalized. It is being assembled from the NIST 800-53 assessment, the 51-state compliance matrix, the FTO summary, and the DPA, the same controls portfolio SOC 2 Type II evaluates.
Four security control categories, built into the core.
Access control & identity
SAML 2.0 SSO with Okta and Microsoft Entra. SCIM 2.0 automated deactivation on employee exit. TOTP MFA for government accounts. Break-glass recovery documented. Postgres row-level security at the database layer.
Audit & accountability
Tamper-evident audit log across all evidence-access events. Pseudonymous server identity per event. Dual timestamps, server-received and device-captured. Jurisdiction and confidence logged. CJIS evidence-access log export for the government edition.
Evidence integrity
Write-once-read-many (WORM) retention. SHA-256 per-chunk hashing at capture and a manifest fingerprint over the archive. Legal Hold blocks deletion jobs. Retention of one year on Plus and seven years on Premium and Family.
Data protection & residency
TLS in transit, encryption at rest on device and server. US data residency for the government edition. Sub-processor DPAs. Per-jurisdiction remote kill switch via feature flag.
One request covers what procurement needs.
Being assembled for qualified enterprise prospects. A signed DPA and MSA are required before an organization is activated and before any data enters the system.
Data Processing Agreement
Covers all sub-processors. Signed before org activation.
Enterprise MSA
Standard template for legal review. PO and ACH net-30 for government accounts.
51-state compliance matrix
Jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction recording-consent profiles with enforcement specs.
Backend test results
Compliance and platform test documentation, published as the review completes.
FTO summary
Freedom to Operate analysis and the design-around constraints implemented.
AI audit framework summary
ISO 42001, NIST AI RMF, OWASP Agentic AI Top 10, and NIST 800-53 scope and findings.
RestfulSync's audits, certifications, and test attestations are in progress and are not yet independently verified or finalized. Nothing on this page should be read as a completed certification. Framework names are the property of their respective owners and are referenced to describe the standards RestfulSync is auditing against. This page will be updated with verified results and documentation as each review is completed.