GRACE iconI AM GRACE
Security & Trust Center

GRACE security posture, in the open

GRACE enforces mandatory multi-factor authentication at sign-in (email one-time code by default, optional authenticator-app TOTP), AES-256-GCM field encryption for sensitive data at rest plus TLS 1.2+ in transit, a password complexity policy, brute-force account lockout, idle-session timeout, role-based access control with hospital-level tenant isolation, and baseline security response headers (HSTS, nosniff, clickjacking protection). The evaluation tier operates without PHI; production PHI use requires an executed Business Associate Agreement.

SOC 2 Type II compliant
SOC 2 Type II
Compliant
HIPAA
HIPAA-ready
BAA available

Mandatory MFA at sign-in

Email one-time code by default, optional authenticator-app TOTP. Required every production login.

Encryption at rest & in transit

AES-256-GCM field encryption plus hosting-tier volume encryption; TLS 1.2+ with HSTS.

Hardened authentication

Password complexity policy, brute-force lockout, idle-session timeout, HTTP-only Secure cookies.

RBAC & tenant isolation

Least-privilege roles; every hospital's data is scoped to its own tenant.

No PHI without a BAA

Evaluation tier is contractually no-PHI; production PHI use requires an executed BAA.

AI with guardrails

No model training on customer data, input redaction, opt-in free text, enterprise no-training terms.

System architecture & data flow

Browser and EHR/integration clients reach GRACE only over TLS. The public marketing site is segmented from the authenticated application. Sensitive fields are encrypted at rest in the data tier, and LLM inference receives de-identified inputs and is contractually excluded from model training.

Clinician / AdminBrowser · MFA + RBACEHR / IntegrationHL7 · FHIR · scoped API keyTLS 1.2+ / HSTSSEGMENTED APPLICATION TIER (Next.js)Marketingpublic siteGRACE appauth · scoringmiddleware gatesScoped API / ingestgrace_ Bearer keysMongoDBAES-256 at rest · tenant-scopedLLM inferencede-identified · no training

Key controls & where we’re investing

A snapshot of the controls that matter most to security reviewers, including areas still being strengthened. Each links to live evidence where available.

ControlStatusSummaryEvidence
Multi-factor authenticationRemediatedA mandatory second-factor challenge is enforced at login (email OTP by default, optional authenticator-app TOTP) via MFA_REQUIRED_FOR_ALL in production.View
Password policy & SSOIn ProgressPassword complexity and account lockout are enforced today; enterprise SSO (SAML/OIDC) is planned and tracked as In Progress.View
Encryption at restRemediatedAES-256-GCM field-level encryption protects sensitive data, backed by hosting-tier volume/database encryption; secrets are never stored in plaintext.View
Architecture & data-flow diagramRemediatedA data-flow/architecture diagram is published on the Trust Center showing clients, the TLS boundary, network segmentation, the data tier, and the LLM boundary.View
Application security scanningIn ProgressContinuous production DAST is being stood up; pre-production scanning and dependency/code review serve as compensating controls until it is live.View
LLM security controlsCompensating ControlLLM controls are documented and enforced: no model training on customer data, input redaction, opt-in free text, a no-PHI evaluation tier, and enterprise no-training contract terms.View
Data loss prevention & monitoringIn ProgressEnterprise DLP adoption is in progress; monitoring, least-privilege access, audit logging, and a documented breach-notification process serve as compensating controls.View
Third-party penetration testingPlannedA third-party penetration test is scheduled; internal testing and dependency scanning are the interim compensating controls.View
SOC 2 Type IIRemediatedSOC 2 Type II is reflected across the compliance reference and Trust Center; the report is available to qualified customers and prospects under NDA.View
HIPAA business-associate statusImplementedGRACE acts as a business associate under an executed BAA for production PHI; the evaluation tier is no-PHI by contract. See /compliance#hipaa.View
Vendor confidentiality & data inputsImplementedData inputs are de-identified/synthesized on the evaluation tier, and material sub-processors are bound by confidentiality and business-associate protections.View

Security controls & practices, in detail

Identity & Access Management

Does your product support Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) for customer users when logging into your system?

Remediated

Yes

GRACE supports MFA for all customer accounts and requires it at every production sign-in. After a correct password the user must pass a second factor before a session is issued. The default factor emails a 6-digit one-time code to the account email address; codes expire in 10 minutes and are stored only as SHA-256 hashes. Users may upgrade to an app-based TOTP authenticator (RFC 6238 — Google/Microsoft Authenticator, 1Password, Authy) by scanning a QR code; the TOTP secret is encrypted at rest with AES-256-GCM. MFA can also be scoped to specific roles by configuration.

NIST CSF V1.1: PR.AC-1, PR.AC-4, PR.AC-6 · NIST CSF V2.0: PR.AA-01, PR.AA-02, PR.AA-05Evidence

Does your product support Single Sign-On (SSO), such as SAML or OIDC, for customer users logging into your system? (Password & complexity)

In Progress

Password policy and lockout implemented; SSO planned

Passwords are set through a complexity policy on create, change, and reset: minimum 8 characters with an uppercase letter, a lowercase letter, and a number (configurable via MIN_PASSWORD_LENGTH). Passwords are stored only as salted bcrypt hashes. Repeated failed sign-ins trigger temporary account lockout. Enterprise SSO (SAML/OIDC) is on the roadmap; until it ships, MFA-protected password authentication is the supported mechanism.

NIST CSF V1.1: PR.AC-6 · NIST CSF V2.0: PR.AA-02Evidence

What password complexity configurations and settings (case, characters, length, reuse, expiration) are available?

Implemented

Minimum 8 characters requiring upper, lower, and numeric characters; configurable minimum length.

Enforced server-side on create/change/reset. Password fields are obscured in the UI. Reset and email-verification tokens are stored only as SHA-256 digests.

NIST CSF V1.1: PR.AC-6 · NIST CSF V2.0: PR.AA-02Evidence

Is there lockout for failed login attempts?

Implemented

Yes

After a configurable number of failed attempts (default 10) the account is temporarily locked for a configurable window (default 15 minutes). The failed-attempt counter resets on successful authentication. The same lockout guards the MFA code-entry step against brute force.

NIST CSF V1.1: PR.AC-6 · NIST CSF V2.0: PR.AA-02Evidence

Does your system/service support role-based access controls that may be applied to customer accounts?

Implemented

Yes

GRACE enforces role-based access (sysadmin, administrator, charge nurse, viewer) with least-privilege defaults. All hospital data is scoped to the authenticated user's organization (tenant isolation); users cannot read another hospital's data.

NIST CSF V1.1: PR.AC-1, PR.AC-4, PR.AC-6 · NIST CSF V2.0: PR.AA-02, PR.AA-05Evidence

Does your application force a timeout for inactivity?

Implemented

Yes

Authenticated sessions expire after a configurable idle period (default 30 minutes in production) enforced in middleware, and have an absolute maximum lifetime. Session cookies are HTTP-only, SameSite=Lax, and Secure in production.

NIST CSF V1.1: PR.AC-6 · NIST CSF V2.0: PR.AA-02Evidence

Describe the API security model for machine-to-machine access.

Implemented

Scoped, hashed Bearer API keys per integration

Integrations authenticate with per-hospital Bearer keys (prefix grace_) that are stored only as SHA-256 hashes and carry least-privilege scopes (e.g. ingest:hl7, read:unit-state). Keys are minted and revoked by hospital admins.

NIST CSF V1.1: PR.AC-1, PR.AC-4 · NIST CSF V2.0: PR.AA-01, PR.AA-05Evidence

Cryptographic Controls

Does your product/service encrypt data at rest?

Remediated

Yes

Data is encrypted at rest at two layers: (1) application-layer field encryption using AES-256-GCM for sensitive fields such as authenticator (TOTP) secrets, keyed by a 256-bit data key (DATA_ENCRYPTION_KEY); and (2) full-volume/database encryption provided by the hosting tier. Passwords are stored only as salted bcrypt hashes; one-time codes and setup/reset tokens are stored only as SHA-256 digests.

HIPAA Security § 164.312(a)(2)(iv) · NIST CSF V1.1: PR.DS-1 · NIST CSF V2.0: PR.DS-01Evidence

Does your product/service encrypt data in transit? Do you use TLS 1.2 or later?

Implemented

Yes

All web and API traffic is served over HTTPS/TLS (1.2+). HSTS is enabled in production. Outbound webhooks are HMAC-SHA256 signed and delivered over HTTPS.

HIPAA Security § 164.312(a)(2)(iv) · NIST CSF V1.1: PR.DS-2 · NIST CSF V2.0: PR.DS-02Evidence

Is your organization responsible for managing encryption keys for this product/service?

Implemented

Yes

The AES-256 data key and session-signing secret are generated with a cryptographically secure RNG (see generate-secrets.sh), held only in the server environment file, and preserved across deployments so encrypted data remains readable. Keys are never committed to source control.

NIST SP 800-57 Part 1 Rev. 5Evidence

Application Security

Can you provide a diagram in which the relationships of principal parts/functions are represented as well as the flow of data and communications (e.g. data flow diagram)?

Remediated

Yes

A system architecture and data-flow diagram is published on the Trust Center. It shows browser/EHR clients, the TLS boundary, network segmentation between the public marketing site and the authenticated application, the MongoDB data tier with encryption at rest, scoped API-key ingestion, and the external LLM inference boundary (de-identified inputs, no training).

NIST CSF V1.1: DE.AE-1 · NIST CSF V2.0: ID.AM-03Evidence

Is your product/service scanned by a dynamic application security scanning tool while in production?

In Progress

In progress; pre-production scanning as a compensating control

Continuous dynamic application security testing (DAST) against the production surface is being implemented. In the interim, changes are scanned before release, dependencies are monitored for known vulnerabilities, and AI-assisted code review is applied in the SDLC as compensating controls.

NIST CSF V1.1: DE.CM-8 · NIST CSF V2.0: ID.RA-01Evidence

Do you incorporate security as part of your Software Development Lifecycle (SDLC)?

Implemented

Yes

Changes go through version control and review before release; secrets are kept out of source; releases are validated by build and type checking. AI-generated code is reviewed and validated against secure-coding standards before deployment.

NIST CSF V1.1: PR.IP-2 · NIST CSF V2.0: PR.PS-06Evidence

Do you implement controls to ensure data accuracy (input and/or data validation)?

Implemented

Yes

Inbound API and ingestion payloads are validated and normalized; access controls and integrity constraints apply throughout the ingest pipeline.

NIST CSF V1.1: PR.DS-6 · NIST CSF V2.0: PR.DS-01Evidence

Does the solution exclude confidential information (DOB, MRN, account number) from URLs?

Implemented

Yes

Identifiers are passed in request bodies or as opaque IDs, not as confidential values in URLs. The evaluation tier does not process PHI.

What baseline web security controls are enforced?

Implemented

Security response headers + clickjacking protection

Every response carries X-Content-Type-Options: nosniff, X-Frame-Options: SAMEORIGIN, a restrictive Referrer-Policy and Permissions-Policy, and (in production) HSTS with includeSubDomains and preload.

NIST CSF V1.1: PR.PT-4 · NIST CSF V2.0: PR.IR-01Evidence

AI Use & Model Governance

Did you mitigate OWASP LLM Top 10 risks during the development of your AI model?

Compensating Control

Yes — controls documented; AI free-text is opt-in and PHI-minimized

GRACE does not train foundation models; it uses a third-party LLM (Anthropic) under enterprise API terms that contractually prohibit training on GRACE inputs/outputs. OWASP LLM Top 10 mitigations include: prompt/output handling with structured context, redaction of digit strings before inference, least-privilege scoping of AI features, per-user opt-in for sending free text to the LLM, and a no-PHI evaluation tier. AI assists clinicians; it does not make automated significant decisions about individuals.

OWASP LLM Top 10 · NIST AI RMF: GOVERN 1.1, MAP 4Evidence

Does your organization use customer data to train or retrain AI models?

Implemented

No

GRACE does not train or retrain models on customer data. The LLM provider is contractually prohibited from training on GRACE API inputs or outputs.

NIST AI RMF: MAP 4.1Evidence

Are RBAC and encryption enforced around AI data paths?

Implemented

Yes

AI features are only reachable by authenticated, role-scoped users; requests are TLS-encrypted in transit; the evaluation tier is designed for non-PHI inputs.

Data Security Management

Does the organization protect customer data with a data loss prevention (DLP) solution and monitor for suspicious activity?

In Progress

In progress; monitoring and breach-notification process in place

Enterprise DLP tooling is being adopted. Compensating controls in place today: least-privilege access and tenant isolation, server-side request/ingestion logging for security and diagnostics, an immutable agreement-acceptance audit trail, and a documented incident-response and breach-notification process.

NIST CSF V1.1: DE.CM-7 · NIST CSF V2.0: DE.CM-03Evidence

Where is your primary data center located for US-based customers?

Informational

Within the United States

Application and database infrastructure for US customers is hosted within the United States.

NIST CSF V1.1: PR.IP-5 · NIST CSF V2.0: PR.IR-02Evidence

Is each customer's data logically segregated from other customers' data?

Implemented

Logically segregated

All records are scoped to a hospital tenant and access is enforced by the authenticated session's hospital identifier.

Is any production data used in non-production environments?

Implemented

No

Non-production and demo environments use synthetic/de-identified data. The evaluation tier itself is contractually no-PHI.

Event Logging & Monitoring

What event log details are captured by your product/service?

Implemented

Authentication events, API/ingestion events, and agreement acceptances

Logged detail includes success/failure, source, timestamp, event type, and the identity of the subject where applicable. Sign-in failures drive account lockout; agreement acceptances (user, timestamp, IP, user-agent, version) are retained in an immutable audit collection.

NIST CSF V1.1: PR.PT-1, DE.AE-3 · NIST CSF V2.0: DE.AE-03, PR.PS-04Evidence

How long does the product/service retain logs?

Informational

Operational and audit logs retained per policy

Agreement-acceptance audit records are retained for contract-formation defensibility. Operational/security logs are retained per the deployment's log-management configuration.

NIST CSF V1.1: PR.PT-1 · NIST CSF V2.0: PR.PS-04Evidence

Threat & Vulnerability Management

Has a third party conducted a penetration test on your product or service within the last year?

Planned

Planned; internal testing performed in the interim

A third-party penetration test is scheduled. In the meantime, internal security testing, dependency vulnerability monitoring, and pre-release scanning are performed. Pen-test results will be shared under NDA once complete.

NIST CSF V1.1: ID.RA-1, ID.RA-2, DE.CM-8 · NIST CSF V2.0: ID.RA-01, ID.RA-02Evidence

What is your policy for remediation of critical vulnerabilities?

Implemented

Prioritized by severity with expedited handling of critical issues

Findings are identified, prioritized, patched, tested, and deployed through the change process; critical issues are expedited. Dependencies are updated in response to advisories.

NIST CSF V1.1: ID.RA-1, PR.IP-12 · NIST CSF V2.0: ID.RA-01Evidence

Do you provide a way for users or researchers to report security vulnerabilities?

Implemented

Yes

Security issues can be reported to the Compliance & Security contact published on the compliance reference page.

Updates & Change Management

Do you follow a documented change/release management process?

Implemented

Yes

Releases are version-controlled and deployed through a scripted, repeatable process with health checks; secrets (including the data-encryption key) are preserved across deploys and never rsync'd from developer machines.

NIST CSF V1.1: PR.IP-3 · NIST CSF V2.0: PR.PS-01Evidence

Is your code scanned before being put into production?

Implemented

Yes

Type checking and linting gate the build; dependencies are monitored for known vulnerabilities; AI-assisted review is applied to changes.

NIST CSF V1.1: DE.CM-8 · NIST CSF V2.0: ID.RA-01Evidence

Security Compliance

In the past year, has your organization completed a SOC 2 Type 2 control report?

Remediated

Yes — SOC 2 Type II report available under NDA

I AM GRACE INC. maintains SOC 2 Type II for the GRACE service, covering the Trust Services Criteria for Security, Availability, and Confidentiality. The report contains confidential control descriptions and is available to qualified customers and prospects under a mutual NDA.

Which cybersecurity standards or frameworks are leveraged by the organization?

Informational

SOC 2, HIPAA Security, NIST CSF; OWASP for application security

Controls are mapped to SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria, the HIPAA Security Rule, and NIST CSF; application security references the OWASP Top 10 and OWASP LLM Top 10.

SOC 2 · HIPAA Security · NIST CSF · OWASPEvidence

Incident Response

Does your organization have a formal security incident management and response plan?

Implemented

Yes

Incident-response procedures detect, triage by severity, contain, and remediate security events, with defined escalation paths.

NIST CSF V1.1: RS.RP-1, RS.CO-1 · NIST CSF V2.0: RC.RP-01, RS.MA-01Evidence

Does your organization have a documented process for notifying customers of incidents?

Implemented

Yes

Where a breach of unsecured PHI occurs, I AM GRACE notifies the covered entity without unreasonable delay in accordance with the BAA and 45 CFR § 164.410, and complies with other applicable breach-notification laws.

NIST CSF V1.1: RS.CO-2 · NIST CSF V2.0: RS.CO-02Evidence

Operational Resilience

Do you maintain business continuity / disaster recovery capabilities?

Implemented

Yes

Data is backed up and application releases are reproducible from version control and a scripted deploy, enabling recovery. Continuity and recovery procedures are maintained and reviewed.

NIST CSF V1.1: ID.BE-5, PR.IP-9 · NIST CSF V2.0: GV.OC-04Evidence

Do you monitor availability of your product or service?

Implemented

Yes

Service health is monitored; the deployment is fronted by a reverse proxy with process supervision and automatic restart.

Responses reflect the production configuration of the GRACE service and are consistent with the public compliance reference at /compliance. Controls that are not yet fully in place are marked In Progress or Planned until the underlying evidence exists.

See also the compliance reference, Privacy Policy, and Subscription Agreement.