Google Workspace Security Audit Checklist

A useful checklist should cover administrator accounts, privileged access, multifactor authentication, user lifecycle processes, OAuth and third-party application access, Gmail protections, forwarding and delegation, external sharing, Drive permissions, device management, logging, alerting, backup considerations, incident response, and security policies. The review should also record ownership, evidence, risk, and remediation status rather than simply marking settings as reviewed.

Audit frequency should reflect organizational risk, change volume, regulatory obligations, customer requirements, and the sensitivity of information stored in Google Workspace. A formal review can be complemented by continuous monitoring of important changes, privileged access, suspicious activity, and control status. Reviews should also occur after major organizational changes, security incidents, acquisitions, or significant changes to applications and integrations.

Review administrator roles, super administrator access, delegated administration, account lifecycle processes, recovery options, multifactor authentication enforcement, security investigation privileges, audit-log access, alert configuration, and administrative change tracking. The goal is to confirm that privileged access is limited to appropriate personnel, protected with strong controls, regularly reviewed, and supported by evidence that can be examined during an investigation or audit.

Review external sharing policies, link-sharing settings, shared drives, ownership, group-based access, sensitive-data exposure, and the use of personal or unmanaged accounts. Examine whether access is aligned with business need and whether departed users, contractors, and third-party applications retain unnecessary permissions. Findings should distinguish legitimate collaboration from excessive access and assign specific owners for remediation.

Yes. Gmail is a major identity and attack path, so the review should examine phishing and malware protections, authentication controls, spoofing defenses, forwarding rules, delegation, suspicious-message handling, user reporting, mailbox access, and investigation processes. Email findings should be considered alongside identity, endpoint, and cloud activity so a compromised account or malicious message is not assessed in isolation.

Document each finding with the affected control or setting, observed condition, business or security impact, supporting evidence, risk context, recommended action, responsible owner, and remediation status. Avoid treating every configuration difference as equally important. Prioritization should account for exposure, privilege, data sensitivity, exploitability, existing compensating controls, and the organization’s obligations to customers, insurers, regulators, or auditors.

It can provide evidence for portions of a broader compliance program, especially controls involving access management, authentication, monitoring, data protection, change management, and incident response. It does not by itself establish compliance with a framework. The findings should be mapped to applicable requirements, connected to policies and operating procedures, and supported by evidence collection and ongoing control monitoring.

Outside expertise is useful when internal teams lack time, specialized experience, independent review capacity, or confidence that findings will be defensible to leadership, customers, insurers, or auditors. An external team can assess configuration and process gaps, connect them to broader cyber risk, and help build a prioritized remediation roadmap. DeepSeas also offers related risk assessment, compliance readiness, and security program development capabilities.