Introduction
The IT security manager of a federal agency received an email that made his stomach drop: “Your video conferencing system failed our security audit. 23 significant findings. Your Authority to Operate is suspended effective immediately. All video meetings must cease until deficiencies are remediated.”
The agency had conducted video conferences daily for two years without issues. Their platform was from a reputable vendor. They had implemented “best practices” recommended by the sales team. Everything seemed fine—until auditors actually examined their implementation.
The findings revealed systemic security gaps:
Encryption was enabled, but vendor managed the keys (not the agency)
Audit logs existed, but nobody reviewed them
Multi-factor authentication was “available” but not required
Configuration baseline was documented but never verified
Recordings were stored securely, but retention policy wasn’t enforced
Incident response plan existed, but was never tested
Access controls were configured, but quarterly reviews never happened
The auditor’s assessment was blunt: “You have security theater, not actual security. Controls exist on paper but aren’t operationally effective. That’s worse than having no controls because it creates false confidence.”
The remediation took six weeks of intensive work. Productivity suffered. Critical meetings were postponed. The security team worked nights and weekends. The cost—in both direct expenses and lost productivity—exceeded $200,000.
The painful lesson: Security audits reveal the gap between what organizations think they’ve implemented versus what actually works. That gap can be enormous if you don’t systematically verify security controls.
This guide provides government agencies with a comprehensive security audit checklist specifically for video conferencing systems. You’ll learn how to prepare for audits, what auditors actually assess, common findings that fail audits, and how to remediate deficiencies before they become failures.
Whether you’re preparing for your annual assessment, conducting internal verification, or remediating findings from a failed audit—this checklist ensures your video conferencing security is audit-ready.
Let’s start with understanding why these audits matter so much.
Why Security Audits Matter
Annual security audits aren’t just bureaucratic requirements—they’re essential verification that your security controls actually work as intended.
Regulatory Requirements
FISMA (Federal Information Security Management Act):
Requires annual independent assessment of security controls
Mandates continuous monitoring between annual assessments
Demands remediation of identified deficiencies
Enforces accountability through reporting to OMB
OMB Circular A-130:
Establishes federal information security responsibilities
Requires risk-based approach to security
Mandates regular testing and evaluation
Requires authorization before systems operate
Agency-Specific Requirements:
Many agencies have additional assessment requirements
Some require more frequent assessments (semi-annual, quarterly)
Higher classification systems face stricter audit requirements
Continuous diagnostics and mitigation programs
The Cost of Failed Audits
Immediate consequences:
Authorization to Operate (ATO) suspended or revoked
System must be shut down until remediation completed
All dependent operations disrupted
Emergency remediation costs escalate rapidly
Long-term consequences:
Damage to agency reputation
Loss of stakeholder confidence
Increased scrutiny on future assessments
Leadership accountability issues
Career implications for responsible personnel
Real example: A mid-sized agency’s failed video conferencing audit resulted in:
$180,000 in emergency remediation costs
6 weeks of system unavailability
450 postponed or cancelled meetings
Estimated $400,000 in lost productivity
Mandatory reporting to agency leadership and OMB
Enhanced oversight on all future IT security assessments
Total cost of failed audit: $580,000+ (vs. $25,000 to properly prepare)
What Auditors Actually Assess
Auditors don’t just check boxes—they test whether controls actually work.
Documentation review:
Do security plans accurately describe the system?
Are control implementation statements complete and accurate?
Is documentation current or outdated?
Does configuration match documented baselines?
Technical validation:
Do controls work as documented?
Can unauthorized access be prevented?
Are audit logs actually generated and protected?
Does encryption function correctly?
Are patches and updates current?
Operational effectiveness:
Are procedures actually followed?
Are logs actually reviewed?
Are incidents actually reported and handled?
Is training actually conducted?
Are access reviews actually performed?
Evidence collection:
Can you prove controls work?
Do you have audit trails?
Can you demonstrate continuous monitoring?
Are assessment results documented?
Pre-Audit Preparation
Successful audits begin with thorough preparation. Start 90 days before your assessment.
90 Days Before Audit
Step 1: Review and Update All Documentation
System Security Plan (SSP)
Configuration baseline documentation
Architecture and data flow diagrams
Privacy Impact Assessment (PIA)
Contingency plan and business continuity
Incident response procedures
Change management records
Common documentation gaps to address:
SSP describes features not actually implemented
Configuration baseline doesn’t match current state
Architecture diagrams show old configurations
Procedures documented but not followed
Documentation created for initial ATO but never updated
Action: Compare documentation to actual system. Update anything that changed. Remove anything not implemented.
Step 2: Conduct Internal Control Assessment
Test every security control yourself before auditors do.
For each control:
Verify it’s actually implemented (not just documented)
Test that it works correctly
Collect evidence of effectiveness
Document any deficiencies found
Begin remediation immediately
Self-assessment questions:
If I try to access the system without proper authentication, am I blocked?
If I attempt unauthorized actions, are they prevented and logged?
If I review audit logs, do they contain required information?
If I check encryption, is it properly configured?
If I test incident response, do procedures work?
Step 3: Remediate Known Issues
Don’t wait for auditors to find problems you already know about.
Priority remediation:
High-severity findings from previous assessments
Known configuration gaps
Incomplete security controls
Outdated or missing documentation
Unpatched vulnerabilities
Create timeline:
List all known issues
Prioritize by severity and effort
Assign remediation responsibilities
Set completion dates
Track progress weekly
60 Days Before Audit
Step 4: Organize Evidence Package
Auditors need evidence that controls work. Prepare it in advance.
Evidence to collect:
Screenshots showing security configurations
Log files demonstrating audit capability
Access control lists and permission matrices
Vulnerability scan results
Patch management records
Training completion records
Incident response exercise documentation
Change management approvals
Access review documentation
Organization tips:
Create folder structure matching control families
Label evidence clearly with control identifiers
Include date stamps on all evidence
Provide brief explanations of what evidence demonstrates
Keep evidence current (most should be within 30 days)
Step 5: Brief Personnel
Everyone who will interact with auditors needs preparation.
Key personnel to brief:
System administrators
Security officers
System owners
Privacy officers
Backup and recovery operators
Help desk staff
End users (sample interviews)
What to brief them on:
Audit process and timeline
Questions auditors typically ask
How to answer questions (honest and complete)
Where to find information if they don’t know answers
Importance of consistent answers across personnel
Not to speculate or guess—say “I don’t know” if uncertain
30 Days Before Audit
Step 6: Conduct Full Readiness Review
Simulate the actual audit with your team.
Readiness review activities:
Walk through assessment checklist completely
Verify all evidence is collected and current
Test sample of controls end-to-end
Review documentation one final time
Ensure all personnel are prepared
Confirm system is stable and functioning
Address any last-minute issues discovered
Step 7: Confirm Logistics
Coordinate practical details with auditors.
Logistics to arrange:
Assessment schedule and timeline
Access for auditors (physical and system access)
Meeting rooms and work spaces
Network access for testing tools
Points of contact for each assessment area
Backup schedules (avoid assessment during backups)
Change freeze during assessment period
Network Security Review
Auditors assess how your video conferencing system is protected at the network level.
Network Architecture Assessment
| Assessment Item | What Auditors Check | Common Deficiencies |
| Network Segmentation | Is video conferencing on separate network segment or VLAN? | Flat network with no segmentation |
| Firewall Rules | Are rules properly restrictive? Only necessary ports open? | Overly permissive rules, unnecessary ports open |
| Boundary Protection | Are network boundaries monitored and controlled? | Inadequate boundary controls |
| Intrusion Detection | Is IDS/IPS deployed and monitoring traffic? | IDS deployed but not monitored |
| Traffic Encryption | Is all traffic encrypted in transit (TLS 1.2+)? | Weak encryption, outdated protocols |
| External Connections | Are external connections documented and authorized? | Undocumented connections to vendor systems |
| Network Diagrams | Do diagrams accurately reflect current architecture? | Diagrams outdated, don’t match reality |
| Data Flow Documentation | Are all data flows documented and understood? | Incomplete understanding of data flows |
Checklist: Network Security
- [ ] Network segmentation properly implemented and documented
- [ ] Firewall rules follow least-privilege principle
- [ ] All unnecessary ports and services disabled
- [ ] Intrusion detection/prevention system deployed and monitored
- [ ] All traffic encrypted with TLS 1.2 or higher
- [ ] Network diagrams current and accurate
- [ ] Data flow diagrams complete and verified
- [ ] External connections documented with justification
- [ ] Network monitoring actively detects anomalies
- [ ] Bandwidth and performance baselines established
- [ ] DDoS protection mechanisms in place
- [ ] Network access control (NAC) deployed
- [ ] Wireless access properly secured (if applicable)
- [ ] Remote access requires VPN with MFA
Common Finding: “Network diagrams provided do not accurately reflect current video conferencing architecture. Multiple undocumented connections to external systems discovered during testing.”
Remediation: Update diagrams to match actual implementation. Document all connections. Obtain authorization for external connections. Remove any unnecessary connections.
Access Control Assessment
Auditors rigorously test whether unauthorized access is actually prevented and authorized access is properly controlled.
Authentication and Authorization
| Assessment Item | What Auditors Test | Common Deficiencies |
| Multi-Factor Authentication | Is MFA required for all access? Can it be bypassed? | MFA available but not required |
| PIV/CAC Integration | Does system accept PIV/CAC? Is it required? | PIV/CAC supported but password auth still allowed |
| Account Management | Are accounts created, maintained, disabled properly? | Terminated user accounts not disabled |
| Least Privilege | Do users have only minimum permissions needed? | Broad permissions granted by default |
| Privileged Access | Is administrative access controlled and monitored? | Admin accounts with weak controls |
| Session Management | Do sessions timeout appropriately? | No session timeout or excessive duration |
| Access Reviews | Are access rights reviewed quarterly? | Reviews documented but not actually conducted |
| Guest Access | Are guest accounts controlled and time-limited? | Permanent guest accounts with excessive access |
Checklist: Access Control
- [ ] Multi-factor authentication required for all users
- [ ] PIV/CAC authentication enforced for federal employees
- [ ] Password policy meets NIST SP 800-63B requirements (if passwords used)
- [ ] Account creation requires proper authorization
- [ ] Account termination process documented and followed
- [ ] Terminated user accounts disabled within 24 hours
- [ ] Least privilege principle enforced
- [ ] Privileged accounts have additional authentication
- [ ] Session timeout configured (15 minutes for privileged, 30 for standard)
- [ ] Concurrent session limits enforced
- [ ] Access reviews conducted quarterly
- [ ] Review documentation retained
- [ ] Guest accounts time-limited and explicitly authorized
- [ ] Role-based access control (RBAC) properly configured
- [ ] Emergency access procedures documented and tested
Auditor Testing Approach:
Attempt to login without MFA—should fail
Try to access system with disabled account—should fail
Test if terminated user can access—should fail
Check if users can exceed their authorized permissions—should fail
Verify session timeout actually functions
Review access review documentation for completeness
Common Finding: “Quarterly access reviews documented in procedures but evidence shows last actual review conducted 18 months ago. 14 terminated users still have active accounts.”
Remediation: Conduct immediate comprehensive access review. Disable all unnecessary accounts. Establish calendar reminders for quarterly reviews. Assign specific personnel responsibility. Create evidence collection template.
Encryption and Data Protection
Auditors verify that encryption is properly implemented and data is protected throughout its lifecycle.
Encryption Implementation
| Assessment Item | What Auditors Verify | Common Deficiencies |
| Encryption in Transit | TLS 1.2+ for all communication? FIPS-validated? | TLS 1.0/1.1 still enabled, weak cipher suites |
| Encryption at Rest | Recordings encrypted at rest? FIPS-validated? | Recordings stored unencrypted |
| Key Management | Who manages encryption keys? Proper lifecycle? | Vendor manages keys, not agency |
| Cryptographic Modules | FIPS 140-2 validated modules used? | Non-validated cryptography |
| Certificate Management | Valid certificates? Proper certificate authority? | Expired certificates, self-signed |
| End-to-End Encryption | Is E2E encryption available and used for sensitive meetings? | No E2E encryption capability |
Data Protection
| Assessment Item | What Auditors Check | Common Deficiencies |
| Data Classification | Is data classified and marked appropriately? | No classification marking |
| Data Retention | Is retention policy documented and enforced? | Policy exists but not enforced |
| Secure Deletion | Can data be securely deleted? Is it actually deleted? | No secure deletion capability |
| Backup Protection | Are backups encrypted and secured? | Backups unencrypted |
| Media Sanitization | Is media properly sanitized when decommissioned? | No sanitization procedures |
Checklist: Encryption and Data Protection
- [ ] TLS 1.2 or higher required for all connections
- [ ] Weak cipher suites disabled
- [ ] FIPS 140-2 validated cryptographic modules used
- [ ] All recordings encrypted at rest
- [ ] Encryption keys managed by agency (not vendor)
- [ ] Key generation, distribution, storage, rotation documented
- [ ] Certificate management policy implemented
- [ ] Valid certificates from approved CA
- [ ] Certificate expiration monitoring in place
- [ ] End-to-end encryption available for sensitive meetings
- [ ] Data classification policy defined
- [ ] Classification marking enforced
- [ ] Data retention policy documented
- [ ] Automated retention enforcement implemented
- [ ] Secure deletion capability verified
- [ ] Backups encrypted with separate keys
- [ ] Backup restoration tested
- [ ] Media sanitization procedures documented
- [ ] NIST SP 800-88 sanitization methods used
Auditor Testing Approach:
Verify TLS version and cipher suites actually in use
Check if recordings are actually encrypted (attempt direct file access)
Review key management documentation and procedures
Verify FIPS 140-2 certificate for cryptographic modules
Test secure deletion (attempt to recover “deleted” data)
Review backup encryption configuration
Common Finding: “Encryption at rest documented as implemented, but testing reveals recordings stored unencrypted on file server. Vendor management console shows encryption enabled, but actual implementation deficient.”
Remediation: Enable encryption properly at storage layer, not just application layer. Verify encryption actually works by attempting unauthorized access to storage. Update documentation to reflect actual implementation method.
Logging and Monitoring
Auditors assess whether your system generates adequate logs and whether anyone actually reviews them.
Audit Logging Requirements
| Log Type | Required Events | Common Deficiencies |
| Authentication | All login attempts (success and failure), logout, session termination | Only successful logins logged |
| Authorization | Access to resources, permission changes, role assignments | Authorization events not logged |
| Administrative | All admin actions, configuration changes, user management | Incomplete admin logging |
| Security | Security violations, policy violations, encryption events | Security events not flagged |
| System | System startup/shutdown, service failures, resource issues | Minimal system logging |
Checklist: Logging and Monitoring
- [ ] All required security events logged per NIST SP 800-53 AU-2
- [ ] Logs include required information per AU-3 (date/time, user, event type, outcome, source IP)
- [ ] Logs protected from unauthorized modification
- [ ] Log retention meets NARA requirements (minimum 6 years for federal)
- [ ] Logs backed up separately from primary system
- [ ] Log review conducted weekly at minimum
- [ ] Review documented with reviewer signature and date
- [ ] Anomalies investigated and documented
- [ ] Log aggregation to SIEM implemented
- [ ] Automated alerting for critical security events
- [ ] Log storage capacity monitored
- [ ] Log correlation with other systems
- [ ] Timestamp synchronization with authoritative time source
- [ ] Audit of privileged user actions
- [ ] Failed access attempt thresholds and alerts
Auditor Testing Approach:
Generate test events (failed login, config change, etc.)
Verify events appear in logs with required information
Attempt to modify logs—should be prevented
Review log review documentation—check for actual analysis
Verify automated alerts actually trigger
Check timestamp accuracy against authoritative source
Common Finding: “Comprehensive audit logging configured and enabled. However, review of log review documentation shows logs have not been actually reviewed in 8 months despite documented weekly requirement. No security team member could explain what they would look for in logs.”
Remediation: Establish actual log review schedule with specific assignments. Create log review procedures document. Train personnel on what to look for. Implement automated analysis to supplement manual review. Document reviews with specific findings or “no anomalies detected.”
Compliance Documentation Review
Auditors examine whether your documentation is complete, accurate, and current.
Required Documentation
| Document | Assessment Focus | Common Deficiencies |
| System Security Plan | Complete? Current? Accurate? | Created for ATO but never updated |
| Configuration Baseline | Matches actual system? | Baseline doesn’t match current config |
| Privacy Impact Assessment | Addresses all privacy risks? | PIA incomplete or outdated |
| Contingency Plan | Tested? Effective? Current? | Plan exists but never tested |
| Incident Response Plan | Specific to video system? Tested? | Generic plan not specific to video |
| Assessment Evidence | Recent? Complete? | Evidence from previous ATO, not current |
| POA&M | Actively managed? Milestones met? | POA&M items chronically overdue |
Checklist: Documentation
- [ ] System Security Plan (SSP) complete and approved
- [ ] SSP updated within last 12 months
- [ ] SSP accurately describes current system
- [ ] Configuration baseline documented
- [ ] Baseline verified against actual system within 30 days
- [ ] Configuration changes tracked and documented
- [ ] Privacy Impact Assessment completed
- [ ] PIA reviewed when system changes
- [ ] Contingency plan documented
- [ ] Contingency plan tested annually
- [ ] Test results documented
- [ ] Incident response procedures documented
- [ ] Incident response tested (tabletop or actual)
- [ ] Security assessment evidence current (within 90 days)
- [ ] Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M) actively managed
- [ ] POA&M milestones met or exceptions documented
- [ ] Risk assessment conducted and documented
- [ ] Interconnection security agreements current
- [ ] Change management records complete
- [ ] Security awareness training documented
Common Finding: “System Security Plan describes implementation using vendor’s cloud platform. Actual implementation is on-premise deployment. Major discrepancy between documented and actual architecture indicates SSP not maintained.”
Remediation: Completely revise SSP to accurately reflect current implementation. Establish process for updating SSP when system changes. Assign specific personnel responsibility for SSP maintenance. Include SSP review in change management process.
Penetration Testing
Some audits include penetration testing to actively attempt to compromise security controls.
Penetration Test Scope
Authentication bypass attempts:
Can login be circumvented?
Can MFA be bypassed?
Can session tokens be hijacked?
Are password reset mechanisms vulnerable?
Authorization escalation:
Can regular users gain admin privileges?
Can users access unauthorized meetings?
Can permissions be elevated?
Can API calls bypass authorization?
Injection attacks:
SQL injection in meeting scheduling?
Cross-site scripting (XSS) in chat?
Command injection in admin interfaces?
XML/XXE attacks in data processing?
Information disclosure:
Can meeting content be intercepted?
Can recordings be accessed without authorization?
Are error messages revealing sensitive information?
Can configuration details be enumerated?
Denial of service:
Can system be crashed or made unavailable?
Can resources be exhausted?
Can meeting quality be degraded?
Checklist: Penetration Test Preparation
- [ ] Scope and rules of engagement defined
- [ ] Test window scheduled to minimize operational impact
- [ ] Backups completed before testing
- [ ] Monitoring enhanced during test window
- [ ] Incident response team on standby
- [ ] Communication plan for any issues discovered
- [ ] Acceptance criteria defined
- [ ] Remediation process agreed upon
- [ ] Legal and authorization documented
Penetration Test Findings – Severity Levels:
Critical: Immediate exploitation leading to complete system compromise
High: Significant security impact, unauthorized access possible
Medium: Security impact limited but requires remediation
Low: Minor issue with minimal security impact
Informational: Security improvement recommended but not required
Response to Findings:
Critical: Immediate remediation required (within 24-48 hours)
High: Remediation within 30 days
Medium: Remediation within 90 days
Low: Remediation within 180 days or risk acceptance
Informational: Consider for future improvements
Audit Report and Remediation
After assessment, auditors produce Security Assessment Report (SAR) documenting findings.
Understanding the Assessment Report
SAR Structure:
Executive summary
Assessment methodology
Scope and limitations
Findings by control family
Overall risk determination
Recommendations
Finding Categories:
Not Satisfied: Control not implemented or fundamentally deficient
Other Than Satisfied: Control implemented but with weaknesses
Satisfied: Control implemented and effective
Creating Your Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M)
For each finding, create POA&M entry:
Finding description: What control deficiency was identified
Risk assessment: What is the security impact
Recommended action: How to remediate
Resources required: Budget, personnel, tools needed
Responsible party: Who owns remediation
Completion date: When remediation will be complete
Milestones: Interim checkpoints
Status: Current progress
Remediation Best Practices
Prioritize by risk:
Address Critical and High findings first
Quick wins build momentum
Complex remediations need early start
Don’t ignore Low findings indefinitely
Assign clear ownership:
Each finding has single responsible party
Backup personnel identified
Resources allocated appropriately
Authority provided to implement fixes
Track progress actively:
Weekly status reviews
Update POA&M regularly
Escalate delays immediately
Document completion with evidence
Verify remediation:
Test that fix actually works
Collect evidence of effectiveness
Update documentation
Close POA&M only when fully remediated
Communicate proactively:
Keep authorizing official informed
Report to senior leadership
Notify auditors of completion
Update continuous monitoring
Annual Audit Schedule
Establish recurring assessment schedule to maintain continuous compliance.
Recommended Annual Schedule
| Month | Activity | Responsibility |
| January | Update SSP and documentation for previous year changes | System Owner |
| February | Internal control self-assessment | Security Team |
| March | Remediate issues found in self-assessment | System Owner |
| April | Independent security assessment (main audit) | Third-party Assessor |
| May | Review SAR and create POA&M | Security Team |
| June | Begin high-priority remediation | System Owner |
| July-September | Complete remediation of all findings | System Owner |
| October | Authorization renewal decision | Authorizing Official |
| November | Continuous monitoring review | Security Team |
| December | Year-end reporting and planning | System Owner |
Continuous Monitoring Between Audits
Monthly:
Vulnerability scanning
Patch status review
Configuration compliance checking
Log review summary
Security event analysis
POA&M status update
Quarterly:
Access rights review
Security control testing (rotating subset)
Contingency plan review
Incident response capability check
Training status review
Documentation accuracy check
Annual:
Full control assessment (formal audit)
Contingency plan testing
Incident response exercise
Penetration testing
Authorization renewal
How Convay Simplifies Security Audits
Throughout this guide, I’ve provided platform-agnostic audit guidance. Now let me explain how Convay specifically makes audits easier.
Audit-Ready Architecture
Built for Compliance from Day One
Convay’s architecture is designed to meet government security requirements, making audits straightforward rather than painful.
Audit advantages:
All security controls implemented by design
Complete documentation provided
Evidence collection automated
Configuration baselines maintained
Compliance monitoring built-in
Comprehensive Documentation
Assessment Documentation Package
Convay provides complete documentation package for audits:
System Security Plan template
Control implementation statements
Configuration baseline documentation
Architecture and data flow diagrams
Assessment evidence collection guides
Continuous monitoring procedures
Automated Evidence Collection
Continuous Compliance Monitoring
Convay automatically collects evidence auditors require:
Configuration compliance reports
Access control matrices
Audit log summaries
Encryption verification
Patch status documentation
Security event logs
Audit Support Services
Professional Assessment Assistance
Convay provides support during audits:
Technical expertise during assessment
Evidence collection assistance
Control validation support
Remediation guidance
Documentation updates
POA&M development
Downloadable Comprehensive Audit Checklist
Complete Video Conferencing Security Audit Checklist – 50+ Items
[Download Complete Checklist PDF]
Checklist includes:
Network Security (14 items)
Access Control (15 items)
Encryption and Data Protection (18 items)
Logging and Monitoring (15 items)
Compliance Documentation (20 items)
Penetration Testing (12 items)
Operational Procedures (16 items)
Plus:
Common findings reference guide
Remediation templates
Evidence collection guide
Auditor interview preparation
POA&M template
Conclusion: Audit Preparation Prevents Failures
The federal agency from our opening story learned their lesson about security audits. After their failed assessment and painful remediation, they established systematic audit preparation process.
Their new approach:
Quarterly internal assessments using this checklist
Continuous monitoring with automated evidence collection
Documentation updated immediately when system changes
Security team trained on audit requirements
Leadership engaged in security program
Their next annual audit: Zero significant findings. Clean Authorization to Operate renewal.
The security manager told me: “The first audit failed because we thought security was something we ‘had’—we installed controls during initial deployment and assumed they stayed effective. We learned security is something you continuously verify and maintain. The audit isn’t the assessment—the audit just validates the continuous assessment you’ve been doing all year.”
Security audits reveal whether your controls actually work. Don’t wait for auditors to discover deficiencies. Use this checklist to assess your video conferencing security systematically.
Start today:
Download the comprehensive checklist
Conduct internal self-assessment
Remediate issues before they become findings
Establish continuous monitoring
Maintain audit-ready documentation
And when you need video conferencing platform designed to make audits easy rather than painful—choose Convay.
Ready to prepare for your security audit?
[Download Comprehensive Audit Checklist] | [Schedule Internal Assessment] | [Request Audit Support] | [Contact Security Team]
Convay: Audit-Ready Video Conferencing
Built for compliance. Continuous monitoring. Complete documentation. Assessment support.
Developed by Synesis IT PLC | CMMI Level 3 | ISO 27001 & ISO 9001 Certified
Trusted by agencies where audit failures aren’t acceptable.
