Security Questions Startups Commonly Encounter in Enterprise RFIs (2026 Guide)

Enterprise buyers increasingly rely on security RFIs (Requests for Information), which are formal questionnaires used to gather information about a vendor’s security, privacy, and operational practices. These RFIs are often used to evaluate startups and SMEs before contracts, pilots, or access to sensitive data are approved. These RFIs are commonly used as early-stage risk filters rather than lightweight checklists.

For startups and SMEs, the challenge is not only implementing security controls, but responding to security questions in a way that is accurate, consistent, and defensible under enterprise procurement and legal review.

This guide examines recurring themes in security questions commonly identified in enterprise RFIs and how such responses are typically assessed. It also explores how ISO 27001-aligned practices may help structure responses and provide evidence-based information, while supporting consistency.

Why Enterprise RFIs Matter

Enterprise security RFIs commonly appear early in the procurement lifecycle, often before deeper technical or contractual discussions begin. They may precede:

• Vendor security questionnaires (VSQs)
• Legal review and Data Processing Agreement (DPA) negotiations
• Penetration testing or security validation requests
• Contractual security schedules and annexes

As enterprise procurement cycles move faster and tolerance for ambiguity decreases, RFIs are increasingly used as early-stage risk filters. How these responses are reviewed can directly influence whether procurement proceeds or stalls. 

How RFIs Are Evaluated in Practice

Buyers typically look for:

• Supporting evidence rather than broad assertions
• Consistency across security, privacy, and public-facing documentation
• Alignment with recognised frameworks such as ISO 27001, SIG Lite, or the CSA CAIQ

Some organisations may use AI-assisted RFI and procurement tools to compare responses against publicly available artefacts, including privacy notices, trust pages, and prior disclosures. As a result, internal consistency often carries as much weight as the individual answer itself.

ISO 27001-aligned practices could provide a structural reference point that some organisations find helpful in responding to RFIs.

6 Security Question Categories Enterprises Use (2026)

Enterprise RFIs typically assess security maturity across a small number of recurring categories. Below are six areas that frequently appear in modern enterprise RFIs, along with example questions and practical considerations for startups and SMEs. These categories are illustrative and may vary depending on buyer, industry, and organisational context.

1. Governance and Security Accountability

What buyers are typically assessing

Whether security accountability exists beyond written policies, and whether leadership oversight is visible in practice.

Common RFI questions

• “Who is your designated security owner or CISO?”
• “How is information security governance reviewed by leadership?”
• “Can you provide examples of management oversight or review?”

Common buyer signals in 2026

• Clearly named security owners
• Documented roles and decision authority
• Evidence of periodic review (for example, meeting records or review summaries), rather than policy approval dates alone

SME context

Enterprise buyers may not typically expect a full-time CISO for smaller organisations. However, buyers may look for:

• A clearly assigned security lead
• Defined security responsibilities
• Some form of documented leadership involvement in security oversight

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 reference

• Clause 5 (Leadership)
• Annex A.5.2 (Information security roles and responsibilities)
  

2. AI and Data Privacy

AI governance has become one of the most frequent areas of scrutiny in enterprise procurement, particularly where products rely on Generative AI, large language models (LLMs), or third-party AI services. Unclear data-handling boundaries are a common reason RFIs stall during review.

A common 2026 RFI question:

“Does your product use Generative AI or LLMs, and how is customer data handled in relation to model training or external datasets?”

Typical follow-up questions enterprises may ask

• Are prompts logged, retained, or reviewed?
• Are third-party AI APIs or hosted models used?
• Is customer data excluded from model fine-tuning or secondary use?

What buyers are generally looking for

Clear, documented data-handling boundaries that organisations generally try to keep consistent across technical design, policies, and contractual terms.

Practical considerations for SMEs

If an organisation states that customer data is not used for AI training, buyers may typically look for this position to be:

• Documented in internal policies or governance notes
• Reflected in privacy notices and relevant contractual language
• Generally expected to be reflected in technical configuration of AI features and integrations where feasible

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 references

• Risk assessment processes
• Annex A.5.23 (Information security for use of cloud services)
• Annex A.5.31 (Legal, statutory, regulatory, and contractual requirements)
  

3. Access Control and Identity

What buyers are typically assessing

Whether identity and access management (IAM) controls are implemented in practice, periodically reviewed, and capable of being demonstrated during procurement or risk review.

Common RFI questions

• “Do you support SAML or single sign-on (SSO)?”
• “Is multi-factor authentication (MFA) used for privileged or administrative access?”
• “How frequently are user access rights reviewed or adjusted?”

2026 procurement context

Enterprises might review signals such as:

• Use of phishing-resistant MFA for administrative accounts
• Clear separation between standard user roles and privileged roles
• Some form of documented or repeatable access review process

These areas are commonly examined because identity-related weaknesses continue to be a frequent source of security incidents and contractual concern.

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 references

• Annex A.5.15 – A.5.18 (Access control and identity management)
  

4. Resilience and Incident Response

What buyers are typically assessing

Whether incident response and business continuity processes are practical, understood by relevant teams, and capable of being exercised under time pressure.

Common RFI questions

• “When was your most recent incident response or tabletop exercise?”
• “How are security incidents classified, escalated, and communicated?”
• “Do you define recovery time objectives (RTOs) and recovery point objectives (RPOs) for critical systems?”

SME context

For many startups and SMEs, buyers may consider evidence of a recent, documented tabletop or simulation exercise than on the volume of written procedures. Periodic exercises – where outcomes, observations, and follow-up actions are recorded – may help demonstrate a repeatable approach to incident response.

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 references

• Annex A.5.24 – A.5.30 (Information security incident management controls)
• Annex A.5.29 – A.5.30 (Business continuity controls)
  

5. Third Parties, Fourth Parties, and Supply Chain Visibility

What buyers are typically assessing

Whether your startup or SME is aware of risks posed by suppliers, subcontractors, and downstream partners, and whether you maintain visibility into how they handle sensitive data.

Common RFI questions

• “List all sub-processors handling personal data”
• “Can you provide a Software Bill of Materials (SBOM)?”
• “How do you evaluate and monitor supplier security?”

2026 nuance

Enterprises often appear to focus on transparent risk awareness rather than complete coverage. For many startups or SMEs, providing limited or scoped SBOMs and a maintained list of key suppliers may help show reasonable diligence. Documenting how you assess critical vendors – even if not every minor supplier is listed – can provide useful context.

Practical SME tips

• Keep a central, up-to-date supplier register.
• Document the method used to assess security of third- and fourth-party providers.
• Focus on high-risk or data-sensitive suppliers first.

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 references

• Annex A.5.19 – A.5.21 (Supplier relationships and information security in supplier agreements)
  

6. Vulnerability and Patch Management

What buyers are typically assessing

Whether your team maintains operational discipline for identifying, prioritising, and addressing software vulnerabilities, including how potential risks are tracked and mitigated.

Common RFI questions

• “What is your typical SLA for remediating critical vulnerabilities?”
• “How are vulnerabilities discovered and tracked?”
• “Do you conduct penetration testing?”

2026 nuance

Enterprises increasingly evaluate answers for clarity and consistency. SMEs and startups may provide:

• A description of their vulnerability management process, including monitoring and prioritisation.
• Typical response times or remediation cycles, often described at a high level by severity (for example, informed by CVSS scores, exploitability, or asset criticality), and stated as indicative or illustrative ranges.
• Evidence of periodic penetration testing or external review, if applicable.

ISO/IEC 27001:2022 references

• Annex A.8.8 (Vulnerability management and security update processes)
  

The RFI Pitfalls: Where Startups Can Encounter Risk (2026 Perspective)

RFIs are often treated as formal representations during enterprise procurement and could be referenced in procurement discussions.

Common pitfalls startups may face:

• Over-promising: Answering “Yes” to controls that are not fully implemented.
• Assertions without supporting evidence: Statements that are not reflected in documentation, policies, or processes.
• Inconsistency: Responses that conflict with privacy policies, DPAs, or marketing materials.

Even seemingly minor checkboxes could potentially be referenced in contractual or indemnity discussions, depending on the agreement.

Practical SME guidance:

• SMEs and startups could consider qualifying responses if supporting evidence is limited.
• Where feasible given the organisation’s context and the RFI scope, describe planned controls or current practices instead of giving absolute statements.
• Maintain consistency across all publicly shared and contractual documents.
  

How Enterprises May Score RFIs in 2026

Many enterprise buyers now use AI-assisted procurement tools to help evaluate and score RFI responses.

These tools often compare your answers against multiple sources:

• Public privacy policy
• Trust centre disclosures
• Past questionnaire responses
• Security pages and FAQs

Key insight: Consistency may be as important as the content of the answer itself.

Illustrative example scenario (2026 context):

• RFI: “Data is encrypted at rest”
• Security Page / Trust Centre: No mention of encryption → Response may be flagged as lower trust

Practical SME guidance:

• Linking answers to documented processes or trust centre disclosures may help provide consistency.
• ISO 27001 practices may support alignment across policies, documentation, and RFI responses.
  

RFI Evidence Bundle for Startups (2026 Guide)

After completing an RFI, many enterprises request supporting files. Delays often occur when teams need to locate these artefacts under time pressure.

To maintain a structured response, some teams maintain a set of common artefacts in a secure folder or Trust Centre, as appropriate for their context. The following five items are typical examples that may help streamline RFI responses:

1. Statement of Applicability (SoA): Overview of selected controls and the rationale for their implementation.
2. Penetration Test Executive Summary: A concise summary of the latest penetration test results, highlighting addressed findings without sharing the full report.
3. Security Ownership Evidence: Documentation of the security lead role, along with a snapshot of completed training or awareness activities.
4. High-Level Infrastructure Diagram: Visual overview of data storage locations, encryption measures, and cross-border data flows (supporting data privacy considerations).
5. Sub-processor List: Clear listing of all 3rd- and 4th-party vendors interacting with customer data.

Practical note: Maintaining these artefacts in an organised way may help manage follow-up requests and support consistent responses during procurement review.

The Shift from RFIs to Security Trust Centres (2026 Guide)

Many enterprises are increasingly using Security Trust Centres as a supplement or alternative to traditional RFIs. These platforms provide a maintained repository of security, privacy, and operational evidence.

For SMEs and startups, a well-organised Trust Centre may help some teams reduce manual questionnaire content, lower clarification requests, or provide a structured way to present security practices and disclosures, depending on the buyer and context. Many platforms also allow buyers to subscribe to notifications when documents are updated, helping stakeholders stay informed of changes without repeated manual checks.

Practical perspective: This approach is intended to help manage procurement friction. ISO 27001 artefacts – such as the SoA, risk assessments, and control summaries – can often be mapped directly into Trust Centre sections when kept up-to-date.

Basic Startup Answer vs ISO 27001-Aligned Answer (2026 RFI Perspective)

SMEs and startups often give short, generic answers in enterprise RFIs – but procurement teams notice the difference between vague responses and structured, policy-backed practices.

The table below illustrates how ISO 27001-aligned approaches may provide clearer, more consistent responses without overcommitting. 

Illustrative Example:

Note: The table provides illustrative examples of how SMEs and startups could respond to enterprise RFIs. Actual responses should reflect your organisation’s implemented practices, policies, and documented evidence.

Why this matters:

• Procurement teams may notice the difference between vague assertions and structured, policy-backed responses. 
• While some buyers experiment with AI-assisted scoring for RFIs, many currently rely on human review. Consistent, documented, and ISO 27001-aligned responses can support clearer evaluation.
• Responses aligned with recognised frameworks such as ISO 27001 can help demonstrate maturity and consistency.
  

TL;DR for Founders and Lean Teams

Enterprise RFIs act as early-stage risk filters rather than simple paperwork. SMEs and startups may find structured responses helpful by answering accurately, maintaining consistency, and avoiding over-claiming.

ISO 27001-aligned practices may support more structured and evidence-backed responses, which some teams find helpful in managing workload. For example, maintaining a clear SoA, incident response summary, and supplier list may support more efficient responses and help provide consistency.

Next Step: Browse ISO 27001 templates that may simplify process documentation and keep your evidence organised and consistent.

Next Article: In ISO 27001 to SOC 2 Mapping: Evidence Comparison Guide for SMEs, we explore how ISO 27001:2022 artefacts – like policies, logs, and incident records – can support SOC 2, highlighting overlaps, gaps, and practical evidence considerations.

Related Guides

Explore these ISO 27001 resources to help your SME build a practical, lean ISMS: 

Start Here: Complete Guide

• ISO 27001 for SMEs and Startups: The Chill Implementation Guide (2026 Edition) – Full roadmap covering all clauses and Annex A controls, with practical steps, examples, and guidance.

Legal, Procurement, and Trust Topics – Detailed Guides by Topic

• How ISO 27001 Is Commonly Used by SMEs in Enterprise Procurement and Vendor Security Assessments – Shows how SMEs can present ISO 27001 evidence to streamline RFIs, vendor questionnaires, and procurement reviews.
• Contractual Security Requirements SMEs May Encounter in Enterprise Agreements – A practical guide for SMEs on common enterprise security clauses and how ISO 27001 practices can support structured contract reviews.
• How Enterprise Buyers Review ISO 27001 Evidence (SME Lens) – Explains how enterprise teams typically review ISO 27001 evidence beyond the certificate, highlighting common artefacts and review considerations for SMEs.
• ISO 27001 Boundaries for SMEs: What it Does and Does Not Cover – Clarifies what ISO 27001 certification covers, what it excludes, and how SMEs can define scope, manage risks, and handle vendor responsibilities effectively.

Please Note: This article provides general information only and does not constitute legal, regulatory, or compliance advice. Using our products or following this guidance cannot guarantee certification, improved business outcomes, or regulatory compliance. Organisations remain responsible for ensuring all actions meet certification and compliance requirements.

This article also mentions examples of commonly used tools. Chill Compliance does not endorse any vendor and has no commercial or affiliate relationship with the providers listed. These examples are for general information only, and readers may wish to evaluate each tool independently, as features and pricing can vary.