Give customers a clearer account of how their personal information is handled in your public cloud service. CyberVantage360 helps you apply ISO/IEC 27018 guidance to processor responsibilities, practical safeguards and evidence across the information lifecycle.
The important questions continue after collection: who can use the information, which providers receive it, how customer instructions are handled and what happens when the service ends. We help you bring those questions into the design and operation of the cloud service.
Start by distinguishing personal information handled on behalf of customers from information processed for the provider’s own purposes. That distinction shapes the review. Contract wording, technical behaviour and support procedures should tell a consistent story about the actual processing relationship.
Connect the customer’s understanding of the service with the controls and evidence behind it.
Identify the information processed for customers, its lifecycle and the systems and providers involved. Record processing roles, instructions and activities outside the proposed scope. Make ambiguities visible before incorporating them into customer assurance material.
Review how approved instructions, support access, disclosure handling and service changes are carried into operational workflows. Identify where a contractual promise requires a configuration, process or supplier commitment that is not yet in place.
Support proportionate changes for access, information handling, retention, return or deletion and downstream responsibilities. Agree how evidence will be produced when a customer asks what happened, including cases where an action depends on another provider.
Organise the scope, control decisions, tests and unresolved gaps into a clear review package. Support customer due diligence or a separately defined assurance route. Establish review triggers for a new subprocessor, service feature or processing purpose.
Use representative data journeys to test whether the privacy commitment survives each hand-off.
Plan the engagement ↗Review the service description, agreements and information flows. Distinguish customer-controlled instructions from the provider’s own activities. Identify the operational and legal questions that must be resolved before the review can conclude.
Compare the agreed expectations with configurations, procedures and supplier arrangements. Prioritise gaps and support the changes needed. Test representative access and lifecycle actions with the relevant teams and retain their results.
Produce a clear account of scope, responsibilities, evidence and limitations. Give owners recurring review tasks and change triggers, so customer-facing statements remain consistent with the service as it evolves.
These illustrative situations show how an engagement can be scoped. They are not claims about named clients or completed projects.
An illustrative platform stores customer employee records and uses a separate support tool. The engagement follows those records into support access and downstream processing, rather than limiting the review to the primary database.
An illustrative cloud service processes customer records in a regulated context. The work aligns processor practices with instructions and evidence while preserving the separate legal and sector requirements that may apply.
An illustrative buyer wants to compare provider claims. A useful assessment examines the exact service, processing role and evidence offered, and identifies the customer responsibilities that remain outside the provider’s assurance statement.
Its focus is public cloud services acting as PII processors. An organisation may also process information for its own purposes or in other service contexts. Identify those roles separately rather than presenting one review as coverage of every activity.
ISO’s catalogue identifies ISO/IEC 27018:2025 as the current edition, replacing the 2019 version. The scope and any independent assurance arrangement should state the edition being used; do not assume an unverified transition deadline.
No automatic equivalence should be claimed. The guidance can support relevant practices and evidence, but legal applicability, roles and obligations still require their own assessment. A cloud privacy control review does not remove those responsibilities.
Confirm the actual assurance scheme, issuing body, scope and any relationship to ISO 27001 before making a certification claim. ISO/IEC 27018 is a guidance standard; this consulting engagement does not promise a universal standalone accredited certification route.
Useful evidence connects the stated processing scope to actual instructions, access arrangements, supplier responsibilities and lifecycle actions. The appropriate records depend on the service. We help organise that evidence and identify where a claim is broader than the support available.
Share the service, the personal information you process and the assurance your customers need. We will help define a focused implementation and evidence review.
Source basis. ISO public catalogue for ISO/IEC 27018:2025. Edition and public-cloud PII-processor scope checked 13 October 2026. Legal duties and any assurance scheme are assessed separately.
