Trust
Security approach for LegalDoc.app
Direct answer: LegalDoc.app secures legal workflow data with encryption, ownership-scoped access, signed artifacts, and auditable operational controls.
Core control design
Security content is useful only when it maps to real execution paths. The controls listed here are tied to product behavior in document generation, contract review processing, artifact delivery, and admin operations.
Encryption and transport
Data is encrypted in transit with TLS and encrypted at rest through provider-managed storage controls.
Access boundaries
Session and account ownership controls scope drafts, reviews, and exports to authorized owners.
Auditability
Core workflow events are logged for traceability, including review runs, exports, and intake updates.
Operational safeguards
Queue retries, dead-letter handling, and health endpoints support operational reliability and incident response.
Threat model focus areas
Identity and session abuse
Ownership-scoped data queries, guarded admin endpoints, and session validation checks on protected routes.
Artifact exposure risk
Signed URLs with expiry, strict object key ownership checks, and export status gating before download.
Processing reliability
Queue retry policy, dead-letter capture, and worker readiness checks for review/export pipelines.
Operational drift
Audit logs for sensitive actions and recurring control reviews tied to incident response runbooks.
Control validation model
Security controls in legal document automation software are only reliable if they are continuously validated against real workflows. This validation model translates high-level controls into recurring checks that engineering, legal operations, and security teams can execute before and after releases.
Identity and access
Test owner-scoping across user, guest, and admin paths before every major release.
Export artifact handling
Verify signed URL expiry behavior, authorization checks, and storage key isolation using production-like test flows.
Queue and worker resilience
Run failure-injection drills for review/export jobs and confirm dead-letter and retry telemetry are visible.
Monitoring and response
Map alerts to named responders and document expected mitigation action for each alert class.
Reference frameworks
Security controls are evaluated against broadly accepted frameworks. For context, see NIST Cybersecurity Framework and OWASP ASVS.
Related pages: Privacy and Compliance.
Security operations checklist
- Validate runtime health endpoints for app and worker services.
- Monitor queue retries and dead-letter events for processing failures.
- Review audit log anomalies tied to export and intake operations.
- Run periodic control checks for storage access boundaries and signed URL expiry.
Incident response sequence
- Triage: confirm scope of affected workflows and isolate impacted queues, APIs, or storage paths.
- Containment: pause high-risk operations where needed, preserve logs, and enforce temporary controls.
- Recovery: restore service path with verification checks on data integrity, entitlement, and artifact access.
- Post-incident review: capture root cause, remediation tasks, ownership, and deadline in a tracked corrective action log.
Release security gates
- Verify authorization checks on new API routes and admin endpoints before deployment.
- Confirm signed URL behavior for newly introduced artifact types and expiration policies.
- Run queue failure drills for any new worker path and inspect dead-letter observability.
- Update incident runbook entries when operational ownership or escalation paths change.
Security review expectations by change type
Workflow logic changes
Re-validate authorization boundaries, queue isolation, and audit-log coverage on every affected path.
Storage and export changes
Test signed URL behavior, object access scoping, and expiry enforcement with production-like artifacts.
Security reviews should be recorded with date, owner, scope, and outcome so teams can trace when controls were verified and why release decisions were approved. This improves incident investigation quality and reduces ambiguity during assurance reviews.
Teams using this sequence reduce recovery variance because responders have shared expectations for triage evidence, containment decisions, and post-incident corrective actions. Pair this with your compliance cadence so remediations become part of normal operating governance rather than one-off exception work.
Security FAQ
What security controls matter most for legal document automation software?
Encryption, access boundaries, audit logging, and reliable failure handling are the core controls that directly affect legal workflows.
How are downloads protected?
Exports are generated asynchronously and returned through signed URLs that expire after a short validity window.
How are failures handled in review and export pipelines?
Failures use retry/backoff with dead-letter capture so teams can diagnose and recover without hidden data loss.
Does this page guarantee certification status?
No. This page describes current controls and should be interpreted with your own security review requirements.
Security posture should be reviewed as an operating system, not a static checklist. As workflows and integrations change, control validation and incident readiness should be re-tested to keep assurance claims aligned with current implementation reality.
Mature teams run recurring tabletop exercises for queue failure, storage access anomalies, and webhook integrity events. Drills should verify alert quality, responder handoff speed, and evidence capture completeness. These exercises expose operational gaps before real incidents and make remediation prioritization more objective.
Store drill outcomes with owners and due dates to ensure remediation does not stall after the exercise.
Periodic rehearsal quality is often the strongest predictor of incident response consistency under real production pressure.
Include rehearsal findings in release planning so known security gaps are resolved before feature expansion.