[INDIA] RBI, SEBI and IRDAI · Source-code escrow and continuity obligations for critical applications[EU DORA] ICT third-party risk testing required · In force Jan 2025[PRA] SS2/21 UK · Vendor recovery evidence required[MAS] Singapore TRM · Independent vendor recoverability expected[APRA] CPS 230 Australia · Third-party continuity obligations in force[FFIEC] United States · Source-code access and software escrow addressed in third-party contracts[ENTERPRISE] Mission-critical software procurement increasingly requires continuity evidence before contract
[INDIA] RBI, SEBI and IRDAI · Source-code escrow and continuity obligations for critical applications[EU DORA] ICT third-party risk testing required · In force Jan 2025[PRA] SS2/21 UK · Vendor recovery evidence required[MAS] Singapore TRM · Independent vendor recoverability expected[APRA] CPS 230 Australia · Third-party continuity obligations in force[FFIEC] United States · Source-code access and software escrow addressed in third-party contracts[ENTERPRISE] Mission-critical software procurement increasingly requires continuity evidence before contract

ESCROW TYPES

Every type of software and technology escrow. One platform

Escrow is not one thing. Source code, SaaS environments, AI models, data assets, and intellectual property each carry different custody requirements and regulatory implications. Castler handles all of them with agentic verification and signed Proof of Recovery for every deposit and release.

Escrow scope
SourceLayer 1
DependenciesLayer 2
BuildLayer 3
RecoveryVerified
Custody mapped to signed evidence

THE COVERAGE PROBLEM

One word. Six completely different risk exposures

When a CTO says “we have escrow,” they usually mean a legal agreement storing a copy of vendor source code. That may satisfy an audit checkbox. It does not prove recovery.

The assets inside that agreement are rarely verified. Assets outside it, including SaaS environments, AI models, proprietary datasets, and licensed IP, are usually not covered at all.

This is how a covered institution still cannot recover when a vendor fails. The agreement was real. The coverage was not.

1–2

Critical vendors with any escrow agreement

0%

Typically verified against actual recovery

5

Distinct asset types requiring different custody approaches

ESCROW FORMAT

What format of escrow do you actually need?

The asset determines what must be deposited. The mandate determines what must be proven. The deployment model determines how verification must work.

RequirementTraditional EscrowSaaS / Cloud EscrowCastler Agentic Verification
What is depositedSource code archiveSource, IaC, and configurationSource and full runtime environment
Verification methodManual audit or consultant PDFLimited or noneAI-agent rebuild and replication
OutputWe have an agreementCode is storedSigned Proof of Recovery
FrequencyOne-offOccasionalEvery release
Regulatory answerCheckboxPartialFull evidence package
Time to evidence2 to 4 weeks2 to 4 weeks6 to 18 hours

Not sure which format applies? A 15-minute briefing will map your vendor estate to the right escrow type and mandate.

Book a briefing

REGULATIONS COVERED

One platform. Coverage across every mandate

Every escrow type maps to one or more active regulatory requirements.

IndiaEuropean UnionUnited KingdomSingaporeAustraliaSaudi ArabiaUnited StatesGlobal Standards
See all 17 mandates and evidence maps

GET STARTED

Find out which escrow types apply to your vendor estate

A 15-minute briefing. We map your critical vendor estate against the assets they deploy, the mandates that apply, and the coverage gaps that currently exist.

Book a 15-min briefing
ISO 27001SOC 2 Type IIPCI DSS

No spam · Reply within one business day