5 Red Flags in Third-Party Security Questionnaires
And How to Fix Them
Executive Summary
Third-party security questionnaires may not present an accurate representation of the overall risk posed by a vendor. There are five key red flags that may indicate a lack of controls, processes, and accountability. The five key red flags that need to be addressed include:
“Yes, We Have It” Answers Without Evidence
Answers That Contradict Each Other
Vague Answers Instead of Specific Controls
Answers Without Alignment to the Service Provided
Vendors That Fail to Take Accountability
Each of these red flags requires concise and actionable steps to address them and mitigate the overall risk to the organization.
1. “Yes, We Have It” Without Evidence
What It Looks Like:
• Generic or template policies
• Certifications lacking scope details
• Missing screenshots, reports, or process docs
• One-line descriptions of complex controls
Strategic Impact:
False confidence can mask existing gaps in operations, compliance, or security.
How to Fix:
Tiered vendor risk validation with higher-risk vendors:
• Specific policy excerpts
• Screenshots or anonymized samples
• Certification scope and renewal dates
• Service-specific documentation
2. Contradictory Answers
What It Looks Like:
• MFA mandatory but operational notes say “password-only”
• Claims of encryption with legacy systems “pending upgrades”
• SOC 2 claims paired with manual log reviews
• Access control described but offboarding missing
Strategic Impact:
Inconsistencies can indicate inadequate internal controls, which may result in violations or audit failures.
How to Fix:
Highlight contradictions and request reconciliation via:
• Short written clarification
• Updated documentation
• Quick follow-up call
3. Vague Phrases Instead of Specific Controls
What It Looks Like:
• “We follow best practices”
• “Industry-standard security applied”
• “Appropriate encryption is used”
• “Access granted on a need basis”
Strategic Impact:
Vague responses hide immature processes, leading to unpredictable risk and operational exposure.
How to Fix:
Ask for specifics:
• Which standards or best practices?
• Type of encryption?
• Exact criteria for access and approvals?
• Frequency of permission reviews?
4. Misalignment to the Service Provided
What It Looks Like:
• Cloud vendor discusses office security but skips tenant isolation
• Payroll vendor details data centers but ignores employee exit data retention
• SaaS company shares generic policies but omits module-level data flows
Strategic Impact:
Service-specific gaps can lead to blind spots regarding business-critical operations and regulations.
How to Fix:
– Require service-specific evidence:
• Data flow diagrams
• Environment-specific control breakdowns (corporate, production, customer)
– Vendors unable to contextualize should be flagged as higher risk.
5. Avoiding Accountability for Remediation or Timelines
What It Looks Like:
• “We are evaluating options.”
• “It’s on our roadmap.”
• “We plan to improve in the future.”
Strategic Impact:
Ambiguity indicates persistent risk and undermines ongoing monitoring, potentially exposing the organization to delayed remediation and regulatory scrutiny.
How to Fix:
Require remediation plans including:
• Clear closure timelines
• Interim controls
• Status updates
• Post-remediation reassessment
Red Flags Across the TPRM Lifecycle
These red flags can be addressed to enhance the quality of decision-making at every stage:
• Onboarding: Helps in accurate inherent risk rating
• Ongoing Monitoring: Helps in evidence-based monitoring
• Offboarding: Helps in verifying data management
• Escalation Decisions: Helps in prioritizing vendor escalation using actual risk
Quick-Reference Checklist: Red Flags, Risks, and Actions
