Episode 60 — Embed vendor AI security requirements before procurement begins (Task 9)

In this episode, we’re going to look at how to prevent vendor risk from becoming an emergency later by setting A I security requirements before procurement even starts. When learners are new, it is easy to assume vendors arrive after technical decisions are made, but in many organizations, vendor choices shape the security boundary more than any internal configuration does. If you wait until a contract is nearly signed to ask security questions, you usually end up with limited options, rushed decisions, and promises that are hard to enforce. Embedding requirements early is how you make risk management practical rather than reactive, because the vendor relationship becomes a structured agreement about safety, evidence, and accountability. By the end, you should be able to explain why early requirements matter, what kinds of requirements reduce real A I risk, and how to think about procurement as a security control.

Before we continue, a quick note: this audio course is a companion to our course companion books. The first book is about the exam and provides detailed information on how to pass it best. The second book is a Kindle-only eBook that contains 1,000 flashcards that can be used on your mobile device or Kindle. Check them both out at Cyber Author dot me, in the Bare Metal Study Guides Series.

A vendor relationship is not just a purchase; it is a dependency, and dependencies always create security questions about trust, data, and control. In A I systems, vendors may host models, process prompts, store logs, provide safety filtering, or power retrieval and monitoring, which means they can touch sensitive information and influence output behavior. The first beginner misunderstanding is thinking vendor security is only about whether the vendor has a good reputation, because reputation does not guarantee that their controls match your obligations. The second misunderstanding is thinking security review is a checkbox that happens at the end, when the more powerful moment is at the beginning, before features and expectations are locked in. If you define requirements early, you can choose vendors that fit your risk appetite and you can avoid building workflows that rely on unsafe assumptions. Early requirements also reduce conflict between business and security, because everyone agrees up front on what must be true for the vendor to be acceptable.

Procurement begins earlier than most people think, often at the moment someone says we should buy a tool to solve a problem. If security is not present at that early moment, the project may drift into a decision before anyone has asked the most basic questions about data exposure, model behavior, or evidence retention. Embedding requirements before procurement begins means that the request for a vendor is framed with security expectations from the start, so selection is not based only on features and speed. This does not mean security must block innovation; it means security helps define a safe target, so the market search is focused on vendors that can meet it. Beginners should understand that procurement is not only a financial process, because it is also a gate that determines what third parties can do with your data and how much visibility you have. When procurement is treated as a control point, the organization buys safer systems instead of buying risk and then trying to patch around it.

A practical way to embed requirements early is to define what kind of vendor relationship you are entering, because different vendor roles create different risks. A vendor that hosts a model and receives prompts is in a different trust position than a vendor that provides a monitoring tool but never sees content. A vendor that can take actions in your environment through integrations is in a different risk category than a vendor that only returns text. A vendor that stores your data for training or improvement is different from a vendor that promises not to retain data beyond processing. These distinctions matter because requirements must be aligned to real exposure pathways, not generic fear. For brand new learners, it helps to ask what the vendor will see, what the vendor will store, what the vendor will change, and what the vendor will be able to do on your behalf. Once you answer those questions, requirements become clearer because you can tie them directly to the risk stories you want to prevent.

Before procurement begins, you also need clarity about your own use case, because vague use cases produce weak requirements that vendors can satisfy with marketing instead of controls. If the planned A I capability is customer facing, requirements around safety behavior, logging, and incident communication become more urgent because public harm spreads quickly. If the capability is internal but touches sensitive data, requirements around data handling, access, and retention become critical because leakage can still be severe. If the system will rely on retrieval from internal sources, requirements around authorization boundaries and data minimization become central because overbroad retrieval is a common failure pattern. If the system will influence decisions or trigger actions, requirements around validation, auditability, and human oversight become essential because output errors can cause real operational harm. Beginners should remember that requirements are only meaningful when they match the system’s intended operating mode, and that means being honest about whether the A I system is a helper, an advisor, or an actor. When the use case is defined early, you can ask vendors the right questions rather than accepting generic assurances.

Data handling requirements are often the most load bearing part of vendor A I security, because data is where both harm and obligations tend to concentrate. The organization should be explicit about what data types may be processed, whether personal data is involved, whether regulated data is involved, and whether the vendor can use the data for model training, model improvement, or analytics. Beginners often assume the only risk is data being stolen, but a more common risk is data being retained, reused, or exposed through logs and support processes in ways that violate expectations. Requirements should cover where data is processed, how it is protected, how long it is retained, and who at the vendor can access it. They should also cover how data is separated between customers, because multi tenant services create isolation requirements that must be strong. A Data Processing Agreement (D P A) is a common contractual mechanism for formalizing these expectations, and after the first mention we will refer to this as D P A. The key idea is that data handling must be defined before the vendor relationship begins, not negotiated as a surprise after integration.

Another major requirement category is transparency and evidence, because you cannot manage risk you cannot see. Vendors should be able to provide enough logging and reporting so you can investigate suspicious behavior, validate compliance, and understand what happened during incidents. For A I systems, this may include request metadata, user identifiers, timestamps, model version identifiers, and indicators of which safety controls triggered, while also respecting privacy and minimizing sensitive content exposure. Beginners should notice that transparency is a balancing act, because too little evidence makes investigation impossible, and too much uncontrolled evidence can create new confidentiality risk. Requirements should therefore include who can access logs, how access is controlled, how long logs are retained, and how logs can be exported or reviewed during incidents. You also want clarity on what the vendor will provide during an incident, such as timelines, affected systems, and relevant technical details. If the vendor cannot support evidence needs, you may be forced to guess during an investigation, and guessing turns incidents into messy, long lasting events.

Security control requirements should also cover the basics that many people forget to ask early because they assume all vendors do them. This includes strong identity and access management practices, separation of duties, secure software development practices, vulnerability management, and secure configuration management. In the A I context, you also want to know how the vendor manages model updates, how they test safety behavior, and how they handle regressions that could cause policy bypass or unexpected output changes. Beginners should pay attention to how vendors handle change, because sudden shifts in behavior can affect your business even if there is no attacker. Requirements should include how updates are communicated, whether customers can control timing of updates, and what rollback options exist when an update causes harm. This is also where you set expectations for support responsiveness, because when A I behavior shifts unexpectedly, you may need the vendor’s help quickly. A Service Level Agreement (S L A) often formalizes availability and response expectations, and after the first mention we will refer to this as S L A. The point is to make operational trust explicit rather than assumed.

Vendor incident response requirements are especially important for A I services because incidents often involve uncertain scope and sensitive data. The organization should require clear notification timelines, clear communication channels, and cooperation obligations, so that when something goes wrong the vendor does not become a black box. This includes requirements for how quickly the vendor will notify you of a security event affecting your data, what information they will share, and how they will support investigation. It also includes expectations for preserving evidence and for explaining root causes in a way you can use in your own reporting. Beginners should understand that incident response is not only about technical fixes; it is about coordinated decisions, and you cannot coordinate with a vendor if expectations are vague. Requirements should also clarify who at the vendor is authorized to make operational decisions, such as temporarily disabling certain features, because containment may require vendor action. When incident requirements are embedded early, you reduce the chance that the vendor’s legal process slows your response when minutes matter.

A frequently overlooked requirement category is how the vendor handles safety and misuse boundaries, especially for systems that accept open ended prompts or user supplied content. Even if your organization has strong internal policies, a vendor hosted model may be exposed to prompt injection attempts, probing behavior, and misuse patterns that can cause disallowed outputs or data leakage. Requirements should address how the vendor detects and blocks misuse, how they prevent cross customer leakage, and how they support your policies for acceptable use. If the vendor provides configurable safety features, you need requirements for how those features are configured, tested, and monitored, and who is responsible for tuning and ownership. Beginners should recognize that safety is not only a content policy issue; it is also a security issue because harmful outputs can create real harm and reputational damage. Requirements should also address how the vendor prevents their own staff or subcontractors from accessing customer content unnecessarily, because internal access is a common worry for sensitive A I use cases. By defining these expectations early, you avoid discovering after launch that the vendor’s safety model does not match yours.

Requirements must also address integration and privilege, because many A I vendor products become powerful only when connected to your internal systems. If the vendor tool can access internal documents, query databases, or trigger workflows, the integration becomes a high value target and a high impact failure point. Requirements should therefore include least privilege expectations, strong authentication, and clear audit trails for actions taken through integrations. They should also include clear limits on what the tool can do automatically, because automation increases the speed at which harm can occur. Beginners should understand that a vendor tool that can take actions is not just an assistant; it is an actor, and actors require stronger safety rails. Requirements should specify validation expectations, such as ensuring that high impact actions require additional confirmation or are restricted to specific workflows. This also connects to monitoring, because if the tool acts in your environment, you need evidence that links a model request to a downstream action. If requirements ignore integration risk, the organization can accidentally create a privileged pathway that bypasses its normal controls.

A practical reality is that procurement involves multiple stakeholders, and requirements must be embedded in the process so security is not an afterthought. Many organizations use Third Party Risk Management (T P R M) to evaluate vendors before onboarding, and after the first mention we will refer to this as T P R M. The key is that T P R M should include A I specific questions, not only generic security questionnaires, because A I risk depends on prompt handling, output behavior, model updates, and data retention practices that traditional questionnaires might not cover. Procurement teams and vendor management teams should have a standardized intake that captures A I use case, data sensitivity, and integration scope so security requirements are triggered automatically. Beginners should see that embedding requirements is mostly about shaping the workflow, not about being the loudest voice in the room. If the workflow requires answers before selection, vendors either meet the needs or they are filtered out before time is wasted. When workflows are designed well, security becomes part of the normal business path rather than a late stage obstacle.

Contracts are where requirements become enforceable, and beginners should understand that a requirement that is not written down is often just a wish. This does not mean you need to become a contract expert, but you should understand that procurement decisions must translate security expectations into contractual commitments. A Statement of Work (S O W) often defines what is delivered and how it is operated, and after the first mention we will refer to this as S O W. Security requirements may be placed in the main agreement, in addenda, or in supporting documents like the D P A and S L A, but the placement matters less than clarity and enforceability. Requirements should specify what happens if the vendor fails to meet obligations, such as remediation expectations and notification duties, because those are the levers that create real accountability. Beginners should also recognize that contract language influences behavior during incidents, because vendors tend to follow contractual commitments when pressure rises. If incident cooperation is not contractually expected, it may be slow or limited when you need it most. Embedding requirements before procurement means the contract is shaped by security needs rather than security trying to reshape a near finished deal.

Requirements also need to be realistic and testable, because vague demands are easy to accept and easy to ignore. Instead of broad statements like the vendor must be secure, requirements should connect to observable behaviors like retention settings, access controls, evidence availability, and incident notification timelines. Testing can include validating how the vendor handles your data flow, verifying that safety settings behave as expected in your use case, and confirming that monitoring evidence is accessible when needed. Beginners should notice that testability is what turns requirements into an operational truth, because it allows you to verify compliance rather than relying on promises. This also helps avoid the trap of buying a tool that looks good in a demo but fails in real operations. If you define requirements that can be verified, you can include acceptance checks and periodic reviews, which keeps the vendor relationship aligned over time. A well designed requirement is one that a vendor can either demonstrate or cannot demonstrate, making decisions clearer and less political.

Another important element is planning for change, because vendor services evolve and your use cases evolve, and requirements must anticipate that reality. If the vendor updates models, changes filtering behavior, or modifies interfaces, those changes can affect risk, so requirements should include communication and change management expectations. If you expand your use case later, such as adding a new data source or opening access to a wider user group, requirements may need to be revisited, which is why early procurement should include a path for reassessment rather than assuming the initial agreement covers everything forever. Beginners should see that a vendor relationship is a living relationship, and living relationships require periodic checkups. Requirements should also include exit considerations, such as how you retrieve your data, how you confirm deletion, and how you transition safely if the vendor no longer fits. Exit planning is not pessimism; it is a continuity safeguard that reduces dependency risk. When you embed requirements early, you are designing for the whole life cycle, not just for the launch moment.

As we close, embedding vendor A I security requirements before procurement begins is one of the most effective ways to prevent hidden weak points from entering your environment through contracts and dependencies. Early requirements matter because they shape vendor selection, they align stakeholders, and they turn security into a predictable part of buying decisions rather than a late stage argument. Strong requirements focus on data handling, transparency and evidence, operational controls and updates, incident cooperation, safety boundaries, and integration privilege, all matched to your model, data, and use case. Processes like T P R M make these expectations routine, while contractual instruments like D P A, S L A, and S O W make them enforceable and testable. When requirements are realistic and verified, vendors become partners in risk management rather than unknown variables in your threat landscape. This is how you enable A I opportunity with confidence, because you are not just buying features, you are buying a managed relationship where accountability and safety are designed in from the start.

Episode 60 — Embed vendor AI security requirements before procurement begins (Task 9)
Broadcast by