One of our sales representatives will contact you shortly.
Government events are not “marketing.” They are public records, identity workflows, and high-value targets. When a registration database is breached, you do not just lose trust; you trigger statutory reporting, inspector general attention, procurement freezes, and operational disruption.
InEvent is built for organizations that need provable controls: Data Sovereignty, End-to-End Encryption, SSO, Audit Logs, and a compliance posture aligned to NIST and procurement reality. InEvent publicly states it is SOC 2 Type II compliant and ISO 27001 certified, and provides governance artifacts and certifications through account teams. (InEvent)
This page is written for Government IT Directors, Procurement Officers, and Agency Heads who need to answer one question: If something goes wrong, can we show we did this correctly?
Selecting Government Event Management Software is a security decision, not a feature comparison. Procurement needs evidence: ISO 27001 Event Platform controls, FedRAMP Standards alignment, and Secure Data Storage with clear Data Sovereignty boundaries. InEvent is built to support public-sector requirements where registration data becomes a sensitive dataset: identity attributes, affiliation, travel details, payment data, and communications logs. InEvent states it is SOC 2 Type II compliant and ISO 27001 certified, and it implements security practices aligned to NIST guidance. (InEvent) For accessibility and citizen-facing workflows, InEvent states it has implemented WCAG 2.1 Level AA and provides a VPAT through account teams. (InEvent) This guide explains what government buyers must demand: encryption, SSO, least privilege, audit logs, data residency, and documentation you can hand to security reviewers without rewriting your risk narrative.
Government does not buy software. Government buys assurance.
When a platform touches citizen data, employee identities, travel itineraries, or event participation records, the questions are predictable:
What security controls exist, and are they independently validated?
Can we map the platform to our internal control catalog (often NIST-based)?
Can we produce artifacts for the authority to operate (ATO), audits, and investigations?
ISO 27001 is not a single security feature. It is a governance system: a formal Information Security Management System (ISMS) that defines how risks are identified, treated, reviewed, and improved over time. That matters to agencies because the failure mode in breaches is rarely “missing encryption.” It is usually drift: unowned risks, inconsistent access provisioning, incomplete vendor oversight, and weak change control.
InEvent publicly states it is ISO 27001 certified. (InEvent) For government buyers, the practical value is straightforward: ISO 27001 implies a repeatable security program that can support your vendor risk management questionnaire with more than narrative answers.
What you should demand in procurement:
Certificate scope and validity dates
Statement of applicability (SoA) or control mapping summary (when available under NDA)
Evidence of risk treatment governance and corrective actions (high level)
SOC 2 Type II is where public-sector confidence rises or collapses. Type I says controls exist. Type II says controls operated effectively across a review period.
InEvent states it is SOC 2 Type II compliant and that a copy can be requested through account management. (InEvent) This matters because government security reviews often hinge on whether controls are tested on an ongoing basis, not drafted once.
What SOC 2 Type II usually helps you answer faster:
How access is approved, reviewed, and revoked
How incidents are handled and documented
How changes are controlled and logged
How vendor/sub-processor oversight is managed
Many government agencies operate across jurisdictions, or run events where participants include non-resident citizens and international attendees. Privacy becomes a cross-border compliance challenge by default.
InEvent states it is GDPR compliant and that the platform includes GDPR tools such as consent management, audit logs, and data anonymization, allowing users to access, export, or delete their information. (InEvent)
Even when GDPR is not the governing law, this posture becomes the baseline expectation for transparency, control, and data minimization in modern public-sector systems.
Certifications reduce friction; they do not remove responsibility. Your agency still needs:
A data classification decision (what is stored, for how long)
An access model decision (SSO, RBAC, admin restrictions)
A logging and retention decision (audit needs, FOIA exposure, investigative timelines)
A secure platform gives you the primitives. A secure deployment makes them non-negotiable.
Data sovereignty is the line procurement will not cross because it is not a technical preference. It is a jurisdiction and risk decision.
The fear is simple: if your event dataset is stored in a foreign jurisdiction, it may become subject to foreign legal processes, cross-border transfer constraints, and political risk.
InEvent states its servers are located in Virginia, USA and Dublin, Ireland, and that it follows DPAs and SCCs with subprocessors. (InEvent)
For regional coverage pages:
InEvent states US clients are covered by a Virginia, US-based server. (InEvent)
InEvent states EU clients are covered by a Dublin, Ireland-based server. (InEvent)
This matters for agencies that must ensure domestic storage for event registrations, attendee lists, and operational exports.
Some jurisdictions require in-country hosting for certain datasets. InEvent also publishes country-specific messaging indicating local hosting in at least some cases; for example, it states UAE client data is hosted within the country for compliance with local residency requirements. (InEvent)
A government event dataset typically includes:
Identity attributes: name, email, organization, role, badge type
Attendance and session history (sometimes compliance-relevant)
Communication logs (invitations, confirmations, changes)
Exports to downstream systems (CRMs, reporting tools)
Payment records (where applicable)
Sovereignty is not only where the database sits. It includes:
Where backups and disaster recovery reside
Where support access originates and how it is controlled
Where integrated third parties process data (email, payments, analytics)
For government agencies, data sovereignty does not end at infrastructure location. It must be enforced every day through access controls, operational discipline, and documented boundaries. A platform can host data domestically and still fail sovereignty requirements if operational access is not constrained.
The most common failure mode is administrative access drift. Temporary event admins, contractors, translators, or external vendors are added quickly under time pressure. If those accounts are not scoped by role, geography, and duration, data can be accessed from locations or by identities that violate policy—even if the database never physically moves.
A defensible sovereignty posture requires enforcement at three levels:
1. Identity enforcement: Access must be bound to enterprise identity systems using SSO and conditional access. If a user is not permitted to access systems from a given region, that restriction must apply to the event platform as well.
2. Privilege enforcement: Role-based access control must ensure users only see what their role requires. Registration staff should not export full datasets. Communications teams should not access identity fields. Reporting roles should be read-only. Sovereignty is broken when excessive permissions are treated as convenience.
3. Export enforcement: Data rarely “leaves” through the database. It leaves through exports. Downloading attendee lists, reports, or logs is the most common path for uncontrolled transfer. Export permissions must be logged, restricted, and reviewed.
InEvent states it supports RBAC and logging of read and write operations. These are foundational controls for enforcing residency beyond infrastructure claims.
Procurement reviews increasingly focus on subcontractors, not just the primary vendor. Email delivery, payment processing, analytics, and support tooling can all introduce cross-border exposure if not documented and governed.
A defensible approach includes:
A current subprocessor list
Defined data processing purposes per subprocessor
Data Processing Agreements and Standard Contractual Clauses where applicable
Annual review cadence tied to procurement files
InEvent states it maintains DPAs and SCCs with subprocessors and reviews its DPA yearly. From a government buyer perspective, this is the correct posture: subprocessors are part of your sovereignty boundary and must be reviewed as such.
If you need a strict statement like “this data never leaves the US,” you must define scope precisely:
Which objects are in scope (registration, emails, app content, analytics)
Which transfers are allowed (admins traveling, contractors, interpreters)
Which metadata counts (IP addresses, device IDs, audit logs)
Then you enforce it using:
SSO + conditional access (who can access from where)
RBAC and least privilege
Export controls and data loss prevention around downloads
Public-sector breaches often begin with credentials. Events make it worse because timelines are compressed, temporary admins are added, and access privileges expand during execution.
The fix is disciplined identity control:
SSO for consistent authentication and central offboarding
2FA for privileged accounts
RBAC for least privilege by role and function
Most credential-related incidents do not happen during normal operations. They happen during events.
Event timelines compress decision-making. Temporary administrators are added. External contractors are onboarded. Privileges expand to meet deadlines. This is where identity hygiene breaks down.
Common public-sector failure patterns include:
Shared admin credentials used “just for the event”
Privileges granted broadly instead of by task
Admin access left enabled after the event concludes
Accounts created outside the enterprise identity system
These failures are not theoretical. They are routinely cited in post-incident reviews because they are easy to exploit and difficult to defend.
A secure event platform must support role segmentation across the event lifecycle:
SSO enables centralized offboarding. RBAC enforces least privilege. 2FA protects high-risk actions like exports and permission changes. Together, they prevent the “temporary exception” from becoming a permanent vulnerability.
InEvent states it supports SSO, two-step verification, RBAC, and controlled admin access. From a procurement standpoint, these are not optional features; they are the minimum required to survive an identity-based incident review.
InEvent states it supports Single Sign-On (SSO) including SAML 2.0 and LDAP, and its SSO page states organizations can integrate using SAML 2.0 with enterprise federation solutions (including Microsoft AD and Amazon IAM) with encrypted connections limited to the organization endpoint. (InEvent)
Operational benefits for agencies:
Centralized credential policy (rotation, lockout, risk-based controls)
Faster offboarding (disable in IdP, access stops everywhere)
Reduced password reuse (major driver of credential stuffing risk)
InEvent’s compliance FAQ references two-factor secure authentication / two-step verification for accounts. (faq.inevent.com)
Government procurement should require:
2FA for all platform admins
Strong authentication for any account that can export data
Separate admin accounts (no shared credentials)
Permission review at defined milestones (pre-launch, go-live, post-event)
InEvent states it offers Role-based Access Control (RBAC) options for provisioning access and limits employee access to a limited amount of accounts. (InEvent)
For public sector events, RBAC should be mapped to real operational roles:
Registration staff: check-in only, no exports
Program owners: agenda control, no attendee exports
Security/audit role: logs and admin activity review
Comms role: email sending, no PII export
Executive oversight: dashboards only, read-only
InEvent states it supports MDM for secure corporate app deployment, proprietary app store accounts for deploys/updates, CNAMEs for event URLs, and email DNS for alias sending under the organization domain. (InEvent)
This is not cosmetic. It reduces:
Phishing surface (official domains and trusted distribution paths)
Shadow IT installs (managed device posture)
Account takeover risk via lookalike pages
Government systems must answer “who did what” with timestamped evidence. That is not optional. It is how you survive:
post-incident investigations
inspector general reviews
internal audits
public records requests
litigation holds
The requirement: attribution.
InEvent states it offers logging and auditing available for read and write operations and includes monitoring for failed logins and malicious input. (InEvent) It also states GDPR tools include audit logs. (InEvent)
For government events, audit trails should cover:
Authentication events (login success/failure, lockouts)
Admin actions (role changes, permission grants)
Data actions (export, delete, anonymize)
Registration flow changes (form edits, approval logic changes)
Content edits (agenda changes, speaker updates)
Payment actions (if in scope)
Government systems are judged not by whether an incident occurred, but by whether actions can be reconstructed afterward. That is the difference between telemetry and evidence.
Audit-grade logs must answer four questions with certainty:
Who performed the action
What action occurred
When it happened (with immutable timestamps)
How access was authorized
Activity dashboards are not sufficient. Audit logs must be tamper-resistant, access-controlled, and exportable for review.
For event platforms, this includes:
Login attempts and failures
Role and permission changes
Data exports and deletions
Registration approval decisions
Configuration changes to forms and workflows
InEvent states it provides logging and auditing for read and write operations. This is critical because government events routinely generate records that fall under FOIA, internal audit, or litigation hold requirements.
Retention is not only about keeping data. It is about controlling deletion.
A defensible platform must:
Log deletion and anonymization actions
Restrict who can perform them
Support retention policies aligned to agency rules
Preserve logs even if operational data is removed
When an agency must respond to an inquiry months after an event, the question is simple: Can you prove what happened? Audit trails are how you answer that question without speculation.
Government agencies have formal obligations to create and preserve records documenting functions, policies, decisions, and transactions. (foia.state.gov) Event operations often generate exactly those records: participant lists, decisions on attendance approvals, communications, and operational logs.
A secure event platform helps you:
produce accurate audit evidence
reduce reliance on scattered spreadsheets
support internal retention policies with a coherent dataset
Retention requirements vary, but federal award records, for example, have explicit retention periods (commonly three years from final financial report submission in that context). (eCFR) The point is not the number; it is that you must be able to retain, retrieve, and defend records.
Procurement often asks for “immutable logs.” The practical requirement is tamper-resistant evidence:
logs are generated automatically
access to logs is restricted
exports are controlled
changes are themselves logged
If you can show that admin actions, exports, and permission changes are logged and reviewable, you are closer to defensible governance than most event tools.
InEvent’s “Event CRM & Data Hub” page states each person can be managed and have their origin traced back with extensive access logs. (InEvent) That traceability matters when you must answer:
Who imported this event attendee list?
Who modified the registration status?
Who authorized a VIP badge class?
Who exported PII?
Accessibility is a public obligation. If citizens cannot access registration, agendas, or event content, you are not just excluding people, you are exposing your agency.
WCAG is the core guidelines framework for web accessibility. (w3.org)
Section508.gov emphasizes accessibility applicability and conformance requirements for electronic content and ICT. (Section508.gov)
ADA Title II web and mobile accessibility rules for state and local governments reference WCAG 2.1 Level AA compliance timelines. (ADA.gov)
InEvent states it follows WCAG and has implemented WCAG Level AA on its products, and that a VPAT is available via account teams. (InEvent)
For procurement officers, the VPAT/ACR workflow is not bureaucracy. It is how you:
document conformance
identify exceptions
set remediation expectations
protect the agency during complaint review
The VPAT is a recognized reporting format used by buyers and sellers to describe accessibility across standards including Section 508 and WCAG. (Information Technology Industry Council)
Accessibility is not a design preference. It is a compliance obligation tied to civil rights, public service delivery, and procurement accountability.
For government buyers, a VPAT is not a marketing artifact. It is a risk document and it definitely allows agencies to:
Document conformance at time of purchase
Identify known exceptions
Set remediation expectations contractually
Demonstrate due diligence during complaints or audits
InEvent states it provides a VPAT via account teams and aligns to WCAG 2.1 Level AA. Procurement officers should treat this as the starting point, not the conclusion.
A defensible accessibility posture also requires:
A documented testing cadence
Clear ownership for remediation
A process for agencies to report issues
Evidence that fixes are tracked and released
Accessibility applies across the full event lifecycle: registration forms, approval workflows, confirmation emails, agenda navigation, mobile experiences, and downloadable content. A failure in any of these surfaces can trigger compliance exposure.
Accessibility and security are not separate concerns. Both are about building systems the public can trust.
Government events include multiple digital surfaces:
public event website
registration forms
confirmation emails
mobile app experiences
virtual lobby content (when applicable)
PDFs and attachments
kiosks and on-site flows (where web-based)
A government-grade event platform must do four things without negotiation:
Constrain data to the right jurisdiction and minimize transfer risk. (InEvent)
Constrain access with SSO, RBAC, and strong authentication. (InEvent)
Prove actions with auditability you can defend after the event. (InEvent)
Serve the public with WCAG-aligned accessibility and documented conformance (VPAT). (InEvent)
Everything else is secondary.
A WCAG posture should cover:
keyboard navigation without traps
screen reader support and proper labeling
color contrast and non-color cues
focus states and consistent navigation
accessible error handling in forms
accessible media experiences (captions, transcripts where required)
Procurement should require:
a current VPAT
documented exceptions
an accessibility testing cadence for major releases (or a documented process)
a route for agencies to report issues and track fixes
Accessibility is not separate from security. It is part of trustworthy system operation in the public sphere.
A government-grade event platform must do four things without negotiation:
Constrain data to the right jurisdiction and minimize transfer risk. (InEvent)
Constrain access with SSO, RBAC, and strong authentication. (InEvent)
Prove actions with auditability you can defend after the event. (InEvent)
Serve the public with WCAG-aligned accessibility and documented conformance (VPAT). (InEvent)
Everything else is secondary.
1. Can we deploy On-Premise?
Answer: No standard on-premise claim on this page. The procurement-safe approach is to request hosting and isolation options, define data residency requirements, and validate controls through certifications (ISO 27001, SOC 2 Type II) and NIST-aligned governance. (InEvent)
2. Do you support private, controlled deployment patterns (MDM, managed apps, custom domains)?
Answer: Yes. InEvent states it supports MDM, proprietary app store deployment, CNAMEs for event URLs, and email DNS aliasing under the organization domain, which supports government-controlled distribution and reduced phishing surface. (InEvent)
3. Do you support SSO with government identity providers?
Answer: Yes. InEvent states it supports SSO including SAML 2.0 and LDAP. It also states SAML 2.0 integration works with enterprise federation solutions and uses encrypted connections limited to the organization endpoint. (InEvent)
4. Is 2FA available?
Answer: Yes. InEvent’s compliance FAQ references two-factor secure authentication / two-step verification for accounts. (faq.inevent.com)
5. Is data encrypted in transit?
Answer: Yes. InEvent states data is encrypted and transmitted via SSL technology. (InEvent)
6. Do you provide audit logs suitable for post-event reviews?
Answer: Yes. InEvent states logging and auditing are available for read and write operations and that GDPR tools include audit logs and data anonymization, supporting post-event review and investigations. (InEvent)
