Spider Digital Group
Start

Regulated & enterprise

Web design for regulated industries, built to survive the security review

In a regulated company, every system gets reviewed except one. The marketing site sits outside the security perimeter, built by whoever was cheapest, until a vendor questionnaire or an auditor's scope lands on it and nobody can answer question four.

Start the briefSee the work
492URLs security-auditedSecurity audit with SOC 2 control mapping
0Critical or high findingsSame audit, 43 findings in total
4 to 7Runtime dependenciesA marketing build here, start to finish

What we do about it

We build the site so those answers already exist: server defenses commented with the control they map to, a documentation pack you can hand over, and privacy surfaces that describe what the code genuinely does.

The problem

Where a template lets you down.

Four places the marketing site becomes the finding nobody planned for.

Nobody security-reviewed the marketing site

It was a marketing expense, so it never entered the review. Then a customer sends a vendor security questionnaire, or an auditor pulls your public surface into scope, and the asset with your brand on it is the one nobody can speak to.

A plugin stack is an attack surface you inherited

Patchstack logged 11,334 new WordPress vulnerabilities in 2025, up 42% year over year, with 91% of them in plugins. Black Duck's 2026 OSSRA report found audited commercial codebases carry 581 open source vulnerabilities on average. Every dependency you did not choose is one you still have to answer for.

The privacy policy and the code disagree

An independent March 2026 audit found all 11 consent platforms it tested failed to consistently block advertising cookies after opt-out, and 194 of 242 ad-tech vendors ignored Global Privacy Control. A policy page that promises behavior the site does not perform is the single easiest finding to write up.

There is nothing to hand the auditor

No security policy, no incident response plan, no risk register, no subprocessor list, no record of how a change reached production. The work may well have been done carefully, but careful and evidenced are not the same thing when someone is asking for artifacts.

What we build

Built to survive the review.

Defences commented with the control they map to, and a documentation pack written for your build.

Server defenses mapped to the control they satisfy

Our contact route is written and commented against CC6.1: a raw-body cap enforced before JSON parse, every field length-bounded, and type-confusion-safe coercion. An auditor can read the code and trace it to the control instead of taking our word for the intent.

Full header suites and a CSP shipped responsibly

CC6.6 and CC6.7 handled in the framework config: a complete security header suite and a Content Security Policy shipped Report-Only first with a documented promotion path, its allow-list tuned to the exact third parties your site actually calls. No wildcard, no unsafe-inline left in as a shortcut.

Logging and data minimization by design

CC7.2 logging on the contact route so submission events are observable, and P4.1 data minimization in middleware so the site stops collecting what it has no reason to hold. The cheapest way to protect a field is to never receive it.

Change management an auditor can follow

CC8.1 lives in a written RELEASING.md runbook: a clean tree, green typecheck, lint, and build gates, an npm audit pass, release tagging, and deployment-ID-to-commit-SHA traceability. Someone can pick any deployment and reconstruct exactly what shipped and when.

Proof

Work behind the hardening.

Real builds, live, with the services each one actually bought.

See every case study

Standard on every build

Included, with no line item.

These are not upgrades. They are what leaving the studio looks like.

  • You own the code
  • Loads fast on a phone
  • WCAG 2.1 AA with a public statement
  • Handoff docs so your team ships without us
See the whole standard

Before you ask

What regulated & enterprise buyers ask first.

Are you SOC 2 certified?
No, and be careful with any web studio that says otherwise. Spider Digital Group is not SOC 2 audited and has no SOC 2 report, and a website cannot be SOC 2 compliant in the first place, because SOC 2 audits an organization and its controls, not a page. What we do is build your site so it holds up inside your auditor's scope: server defenses commented with the control they map to across CC6.1, CC6.6, CC6.7, CC7.2, CC8.1, and P4.1, plus the documentation to evidence them. Your auditor makes the determination; we make sure the build gives them something to trace.
A customer sent us a vendor security questionnaire. Can your build answer it?
That is most of the reason this page exists. You get a written security policy, an incident response plan, a risk register, an operations runbook, and a subprocessor disclosure, alongside a build with a full security header suite, a tuned Content Security Policy, bounded and type-safe input handling on every server route, and a release process with deployment-to-commit traceability. Send us the questionnaire and we will tell you honestly which answers the build already satisfies and which ones are organizational rather than technical.
What documentation actually ships with the site?
SECURITY-POLICY, INCIDENT-RESPONSE, RISK-REGISTER, RUNBOOK, and a subprocessor disclosure, plus a RELEASING.md change-management runbook covering the gates a release has to pass: clean tree, green typecheck, lint and build, npm audit, release tagging, and deployment-ID-to-commit-SHA traceability. They are written for your build and your third parties, not pasted from a template, which is the difference between a document and an artifact.
Will our privacy pages match what the site actually does?
That is the design goal, and it is why we write the policy as typed data derived from real code behavior rather than as prose bolted on at launch. Consent components return null until consent is granted, so nothing fires beforehand. Global Privacy Control and Do Not Track are honored as binding opt-outs. Consent records are versioned and timestamped. This matters because 12 US states have required businesses to honor universal opt-out signals since January 1, 2026, and the CPPA issued a record $1.35 million fine against Tractor Supply in September 2025 over opt-out failures.
What does this cost, and how long does it take?
Most of our projects run $5k to $50k over one to three months. The hardening, the header suite, the consent architecture, and the documentation pack are engineering work we scope explicitly rather than bury, so you can see what the compliance surface is costing you. Tell us who is reviewing the site, whether that is an auditor, a security team, or a regulator, and we will scope to that and reply within one business day.

If your website is about to land in a vendor security review or an auditor's scope, we would rather build it that way from the start than retrofit it under a deadline. Send us the questionnaire or the finding, and we will reply within one business day.

Services used here

Compliance engineeringTracking & identityWeb apps & portalsPerformance

Tell us what the site needs to do.

Six questions, no call required. You get a written scope, a fixed price, and a timeline from the person who will build it.

Start the briefOr compare the six industries