CAIQ Cloud Vendor Assessment Examples

CAIQ assessments for cloud vendors typically follow a multi-stage validation process: initial self-assessment by the vendor, evidence collection for critical controls, risk-weighted scoring based on service criticality, and quarterly reassessment cycles. Most organizations adapt the full 295-question framework to 50-80 priority controls based on their risk appetite and vendor tier.

Key takeaways:

• Risk-tier your vendors first — full CAIQ for critical cloud infrastructure, abbreviated versions for SaaS tools
• Map CAIQ responses directly to your control framework (SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS)
• Automate evidence collection through API integrations where possible
• Focus on showstopper controls: encryption at rest, data residency, incident response SLAs
• Build continuous monitoring triggers based on CAIQ responses

The Consensus Assessments Initiative Questionnaire (CAIQ) provides a standardized framework for evaluating cloud service provider security controls across 16 domains. While the full questionnaire contains 295 questions mapped to the Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM v4.0), successful implementations focus on risk-based subsets tailored to vendor criticality and service type.

This page examines three cloud vendor assessment scenarios: a financial services firm evaluating a core banking platform migration, a healthcare organization assessing a new telehealth provider, and a retail company vetting a customer data analytics platform. Each case demonstrates different approaches to CAIQ implementation based on industry requirements, data sensitivity, and integration depth. You'll see how teams balanced comprehensive assessment needs against vendor fatigue, automated evidence collection, and integrated findings into broader TPRM programs.

Scenario 1: Financial Services Core Banking Platform Assessment

A regional bank with $12B in assets needed to assess a cloud-based core banking platform provider. The vendor would handle transaction processing, account management, and regulatory reporting — representing the highest possible risk tier in their vendor portfolio.

Background and Risk Context

The bank's existing on-premise core system reached end-of-life. Cloud migration promised many operational cost reduction but introduced new risks:

• Multi-tenant architecture sharing infrastructure with other financial institutions
• Data residency requirements across three states
• Real-time transaction processing with 99.99% uptime SLA requirements
• PCI DSS Level 1 and SOX compliance obligations

CAIQ Implementation Approach

The TPRM team created a three-phase assessment process:

Phase 1: Pre-screening (Week 1-2)

• Vendor completed full CAIQ self-assessment
• Automated validation of 42 objective controls through API checks
• Flagged 18 responses requiring evidence documentation

Phase 2: Deep Dive Assessment (Week 3-6)

• Focus areas based on initial responses:
  • Data segregation controls (DSP-01 through DSP-18)
  • Encryption implementation (CEK-01 through CEK-21)
  • Incident response capabilities (STA-01 through STA-09)
• Virtual architecture review sessions
• Penetration test report analysis

Phase 3: Continuous Validation (Ongoing)

• Quarterly mini-assessments on 25 critical controls
• Automated monitoring of security certifications
• Annual full CAIQ refresh

Key Findings and Risk Decisions

The assessment revealed three significant gaps:

1. Data Residency Controls: Vendor couldn't guarantee data wouldn't traverse specific international boundaries during disaster recovery scenarios. Resolution: Vendor implemented geo-fencing controls within 90 days.

2. Encryption Key Management: Shared HSM infrastructure didn't meet bank's requirement for dedicated key storage. Resolution: Negotiated dedicated HSM deployment at additional cost.

3. Incident Notification: Standard 72-hour breach notification exceeded regulatory requirements. Resolution: Amended contract for 4-hour notification on high-severity incidents.

Outcomes and Metrics

• Total assessment duration: 8 weeks (2 weeks longer than standard due to evidence validation)
• Controls assessed: 187 of 295 CAIQ controls deemed applicable
• Risk exceptions approved: 3 (with compensating controls)
• Ongoing monitoring burden: 4 hours monthly through automated tools

Scenario 2: Healthcare Telehealth Platform Evaluation

A 300-bed hospital system evaluated a telehealth platform serving 50,000 patients annually. The vendor fell into Tier 2 (Critical) classification due to PHI processing and patient care impact.

Unique Healthcare Considerations

HIPAA compliance drove specific CAIQ adaptations:

• Enhanced focus on access controls (IAM domain)
• Detailed audit logging requirements (LOG domain)
• Business Associate Agreement (BAA) alignment verification
• Subprocessor transparency requirements

Streamlined Assessment Process

Learning from overengineering previous assessments, the security team implemented a risk-based approach:

Control Selection Matrix

CAIQ Domain	Full Assessment	Telehealth Focus	Questions Selected
Asset Management	21 questions	Inventory & Classification	8
Encryption	21 questions	Data in transit/rest	12
Identity & Access	33 questions	MFA, RBAC, privileged access	22
Logging	22 questions	Full domain coverage	22
Privacy	35 questions	HIPAA-specific controls	28

Total: 92 controls assessed (vs. 295 full CAIQ)

Evidence Automation Success

The team automated evidence collection for 34 controls:

• SSL certificate validation via automated scanning
• MFA enforcement verification through API checks
• Penetration test currency through certificate parsing
• Compliance attestation monitoring (SOC 2 Type II, HITRUST)

Critical Gaps Identified

1. Subprocessor visibility: Vendor used 12 subprocessors but only disclosed 7 initially
2. Audit log retention: 90-day retention fell short of 1-year requirement
3. Video consultation encryption: End-to-end encryption not implemented for group sessions

Scenario 3: Retail Customer Analytics Platform

A national retailer with 500 stores assessed a customer behavior analytics platform processing 10M transactions monthly. Despite handling customer PII, the indirect nature of data processing placed this in Tier 3 (Moderate Risk).

Abbreviated Assessment Strategy

The TPRM team developed a "CAIQ Lite" approach:

• 45-question subset focused on data handling
• Self-attestation accepted for the majority of controls
• Evidence required only for cryptographic and access controls
• Annual reassessment vs. quarterly for Tier 1 vendors

Continuous Monitoring Integration

Post-assessment monitoring proved more valuable than initial evaluation:

• Daily vulnerability scan ingestion from vendor's bug bounty program
• Weekly certificate expiration checks
• Monthly uptime monitoring against SLA
• Quarterly security posture scoring through BitSight integration

Risk Acceptance Process

The assessment surfaced several medium-risk findings:

• No guaranteed data deletion timeline (acceptable with 90-day maximum policy)
• Shared infrastructure with other retail clients (accepted with data segregation controls)
• Limited disaster recovery testing (accepted with quarterly test requirement added)

Best Practices from Combined Experiences

1. Right-Size Your Assessment

Full CAIQ creates vendor fatigue. Map vendor tiers to assessment depth:

• Tier 1 (Critical): 150-200 controls with full evidence
• Tier 2 (High): 75-100 controls with targeted evidence
• Tier 3 (Moderate): 40-60 controls with self-attestation
• Tier 4 (Low): Security questionnaire referencing CAIQ domains

2. Build Reusable Control Mappings

Create crosswalks between CAIQ and your frameworks:

CAIQ CEK-01 (Encryption at rest) maps to:
- SOC 2 CC6.1
- ISO 27001 A.10.1.1
- PCI DSS 4.0
- NIST 800-53 SC-28

3. Automate What Matters

Focus automation on objective, verifiable controls:

• Certificate validity and configuration
• Security header implementation
• DNS security configurations
• Public vulnerability disclosure monitoring

4. Manage Vendor Relationships

• Provide CAIQ subset upfront with clear evidence requirements
• Offer pre-assessment readiness calls for Tier 1 vendors
• Share finding remediation templates
• Create vendor scorecards showing performance vs. peers

5. Integration with Broader TPRM Program

CAIQ assessments should feed your vendor risk register:

• Risk scoring algorithms weight CAIQ responses
• Continuous monitoring thresholds based on initial findings
• Contract negotiation leverage from identified gaps
• Board reporting on cloud concentration risk

Frequently Asked Questions

How do we determine which CAIQ controls to assess for each vendor?

Start with data classification and vendor criticality scoring. Critical infrastructure vendors warrant 60-a large share of control coverage, while low-risk SaaS tools might need only 15-20% focusing on authentication, encryption, and incident response domains.

What's the typical timeline for a CAIQ-based cloud vendor assessment?

Initial assessments run 2-8 weeks depending on vendor tier. Tier 1 vendors average 6-8 weeks with evidence validation, while Tier 3-4 vendors complete in 2-3 weeks using self-attestation for most controls.

How do we handle vendors who refuse to complete CAIQ assessments?

Request existing security documentation (SOC 2, ISO 27001, security whitepapers) and map to CAIQ domains. For critical vendors, incomplete assessments trigger executive escalation and contract negotiations.

Should we use CAIQ v3.1 or v4.0 for assessments?

Use CCM v4.0 (released 2023) for new assessments. It better addresses container security, DevSecOps, and privacy regulations. Grandfather existing vendors on v3.1 until contract renewal.

How do we validate vendor-provided CAIQ responses?

Implement a three-tier validation: automated checks for technical controls (certificates, headers), documentation review for process controls (policies, procedures), and demonstration sessions for critical operational controls.

What continuous monitoring should supplement annual CAIQ assessments?

Monitor security ratings, vulnerability disclosures, certification status, publicized breaches, and infrastructure changes. Trigger mini-assessments when scores drop below thresholds or material changes occur.

How do we score and weight CAIQ responses for risk tiering?

Assign point values by control criticality (Critical=10, High=5, Medium=3, Low=1). Weight domains based on service type — data protection and encryption heavily weighted for storage providers, identity and access management for SaaS applications.