What's the best checklist for a pre-rollout security review with our infosec team?

I'm a staff reliability engineer at a mid-market SaaS company (400+ employees, B2B). I'm directly responsible for signing off on the security of any new third-party tool before it gets into our data pipeline, and I've been on both sides of this table.

Here is the checklist I actually send to product teams asking for security reviews. It forces them to do the homework first.

1. **Full Data Flow & Residency Spec.** Not a vendor diagram. Your own diagram showing exactly where our internal and customer data goes. Include every subprocessor and where their data centers are. If they say "EU" you need the actual country and a link to their commitment. For a tool like this, we require a signed DPA that matches their public terms.
2. **Authentication & Access Audit.** The minimum is SCIM-provisioned SSO (Okta, Azure AD). Must support role mapping. A detailed log of what actions are recorded, with examples (e.g., "User A shared Page B with [email protected]"). If the tool lacks a true audit log, it's an immediate blocker.
3. **Data Control & Recovery.** You need the exact procedures. How do we do a bulk export of all our data in a usable format (like JSON, not just PDFs)? What's the real deletion process and timeline (30 days? 90 days?) for when we offboard? Is there a legal hold feature? This often uncovers gaps.
4. **Infrastructure & Compliance Evidence.** Ask for their latest SOC 2 Type II report (or ISO 27001). Don't accept a generic compliance page. You need the auditor's letter. Also get their vulnerability management policy summary and a history of security incident notifications from the last 12 months.

My pick is to build your own checklist from these four. For a collaboration tool, the non-negotiable is #2 (audit log) and #3 (data export). If they fail either, kill the project.

Tell me your user count and if you handle PII for EU customers. That changes how hard I push on subprocessor lists.

Great list, especially pushing for your own data flow diagram instead of the vendor's marketing version. That's saved me weeks of back and forth before.

On the **Data Control & Recovery** point, I'd add that you should ask about their retention schedule for backup data too. Some vendors keep your deleted data in backups for 90 days, which can complicate offboarding or compliance requests. Getting their exact policy in writing upfront avoids surprises.

Your point about building a collaborative relationship is key. Too many teams treat this as a paperwork drop. The checklist items from others are correct, but the *process* is what makes them effective or adversarial.

Infosec hates surprises. Proactively schedule a 30-minute kickoff before you submit anything. Walk them through your draft data flow diagram and your biggest open questions. This frames the review as a joint problem-solving session, not an audit. It also signals you've done real work.

On documents, you're missing the post-incident communication protocol. Ask the vendor for their actual, templated security incident notification email. Their boilerplate SLA might promise "notification within 24 hours," but you need to see the detail level they actually provide. If it's vague, that's a negotiation point before you sign.

That's a really smart addition about the post-incident email template. I'd push it a step further - ask for their last *actual*, anonymized notification sent to a customer. The template shows intent, but the real one shows their follow-through under pressure.

And absolutely on the kickoff call. I treat it like a technical discovery call with a vendor. You're aligning on scope and definitions. It cuts down the formal review cycle by half because you've already surfaced the tricky bits.

You're right about including the user training plan for security features. That's often an afterthought.

Add their vulnerability disclosure policy and bug bounty scope to your list. A vendor's public program tells you how they handle external reports, which is a good proxy for their internal process maturity.

The collaborative relationship starts when you can speak their language on those documents. If you can't parse their incident response template, flag it in the kickoff call. Shows you're actually reviewing, not just collecting.

Asking for an anonymized notification is clever. I've tried it, and the response rate is low, but when you get one, it's gold.

My caveat: sometimes the redaction is so heavy it's useless. You get a template with "[INCIDENT TYPE]" and "[DATE]" filled in, which defeats the point. I now ask for the redaction criteria upfront. If they won't share even that, it's a yellow flag for transparency.

Totally agree on the vulnerability disclosure policy being a key signal. When I was reviewing a new sales engagement platform last quarter, their policy was buried in a legal doc and basically said "email us." Meanwhile, another vendor had a clear HackerOne page with scope, SLAs for triage, and a public history of resolved issues. It made the choice obvious.

You're spot on that being able to parse the incident template is a relationship builder. I've gone into those kickoff calls and said "Hey, your IR template mentions 'affected systems' but doesn't define the data classes - can we clarify that?" It immediately moves the conversation from checkbox mode to a real discussion. Infosec appreciates when you're trying to understand, not just collect docs.

The collaborative piece you mentioned is the real unlock. Beyond the usual docs, ask the vendor to walk *you* through their own internal security review process for new features. If it's mature, you can just hand that description to your infosec team - shows the vendor's operational security, not just policy.

On training, infosec always asks for proof that it happened. So include your plan for tracking completion rates, especially for critical actions like external sharing controls. Without metrics, the training plan is just a suggestion.

Agreed, asking for the actual notification is smart. The caveat I've run into is that vendors under a current incident won't share anything - they cite legal holds. So timing matters.

I use the kickoff call to ask about their typical notification timeline post-incident. If they can't give a recent example, I ask for their last tabletop exercise report instead. Shows if they actually test the template.

The training plan is good, but you need the *enforcement* plan. How do you handle the employee who clicks "skip" on the mandatory module? Define the consequence workflow with HR before you talk to infosec. Shows you've thought past the checkbox.

Also, bring your own threat model for the tool. Don't just ask them for one. Example: "Our biggest risk is internal data exfil via the export function. Here's our proposed DLP integration to mitigate." Turns the review into a design session.

And yeah, data residency commitments are useless without the penalty clause. What happens if they violate it? Credit? Your data back? Get the remedy, not just the promise.

Agree on the threat model point. In my experience, building that model around the specific user personas in the tool is what makes it concrete. For instance, you might say, "Our risk case is the 'Power Analyst' persona exporting PII-laden query results to a local CSV. Here's how we'll use role-based access to disable raw data export for that group."

On the penalty clause, that's a good litmus test for vendor maturity. A vague "we'll work with you" is a red flag. A mature vendor has a schedule of liquidated damages tied to data class. But be prepared for pushback - getting that into the contract often triggers a legal review on their side, which can delay rollout.

Persona mapping is exactly the right level for threat modeling. It focuses the review on how people will actually use the tool, not just its abstract features. We've had success mapping the 'Viewer' persona, too, where the risk isn't export but screen capture or delegated access from a shared account.

On the penalty clause pushback, it's a good point about delays. We've sometimes accepted a generic clause for the first contract if we can lock in a side letter to define damages after a pilot period. It gets the rollout moving while showing legal you're serious about the detail.

You're on the right track with data flow diagrams, but I'm skeptical about their value if they come from the vendor's marketing deck. They're often theoretical. Ask them for the actual network diagram their SOC team uses for monitoring. If they won't provide it, that's your first data point.

And while you're thinking about training, don't just list the features you'll cover. Your infosec team will want to know how you'll verify the training worked. Are you testing with phishing simulations specific to the tool's sharing model? If not, your training plan is just theater.

The collaborative relationship starts when you stop asking for documents and start asking for proof of operation. Anyone can hand you a policy. Ask them to show you a closed ticket from their bug bounty program or the report from their last pen test. If they balk, you've saved everyone a lot of time.