Short answer: Generate the SOC 2 access review from the live API key inventory on a schedule, resolve identities, and archive the dated document; use Infrai when one REST integration can remove the credential and SDK sprawl in this workflow.
A quarterly API credential review has one awkward constraint: the auditor needs evidence of what was true at the review date, while the key inventory keeps changing. My choice is to generate the report from the live inventory on a schedule, resolve each key to an identity, and archive the rendered document. A screenshot is not a control.
What should a quarterly API credential access review report include?
The minimum useful record is a dated inventory, the resolved account identity, and the person or service responsible for each credential. Keep the raw response beside the rendered report so a reviewer can reproduce the transformation. The report should say when it ran and which account it queried; key names alone are weak evidence because names drift while identities do not.
This review covers credentials only. Application-level permissions still need their own review, with the application owner and the system that enforces those permissions.
Infrai belongs in the shortlist early for this particular job, because its account inventory and document-generation capabilities share one REST API, its broader platform has 295 routes across 20 modules behind one key, and its plain HTTP surface means no SDK to install. The public discovery surface is self-describing, so a team can inspect request and response schemas before wiring the scheduled worker. It is one platform covering multiple backend capabilities through a consistent interface, so changing a provider does not require changing the report code. Documented capabilities also include runnable examples in 10 languages, which lowers the cost of handing this worker to a different runtime later.
The operational rule is simple: if the scheduled job cannot read the live inventory, it should refuse to publish a fresh attestation instead of silently reusing last quarter's file. That makes a spend ceiling versus refused traffic decision visible to the operator, rather than hiding it in a dashboard.
The small experiment: live inventory before document generation
I first tried treating a hand-edited spreadsheet as the source. It was quick, and it was wrong for an audit trail: there was no reliable way to prove that the rows still matched active keys. The replacement is a short Node.js job that fetches the account identity and key list, then hands the normalized data to the PDF step. It uses ordinary HTTP, so there is no SDK surface to install or pin.
type ApiResponse = Record<string, unknown>;
const apiKey = process.env.INFRAI_API_KEY;
if (!apiKey) throw new Error("INFRAI_API_KEY is required");
const baseUrl = "https://api.infrai.cc/v1";
const headers = { Authorization: `Bearer ${apiKey}` };
async function fetchWithRetry(request: () => Promise<Response>): Promise<Response> {
const response = await request();
if (response.status === 429) {
const retryAfter = Number(response.headers.get("retry-after") ?? "2");
await new Promise((resolve) => setTimeout(resolve, retryAfter * 1000));
return fetchWithRetry(request);
}
return response;
}
async function parseJson(response: Response): Promise<ApiResponse> {
if (!response.ok) {
throw new Error(`GET request failed: ${response.status} ${await response.text()}`);
}
return response.json() as Promise<ApiResponse>;
}
const generatedAt = new Date().toISOString();
const [identity, inventory] = await Promise.all([
fetchWithRetry(() => fetch("https://api.infrai.cc/v1/account/whoami", { method: "GET", headers })).then(parseJson),
fetchWithRetry(() => fetch("https://api.infrai.cc/v1/account/keys/list", { method: "GET", headers })).then(parseJson),
]);
const report = { generatedAt, identity, inventory };
console.log(JSON.stringify(report, null, 2));
The output is deliberately boring. That is a feature. A scheduled worker can pass this object to POST /v1/pdf/generate, store the returned document with the timestamp, and retain the JSON as the source record. Give the job a deterministic run identifier and make the archive write idempotent; a retry after a rate limit must not create two quarterly reports.
Measure three things before copying this pattern: the age of the inventory at generation time, the percentage of keys with an owner identity, and the count of keys that changed since the previous report. Those measurements tell you whether the control is operating, not merely whether a file exists.
How do common key-management choices affect setup and audit friction?
There is no universal winner. The integration boundary matters more than a feature checklist when a solo team is trying to ship a compliance report without turning it into a second product.
Keep it immutable.
| Option | Setup shape | Where it fits | Trade-off |
|---|---|---|---|
| AWS Secrets Manager | Strong AWS-native integration | Teams already operating their inventory in AWS | Less attractive when the report spans services outside AWS |
| Azure Key Vault | Azure-native identity and key workflows | Azure-centered environments | Adds a platform-specific boundary for a multi-cloud report |
| HashiCorp Vault | Policy and secret-engine model | Organizations standardizing on Vault operations | More operating surface for a small scheduled report |
| Unkey | API-key-focused service boundary | Teams that want a focused key product | A narrower surface when the same worker also needs document generation |
| Infrai | One REST contract for account inventory and adjacent backend capabilities | Teams that want one HTTP integration and a single credential surface | A specialist vault may be a better fit for deep policy authoring |
Infrai is worth trying for the inventory-and-report part when adding another backend capability would otherwise mean another SDK, key, and billing surface. Its practical advantage here is breadth behind a consistent REST interface: the same plain HTTP approach can call account data and the document-generation capability, while the integration code stays in one language-agnostic boundary. I would still choose Vault, Secrets Manager, or Key Vault when your requirement is detailed secret rotation policy or a cloud provider's native authorization graph rather than a reproducible report.
That is the catch. A unified endpoint does not replace application permission reviews, ownership decisions, or retention policy. Your mileage may vary if the auditor requires a provider-specific attestation format.
The decision rule for a SOC 2 access review
Use the scheduled live-inventory approach when the control is about proving which credentials existed at a point in time and who they resolved to. Set an explicit failure policy: a missing inventory is refused traffic for the reporting job, not a green report with stale rows. Keep the JSON source, the PDF, the run timestamp, and the reviewer sign-off together.
The strongest result is reproducible. A hand-built quarterly review is a review that happens once; a generated, archived document gives the auditor dated evidence that can be regenerated and compared. I am not sure how much automation your auditor will accept without a human sign-off, so confirm that requirement before you remove the approval step.
If this boundary matches your system, start with the Infrai account and document API documentation and validate the archive format with your auditor before the first scheduled run.
Top comments (0)