SIG Questionnaire Vendor Response Examples

Every TPRM manager has seen it: the vendor who takes six weeks to return a SIG questionnaire, then provides responses so vague they're useless. Meanwhile, another vendor completes the same questionnaire in 48 hours with detailed technical responses and supporting documentation. These response patterns tell you more about vendor risk than the answers themselves.

After reviewing thousands of SIG responses across financial services, healthcare, and technology vendors, clear patterns emerge. The way vendors approach standardized questionnaires reveals their security maturity, resource allocation, and cultural attitude toward risk management. More importantly, these patterns help you predict which vendors will become operational headaches versus trusted partners.

This analysis breaks down real SIG questionnaire responses from vendors across different risk tiers, showing exactly what separates exceptional responses from red flags. You'll see actual response language (anonymized), learn what follow-up questions to ask, and understand how to translate vague vendor responses into actionable risk assessments.

The Tale of Two SIG Responses: Cloud Storage Provider Examples

Consider two cloud storage vendors responding to SIG Lite question 1.4 about encryption controls. Both claim to encrypt data, but their responses reveal vastly different risk profiles.

Vendor A (High Maturity) "We implement AES-256 encryption for data at rest using AWS KMS with customer-managed keys (CMKs). Data in transit uses TLS 1.3 exclusively. Key rotation occurs every 90 days per NIST 800-57 recommendations. See attached: encryption architecture diagram, AWS SOC2 report section 3.4, and our key management procedures (document KMP-2023-v4)."

Vendor B (Low Maturity) "Yes, we encrypt all customer data using industry standard encryption."

The difference is stark. Vendor A provides specifics, cites standards, and proactively attaches evidence. Vendor B offers nothing actionable. In practice, Vendor B required four follow-up rounds over three weeks to extract basic encryption details—and ultimately revealed they were using deprecated TLS 1.0 for some connections.

Response Patterns by Risk Tier

Tier 1 (Critical) Vendor Characteristics

Critical vendors handling sensitive data or core business functions typically demonstrate:

Response Timeline: 24-72 hours for initial response, complete within 5 business days Evidence Attachment Rate: 85%+ of applicable controls include documentation Technical Depth: Responses reference specific technologies, version numbers, and configurations

Real example from a payment processor's SIG response on incident response (anonymized):

"Our Security Operations Center operates 24/7/365 with mean detection time of 11 minutes (Q3 2023 metrics). Incident classification follows NIST 800-61r2 framework:

• P1 (Critical): 15-minute executive notification, 1-hour customer notification if data impact confirmed
• P2 (High): 4-hour resolution SLA, next-business-day customer notification
• P3/P4: Standard 72-hour investigation window Attached: Incident Response Plan v3.2, 2023 tabletop exercise results, sample incident report (redacted)"

Tier 2 (Important) Vendor Patterns

Mid-tier vendors show more variation but generally provide:

Response Timeline: 5-10 business days Evidence Attachment Rate: 40-most controls Common Gaps: Business continuity details, third-party audit reports, detailed technical configurations

Typical Tier 2 response to data retention questions:

"Customer data is retained for the contract period plus 90 days, then securely deleted according to our data retention policy. Deletion is performed using DoD 5220.22-M standard. Audit logs maintained separately for 7 years per regulatory requirements."

Note what's missing: specific tooling, verification procedures, or evidence of deletion certificates.

Tier 3 (Standard) Vendor Red Flags

Lower-tier vendors often exhibit concerning patterns:

Response Timeline: 2-4 weeks, often requiring multiple reminders Evidence Attachment Rate: <20% Language Patterns: Heavy use of "we will," "we plan to," "in process of implementing"

Actual response from a marketing analytics vendor:

"We are currently in the process of implementing SOC2 certification and plan to complete this by end of year. Security is very important to us and we will be happy to share our SOC2 report once available."

This vendor had made the same claim for three consecutive years.

Critical Controls That Reveal True Risk Posture

1. Encryption Implementation (SIG B.1.1)

Strong response includes:

• Specific algorithms and key lengths
• Key management procedures
• Certificate authorities used
• Encryption coverage gaps (if any)

Weak response characteristics:

• "Bank-level encryption" or "military-grade security"
• No mention of key management
• Missing encryption for specific data states

2. Vulnerability Management (SIG C.2.1)

A Fortune 500 technology vendor provided this exemplary response:

"Vulnerability scanning schedule:

• Infrastructure: Weekly authenticated scans via Qualys VMDR
• Applications: Continuous SAST/DAST in CI/CD pipeline (SonarQube + Burp Suite Enterprise)
• Containers: Real-time scanning via Twistlock
• Third-party components: Daily SCA scans via Snyk

Patching SLAs:

• Critical (CVSS 9.0+): 72 hours
• High (CVSS 7.0-8.9): 14 days
• Medium: 30 days
• Low: Quarterly patch cycle

Attached: Last 3 months vulnerability metrics, sample scan report, patching procedure document"

Compare this to a typical weak response: "We perform regular vulnerability scanning and patch systems as needed."

3. Incident Response (SIG D.1.1-D.1.4)

The most revealing question set in the SIG questionnaire. Strong vendors provide:

• Specific timelines for each severity level
• Named roles and escalation paths
• Customer notification procedures
• Evidence of testing (tabletop exercises, past incident reports)

One healthcare SaaS vendor's response revealed critical gaps: "We have an incident response plan that covers security events. The IT team handles all incidents and will notify customers if necessary."

Follow-up revealed:

• No defined severity classifications
• No executive escalation path
• No customer notification timeline
• Plan hadn't been tested in two years

Continuous Monitoring Indicators

Beyond initial responses, vendor behavior during continuous monitoring reveals risk trajectory:

Positive Indicators:

• Proactive updates on control changes
• Annual evidence refresh without prompting
• Notification of security investments or certifications
• Transparent incident disclosures

Negative Indicators:

• Resistance to annual reassessment
• "No changes" claims for multi-year periods
• Increasing response times
• Defensive language when questioned

Edge Cases and Special Considerations

Startup Vendors

Early-stage companies often lack formal documentation but may have strong technical controls. Key differentiators:

High-potential startup response: "While we don't yet have SOC2 certification, we've implemented [specific technical controls]. Our AWS infrastructure uses [detailed configuration]. We're working with [named audit firm] to achieve SOC2 Type 1 by [specific date], Type 2 by [date]."

Red flag startup response: "We're a small team focused on customer growth. Security will become a priority as we scale."

International Vendors

Non-US vendors may reference different frameworks but should map controls to SIG questions:

Effective international response: "We maintain ISO 27001:2022 certification (certificate #12345, attached). Mapping to SIG requirements:

• SIG A.1.1 → ISO A.5.1.1 (see page 23 of attached ISMS)
• SIG B.1.1 → ISO A.10.1.1 (cryptography policy attached)"

Legacy System Vendors

Vendors with older systems require careful evaluation:

Acceptable legacy system response: "Our core platform runs on IBM mainframe with RACF access controls. While this technology is older, we maintain current security patches (z/OS 2.5, applied monthly) and have implemented compensating controls including [specific controls]. Modern APIs use current TLS 1.3."

Translating Responses into Risk Scores

The most effective TPRM programs translate qualitative responses into quantitative risk metrics:

1. Control Implementation Score: Percentage of controls with evidence
2. Response Quality Score: Technical depth and specificity
3. Timeliness Score: Days to complete questionnaire
4. Evidence Currency: Age of newest documentation
5. Transparency Score: Disclosure of gaps and remediation plans

One financial services firm weights these factors:

• Implementation: 40%
• Quality: 25%
• Timeliness: 15%
• Currency: 10%
• Transparency: 10%

This scoring enabled them to reduce vendor onboarding time by the majority of while improving risk detection accuracy.

Frequently Asked Questions

How should I handle vendors who refuse to complete SIG questionnaires, claiming proprietary concerns?

Request their standard security documentation first—SOC2, ISO 27001, or similar. If gaps remain, propose a mutual NDA and custom questionnaire focusing on your critical controls. Refusal to provide any security information should trigger escalation to procurement.

What response time should I expect for SIG questionnaires?

Tier 1 vendors typically respond within 5 business days, Tier 2 within 10 days, Tier 3 within 15 days. Initial acknowledgment should come within 48 hours. Delays beyond these timelines often indicate resource constraints or security gaps.

How do I verify vendor responses without being overly intrusive?

Request evidence for 20-a substantial portion of controls initially, focusing on critical areas. Use public sources (SSL Labs, Shodan, SecurityScorecard) to verify technical claims. During QBRs, ask for updated evidence on a rotating basis.

What are the most common areas where vendors provide misleading responses?

Encryption specifics (claiming "256-bit" without specifying algorithm), backup testing (theoretical procedures vs. actual tests), incident response (plans vs. practice), and third-party sub-processor management typically show the largest gaps between claims and reality.

Should I accept vendor references to future implementations?

Document these as current gaps. Accept future state responses only with specific timelines, milestones, and contractual commitments. Require quarterly updates on implementation progress.

How do I handle incomplete SIG responses from critical vendors?

Set clear escalation timelines: technical contact (day 1-5), vendor management (day 6-10), executive escalation (day 11+). Document all gaps as findings requiring remediation plans. Consider contractual remedies for persistent non-compliance.

What's the best way to manage SIG questionnaire versioning as standards evolve?

Maintain a crosswalk between SIG versions and your control framework. When SIG updates, assess new controls for applicability, communicate changes to vendors 90 days before implementation, and grandfather existing vendor assessments for 12 months with gap analysis.