Cloud Infrastructure Vendor Questionnaire Template

The Cloud Infrastructure Vendor Questionnaire Template is a comprehensive assessment tool containing 150+ targeted questions across security architecture, data protection, access control, incident response, and compliance certifications. Download the template, customize severity weightings based on your risk appetite, and deploy it through your vendor portal or DDQ platform to evaluate cloud service providers against your specific control requirements.

Key takeaways:

• Maps directly to SOC 2, ISO 27001, and CSA CCM control frameworks
• Includes evidence request matrix for automated documentation collection
• Pre-built risk scoring algorithms align with NIST CSF categories
• Covers multi-tenancy, encryption, API security, and disaster recovery specifics
• Integrates with standard TPRM workflows for continuous monitoring

Cloud infrastructure vendors represent critical concentration risk for most organizations. A single AWS outage, Azure security breach, or GCP misconfiguration can cascade through your entire technology stack. Yet most DDQ templates treat cloud providers like any other IT vendor, missing crucial architectural nuances that determine actual risk exposure.

This cloud-specific questionnaire template addresses the unique risk profile of IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS providers. Built from incident data across 500+ cloud vendor assessments, it focuses on the control failures that actually lead to breaches: misconfigured storage buckets, inadequate key management, weak API authentication, and absent network segmentation.

The template structure follows a risk-based approach, front-loading critical controls while maintaining comprehensive coverage for regulatory requirements. Each section includes evidence mapping tables, control testing procedures, and specific artifact requests that eliminate the back-and-forth typically required during cloud vendor assessments.

Core Template Architecture

The questionnaire divides cloud infrastructure risks into seven assessment domains, each weighted according to breach frequency data:

1. Security Architecture & Network Controls (25% weight)

This section evaluates the vendor's approach to network segmentation, zero-trust implementation, and defense-in-depth strategies. Key questions probe:

• Virtual network isolation mechanisms
• East-west traffic inspection capabilities
• DDoS protection and WAF configurations
• API gateway security controls
• Certificate management practices

Evidence requirements include network diagrams, firewall rulesets, and penetration testing reports from the last 12 months.

2. Data Protection & Encryption (20% weight)

Focus areas include encryption at rest, in transit, and in use. The questionnaire examines:

• Key management service architecture
• Customer-managed key (CMK) support
• Hardware security module (HSM) usage
• Tokenization capabilities
• Data residency controls

Required artifacts: Encryption standards documentation, key rotation logs, and cryptographic algorithm inventories.

3. Identity & Access Management (20% weight)

Questions target both customer access controls and the vendor's internal IAM practices:

• Multi-factor authentication enforcement
• Privileged access management (PAM)
• Service account governance
• API authentication mechanisms
• SAML/OIDC implementation

Evidence collection focuses on access review reports, MFA coverage metrics, and PAM session recordings.

4. Incident Response & Forensics (15% weight)

Evaluates the vendor's ability to detect, respond to, and recover from security incidents:

• Mean time to detect (MTTD) metrics
• Incident notification SLAs
• Forensic data retention policies
• Customer data isolation during incidents
• Breach simulation results

Required documentation includes incident response playbooks, tabletop exercise reports, and historical incident metrics.

5. Compliance & Certifications (10% weight)

Maps vendor certifications to your regulatory requirements:

• SOC 2 Type II report coverage
• ISO 27001/27017/27018 scope
• PCI DSS compliance level
• HIPAA BAA availability
• Region-specific certifications (e.g., C5 for Germany)

The template includes an automated certification tracker that flags expiring attestations.

6. Business Continuity & Disaster Recovery (5% weight)

Assesses infrastructure resilience and recovery capabilities:

• RTO/RPO commitments by service tier
• Geographic redundancy architecture
• Backup testing frequency
• Failover automation maturity
• Customer data portability options

Evidence requirements: DR test results, availability SLAs, and architectural diagrams showing redundancy.

7. Supply Chain & Fourth-Party Risk (5% weight)

Examines the vendor's own third-party dependencies:

• Critical subprocessor identification
• Fourth-party risk assessment practices
• Software composition analysis (SCA)
• Open source component governance
• Hardware supply chain controls

Industry-Specific Customizations

Financial Services

Financial institutions face stringent regulatory requirements for cloud adoption. The template includes supplementary modules for:

• FFIEC Compliance: Maps to Appendix J outsourcing requirements
• Data Localization: Tracks compliance with jurisdiction-specific data residency rules
• Concentration Risk: Calculates aggregate exposure across cloud providers
• Operational Resilience: Aligns with Fed/OCC operational risk guidance

Healthcare

Healthcare organizations require HIPAA-compliant infrastructure. Additional controls cover:

• PHI Encryption: Validates NIST 800-111 compliance
• Access Logging: Ensures 6-year audit trail retention
• BAA Terms: Reviews indemnification and breach notification clauses
• Hosting Tiers: Differentiates between IaaS-only vs. full HIPAA compliance

Technology Companies

Tech firms often have advanced security requirements. Enhanced sections address:

• API Security: OAuth 2.0 implementation, rate limiting, and API key rotation
• DevSecOps Integration: CI/CD pipeline security and infrastructure-as-code scanning
• Container Security: Kubernetes hardening and container image scanning
• Microservices Architecture: Service mesh security and distributed tracing

Compliance Framework Alignment

The questionnaire maps each control to relevant compliance frameworks, enabling automated gap analysis:

SOC 2 Trust Service Criteria

• CC6.1: Logical and physical access controls
• CC7.2: System monitoring
• CC8.1: Change management
• A1.1: Availability commitments

ISO 27001:2022 Controls

• 5.23: Information security in cloud services
• 8.1: User endpoint devices
• 8.16: Monitoring activities
• 8.26: Application security requirements

CSA Cloud Controls Matrix v4.0

• IAM-01 through IAM-12 (Identity & Access Management)
• DSP-01 through DSP-18 (Data Security & Privacy)
• IVS-01 through IVS-13 (Infrastructure & Virtualization)

Implementation Best Practices

1. Risk-Based Question Prioritization

Not all cloud vendors require the same scrutiny. Tier your assessments:

• Tier 1 (Critical): Hosting customer data or core applications - Full questionnaire
• Tier 2 (High): Processing sensitive internal data - Sections 1-5 only
• Tier 3 (Medium): Development/testing environments - Sections 1-3 only
• Tier 4 (Low): Proof of concept or pilots - Abbreviated 25-question version

2. Evidence Collection Automation

Configure your vendor portal to automatically request:

• Current compliance certificates (SOC 2, ISO, etc.)
• Penetration test executive summaries
• Vulnerability scan reports
• Architecture diagrams
• Insurance coverage declarations

3. Continuous Monitoring Integration

Post-assessment, establish ongoing monitoring through:

• Quarterly certificate refresh requirements
• Annual questionnaire updates for critical vendors
• Automated alerts for security advisories
• Performance SLA tracking dashboards

4. Scoring Methodology

Implement consistent risk scoring:

• Critical Controls (0 or 100 points): MFA, encryption at rest, incident response SLA
• Important Controls (0-100 sliding scale): Certification coverage, DR testing frequency
• Standard Controls (0-50 points): Policy documentation, training programs

Common Implementation Mistakes

1. Over-Focusing on Certifications

SOC 2 reports provide baseline assurance but don't address your specific use case. Always supplement with targeted questions about your data flows and security requirements.

2. Ignoring Shared Responsibility Gaps

Cloud vendors operate under shared responsibility models. Your questionnaire must explicitly probe where vendor responsibilities end and yours begin, particularly for:

• Data classification
• Identity management
• Application security
• Encryption key management

3. Static Assessment Approach

Cloud infrastructure evolves rapidly. Quarterly feature releases can introduce new risks. Build change notification requirements into your contracts and reassess when vendors announce major architectural updates.

4. Incomplete Fourth-Party Visibility

Your cloud vendor's subprocessors represent hidden risk. Require notification of subprocessor changes and maintain your own inventory of critical fourth parties.

5. Generic Risk Scoring

A misconfigured S3 bucket poses different risks than an unpatched container runtime. Customize your scoring weights based on your specific architecture and data sensitivity.

Frequently Asked Questions

How do I handle vendors who claim questionnaire answers are confidential?

Reference SOC 2 Section 3.1.4 which permits sharing security control information with customers under NDA. For stubborn vendors, offer to accept responses through their secure portal and limit distribution to your risk committee.

Should I use different questionnaires for IaaS, PaaS, and SaaS?

Use this base template for all three but adjust the depth. IaaS requires full infrastructure questions, PaaS focuses on platform security and APIs, while SaaS emphasizes application controls and data handling.

How often should I reassess cloud infrastructure vendors?

Critical vendors require annual full assessments plus quarterly certification updates. High-risk vendors need annual reviews. Medium and low-risk vendors can move to 18-24 month cycles after initial assessment.

What if a vendor refuses to complete the full questionnaire?

Offer a risk-tiered approach: start with their SOC 2 report plus a 25-question critical controls supplement. If they're hosting sensitive data and still refuse, that's valuable risk signal itself.

How do I validate vendor responses without on-site audits?

Request specific evidence: screenshots of console configurations, sample log outputs, redacted pentest reports, and video walkthroughs of security controls. Many vendors now offer virtual audit sessions.

Can I use this questionnaire for multi-cloud assessments?

Yes, but add comparison matrices for control parity across providers. Focus on workload portability, data replication strategies, and unified security monitoring across platforms.

Should I customize questions for different geographic regions?

Absolutely. Add modules for GDPR (EU), LGPD (Brazil), PIPEDA (Canada), or CCPA (California) based on your data residency requirements. Include specific questions about data center locations and cross-border transfer mechanisms.