--- title: "FAQ: security and data protection" summary: "Eight questions a security review asks: tenant isolation, retention windows, what erasure does and does not reach, which sub-processors receive what, and the certifications and agreements that do not exist yet." canonical_url: https://entitybind.com/faq/security last_updated: 2026-10-15 copy: full --- # FAQ: security and data protection > Eight questions a security review asks: tenant isolation, retention windows, what erasure does and does not reach, which sub-processors receive what, and the certifications and agreements that do not exist yet. Canonical page: https://entitybind.com/faq/security Last updated: 2026-10-15 ## Security and data protection, answered in full. Written for the person who has to defend a company master to people who did not build it. Quote any of it. Isolation, retention, erasure, sub-processors and what reaches a model provider, each answered with the mechanism that enforces it. The first answer in the group is the one most vendors bury: there is no SOC 2 and no ISO 27001. - 9: questions on this subject, each answered in full - 2: pages these answers are worked out on, all linked below - 74: questions across the whole FAQ Self-service. Create your workspace online and verify your email to start matching company records. Free starts with 300 credits and no card. Paid monthly plans are available in workspace Billing; VAT is added where applicable. Usage is tracked without automatic overage charges. [Trust and security](https://entitybind.com/trust) ## Everything we are asked about security, retention and data protection Open the ones you need. Each answer is written to be read on its own, so a figure arrives with the population behind it — the fixture it was measured on and the rows it covers — and still holds when you paste it into an email. ### Do you have SOC 2? No. Not SOC 2 Type I, not Type II, not ISO 27001. It has not been started, no auditor is engaged and there is no target date. There is also no third-party penetration test and no bug bounty; the security review is internal and adversarial, but it is our own. If your procurement floor requires any of those, you cannot buy this today, and it is worth establishing that on the first call. What does exist is a trust document naming the file, test or architectural decision that enforces every claim it makes, so each control can be checked rather than taken on trust. The gap between that and SOC 2 is the independent attestation that the controls operated over a period. ### How is our data isolated from another customer's? By application-enforced tenant scoping, and the exact shape of that matters. Every table carries a tenant id; every persistence method requires it as a keyword argument with no default, so a forgotten argument raises rather than silently reading a shared tenant; reads scope in SQL before retrieval rather than filtering after it; and the replay cache is keyed on a composite primary key, so byte-identical content from two customers resolves to two separate entities. A wrong-tenant read is a 404, never a 403. What it is not is database-enforced: one database, one schema, one runtime role, no row-level security, so a SQL-injection defect would cross every tenant at once. The internal workbench sits outside that guarantee. ### What happens when we ask you to delete something? Erasure runs per entity or per record, in one transaction across eight targets: the entity's facts, the keys that index it for matching, every submitted record it holds, open review items embedding one of those records, settled review items redacted rather than deleted, the replay fingerprints, cached responses quoting it, and the entity row. There is deliberately no bulk delete and no "delete my tenant" button, because a single call that empties a tenant turns one mistyped id into an unrecoverable loss. One limit to read before you rely on it: the decision audit trail survives, and a surviving decision row can carry cited evidence and an adjudication rationale naming the company. It expires on the retention window rather than on request. ### How long do you keep data? Four separate retention windows, each its own command — decisions, records and usage default to 2,555 days, and open review items to 365. Seven years is chosen to clear the money laundering regulations' five-year duty to retain the evidence behind a customer due-diligence decision; below about five years, a know-your-business customer loses what they are legally required to produce. The windows are environment variables you can change: set record retention to 90 days and you have 90-day retention. One caveat outranks the rest, and our own trust document states it first: nothing purges itself. Every window is a scheduled job an operator has to run, and an unscheduled deployment retains everything for ever. ### Does our data go to an LLM provider? Yes, on the records that reach adjudication or research, and it is worth being exact about what travels. The adjudication prompt renders the candidate record's populated fields — including the submitted address — plus the free-text context and the entries of the `extra` map, so a CRM column mapped into `extra` reaches the model verbatim. The research agent uses the provider's own server-side web tools, so search queries and fetched URLs reach them too; if "which companies is this customer looking at" is sensitive, that signal reaches them. Two things do not exist and should not be assumed: a zero-data-retention addendum, and any code-level enforcement of the provider's not-used-for-training term, which is contractual. Setting `depth=probabilistic` sends nothing at all. ### Who are your sub-processors? One model provider and a set of public registers, published as a table and kept honest by a build-failing test that reads the request URL off every wired adapter and fails continuous integration if a host is missing from the list. The registers are Companies House and its document service, GLEIF, SEC EDGAR, INSEE SIRENE via the French state search service, Brønnøysund, plus wired adapters for Finland, Czechia, Poland, EUIPO and USPTO. There is no reseller, and no analytics or session-recording tag anywhere in the product. One disclosure a reviewer needs before mapping a country column: the French service is on by default and needs no credential, so a record stating no country will have its name sent there unless you disable it. ### Where does it run, and can we run it ourselves? The artefact is one container plus a database, configured entirely by environment variables, and it runs wherever it is run — including a deployment we run for a customer. There is no managed multi-region offering and no region to pick on a form, so data residency here is a conversation about where that deployment sits rather than a checkbox somebody ticks. One thing not to infer from that: the sub-processor calls do not move with it. A deployment sitting in the EU still reaches a US-hosted model provider on the records that escalate, US federal hosts for SEC filings, UK and global hosts for Companies House and GLEIF, and a French state service for SIRENE. The only setting that sends nothing anywhere is the probabilistic depth cap. ### Can you sign a DPA? Not one that is already drafted and waiting, so there is no request-our-DPA button to press. A documented data processing agreement, standard contractual clauses and a zero-data-retention addendum with the model provider are all prerequisites for a regulated EU buyer, and all three are outstanding. The published position covers what the code does — the erasure and portability endpoints, the retention reasoning, the licence handling, tenant scoping and the sub-processor list — and stops there rather than asserting a lawful basis, a controller or processor determination, or a transfer mechanism it has not documented. Send the questions to our security address and you will get a straight answer, usually the same week. ### Can you prove you deleted something? Yes, for an engagement-scoped erasure. The maintenance command signs its receipt with a public-key signature, Ed25519, as well as an HMAC, so your own auditor can verify it against a published public key rather than take our word for it, and outside development the command refuses to run without a signing key. What is not on offer is automatic expiry: nothing deletes itself on a timer, so the claim is "we erase on request and hand you proof anyone can check" rather than "your data expires automatically". One limit: a redacted settled review item is still a row recording that an abstention happened and how it was settled. If your erasure duty extends to no trace at all, we do not meet it. When the answer depends on what your own rows look like, it has to be measured on your file. [Start free →](https://app.entitybind.com/app?signup=1) ## The pages behind these answers Each answer above is the short version. These pages carry the working: the tables, the payloads, the coverage rows and the caveats an answer can only point at. - [Security and trust](https://entitybind.com/trust): Every claim beside the code, test or practice that makes it true. - [Privacy](https://entitybind.com/privacy): The controller and processor split, retention, and how to exercise a right. ### Evidence basis Internal fixtures only. The historical 2026-08-29 per-tier recording covers 317 GB companies with identifier-rich arrivals seeding the catalogue first; the context tier includes country and registered-town prose. Its legacy replay has no full-prompt-verified calls and cannot certify current calibration. The September 5 CI reports cover 1,176 labelled pairs and 705 records over 250 companies using offline stubs. These are not independent customer holdouts or live production validation; the 99% minimum-input product target remains unmet. Scope is company and organisation identity only — not people, vessels, bank-account ownership, sanctions or emissions. Results may not be used for eligibility decisions about individuals, including employment, credit and tenancy. [Every figure, its population and what it does not show →](https://entitybind.com/accuracy) ## Built for one job. Wrong for several others. ### Built for Teams with a company master they have to defend — an MDM or stewardship queue, a CRM after a migration or a merger, a supplier file before a payment run, or counterparty onboarding that has to survive an audit. ### Wrong for Buying breadth as the product: we hold a fraction of an incumbent’s records and are not building a global company graph. Entity Bind resolves companies and organisations only. It does not resolve people, vessels, bank-account ownership, sanctions exposure, emissions or geolocation, and its results may not be used for eligibility decisions about individuals, including employment, credit and tenancy. ## 74 questions, in 8 groups Every question this site answers sits in one of these groups. If you are not sure which one covers yours, the index carries all 74 in a single page you can search in the browser. - [Entity resolution basics](https://entitybind.com/faq/basics) (9) - [Accuracy and evidence](https://entitybind.com/faq/accuracy) (12) - [The API](https://entitybind.com/faq/api) (11) - [The MCP server](https://entitybind.com/faq/mcp) (5) - [Pricing and credits](https://entitybind.com/faq/pricing) (8) - [Coverage and sources](https://entitybind.com/faq/coverage) (9) - [Buying and engagement](https://entitybind.com/faq/buying) (11) [All 74 questions in one page →](https://entitybind.com/faq) Previous: [Coverage and sources](https://entitybind.com/faq/coverage) · Next: [Buying and engagement](https://entitybind.com/faq/buying) If none of these groups covers your question, send the file it is about — or write to hello@entitybind.com and we will answer it here. [Talk to us →](https://entitybind.com/contact) ## Start with your own company records. Every answer above is the general case. Create your Free workspace and inspect your own company CSV to see which rows match and which need review. Contact us for an assisted audit of existing matches. We write nothing to your systems. [Start free](https://app.entitybind.com/app?signup=1) · [Plans and prices](https://entitybind.com/pricing) 300 credits. No card. For a guided review of your file, explore [the Merge Safety Sprint](https://entitybind.com/audit-pack). --- This is the Markdown copy of https://entitybind.com/faq/security, assembled from the same data the page renders and carrying every sentence, table row, figure and question the page's main content carries. The HTML page is canonical; it adds the layout, the navigation and the interactive parts (the ask panel, the forms), which a copy can name but not run. Every page on the site, with a line on each: https://entitybind.com/llms.txt.