How to Answer Enterprise AI Security Questionnaires: A Complete Guide for AI Startups

Your VP of Sales forwards you an email at 5pm. Subject: "Vendor Security Assessment : Please Complete by Friday."

You open the document. 120 questions. Section 8: "AI/ML Security Controls" : 47 questions you've never seen before.

"How do you prevent prompt injection attacks?"

"Have you conducted third-party red teaming on your LLM?"

"What controls prevent sensitive data leakage through AI outputs?"

You write vague answers. Procurement comes back with follow-ups. The deal stalls.

This is now the default path for any AI startup selling to an enterprise bank, insurer, or regulated financial institution.

You are stuck not knowing how to answer Enterprise AI Security Questionnaires.

Enterprise AI security questionnaires are no longer optional. They are the deal-blocking standard.

This guide covers what enterprise buyers are actually asking, why they're asking it, and the fastest way to answer them with credibility.

Why Are Enterprise Buyers Suddenly Asking These Questions?

The Regulatory Pressure Is Real

Three regulatory frameworks hit the market in 2024–2025 and changed everything:

1. DORA (Digital Operational Resilience Act) — Effective January 2025

DORA applies to any financial institution in the EU dealing with a third-party AI vendor. It requires documented evidence that the vendor has assessed and monitored AI risk. Banks can no longer just "trust" your security posture — they need third-party validation.

2. EU AI Act (High-Risk Classification)

Fintech use cases — credit scoring, fraud detection, AML compliance, conversational banking — are classified as "high-risk AI." This means:

• Written risk assessments are mandatory

• Testing documentation is mandatory

• Bias audits and performance monitoring are mandatory

Your startup needs to provide evidence of all three before a bank can onboard you.

3. FCA, MAS FEAT, and FFIEC Guidance

The UK Financial Conduct Authority, Singapore's Monetary Authority, and the U.S. Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council have all published AI vendor due diligence requirements. They're not optional suggestions — they're regulatory guidelines that banks must follow.

The Market Impact

According to Promptfoo's 2025 AI Regulation Report: "Enterprise security questionnaires added AI-specific sections in 2025. RFPs began requiring documentation that didn't exist six months prior."

Translation: Your competitors are getting asked these questions, and the banks doing the asking don't yet know what good answers look like. They're using the questionnaires as a filter — if you can't answer, you're disqualified.

The Cost of Inaction

• 90 days: average time a security review stalls a Series A–C fintech deal

• 10–21 days: the drag security reviews add per deal stage (per industry data)

• 3–5 deals: the number simultaneously stalling on security review at most Series A-C fintechs at any given time

• $150K–$300K ACV: the average value of each stalled deal

• 
  

The 10 Most Common AI Security Questions Enterprise Enterprises Ask

Enterprise procurement teams send questionnaires that range from 60–120 questions. Approximately 40–50% are AI-specific. Here are the 10 most frequently asked:

1. How Do You Prevent Prompt Injection Attacks?

What they're asking: Prompt injection is a documented attack vector where an attacker manipulates an LLM's behavior by injecting malicious instructions into the input. Banks need to know you have defenses.

Red flag answers:

• "We trust OpenAI's safety measures" (you don't control their model)

• "We have input validation" (insufficient — doesn't cover all injection types)

• "Our engineers review outputs" (manual review doesn't scale)

What they want to see: Automated detection + human-in-the-loop monitoring for prompt injection attempts. Ideally, evidence you've tested this.

2. Have You Conducted Third-Party Red Teaming or Penetration Testing on Your AI?

What they're asking: Did an external security firm test your LLM for vulnerabilities? This is the single most common follow-up question when startups don't have an initial answer.

Red flag answers:

• "We did internal testing" (doesn't satisfy third-party requirement)

• "Our team reviewed security best practices" (not testing)

• "We use secure infrastructure" (infrastructure security ≠ AI security)

What they want to see: A formal red team report from a credible third party. Ideally with specific attack simulations documented.

3. What Controls Prevent Sensitive Data from Leaking Through AI Outputs?

What they're asking: Your LLM might leak customer PII, credit card numbers, or medical records in its responses. How do you prevent this?

Red flag answers:

• "Our engineers manually review high-risk outputs" (doesn't scale)

• "We use encryption" (encryption protects data in transit, not in use)

• "We train the model not to output sensitive data" (doesn't guarantee prevention)

What they want to see: Automated runtime monitoring that detects and blocks PII leakage. Evidence you're monitoring in production.

4. Do You Contractually Prohibit Training on Customer Data?

What they're asking: If a bank sends data to your API, will you use it to fine-tune or train your model? (Many startups do; banks hate this.)

Red flag answers:

• "We don't train on customer data" (without contractual proof)

• "We have security best practices" (vague)

What they want to see: A data processing agreement explicitly prohibiting training use. Link to it in your answer.

5. What Encryption Standards Apply to Data Processed by Your AI?

What they're asking: While your data is in motion and at rest, what standards protect it?

Red flag answers:

• "We use industry-standard encryption" (which standard?)

• "AWS handles encryption" (true, but you need to specify which AWS services and protocols)

What they want to see: Specific standards: TLS 1.2+, AES-256 at rest, and which cloud provider handles each.

6. How Do You Monitor AI Outputs for Anomalous Behavior in Real-Time?

What they're asking: Are you actively watching your LLM's behavior in production? Can you detect when it starts behaving unexpectedly?

Red flag answers:

• "We monitor our infrastructure" (that's not AI monitoring)

• "We have alerts set up" (for what specific behaviors?)

What they want to see: A monitoring dashboard showing runtime metrics. Anomaly detection thresholds. Evidence you're catching problems before they reach customers.

7. Have You Mapped Your AI Risks Against OWASP LLM Top 10?

What they're asking: The Open Web Application Security Project publishes the "LLM Top 10" — a list of the most critical LLM security risks. Have you assessed your product against this list?

Red flag answers:

• "We haven't heard of OWASP LLM Top 10" (this will end the conversation)

• "We're secure" (no reference to any framework)

What they want to see: A risk assessment table showing each OWASP LLM risk, how it applies to your product, and how you mitigate it.

8. What Is Your Incident Response Plan for an AI Security Breach?

What they're asking: If your LLM gets attacked or compromised, what's your playbook?

Red flag answers:

• "We don't expect this to happen" (naive)

• "We'll figure it out if it happens" (unacceptable to a bank)

What they want to see: A documented incident response plan covering: detection, containment, notification timeline, and remediation steps.

9. How Do You Validate That Your AI Models Have Not Been Poisoned or Tampered With?

What they're asking: Model poisoning is a documented attack where malicious actors corrupt your training data or model weights. How do you ensure your models are legitimate?

Red flag answers:

• "We get models from OpenAI / Anthropic" (relying on the provider)

• "Our engineers check" (how specifically?)

What they want to see: Model signature verification, integrity checks, version control, and ideally third-party validation.

10. What Third-Party AI Security Certifications or Assessments Do You Hold?

What they're asking: Do you have formal, auditable proof that your AI is secure? (SOC 2 doesn't cover AI. ISO 27001 doesn't specifically address LLMs.)

Red flag answers:

• "We're SOC 2 Type II" (good for infrastructure, but not AI-specific)

• "We're working on certifications" (not acceptable)

What they want to see: A formal third-party red team assessment, or a framework like ISO 42001 (AI management system standard).

How to Answer Enterprise AI Security Questionnaires (The Right Way)

The Three-Tier Answer Framework

When responding to enterprise AI security questionnaires, use this structure for each question:

Tier 1 — The Specific Claim Make a clear, testable statement about what you do.

• ✅ "We conduct automated prompt injection testing on all LLM inputs using pattern matching and semantic analysis."

• ❌ "We have security measures in place."

Tier 2 — The Evidence Provide proof. This might be:

• A third-party red team report

• A sample monitoring dashboard

• Audit logs showing detection/blocking events

• Test results from your red teaming

Tier 3 — The Framework Map your answer to a standard the bank recognizes:

• OWASP LLM Top 10

• SOC 2 Type II (for infrastructure)

• EU AI Act requirements

• NIST AI Risk Management Framework

Example: Answering Question #2

The Question: "Have you conducted third-party red teaming on your AI?"

Tier 1 — The Claim: "Yes. We conduct automated and manual red teaming of our LLM. In the past 6 months, we've identified and remediated 28 vulnerabilities across prompt injection, context manipulation, and data exfiltration vectors."

Tier 2 — The Evidence: "Our most recent comprehensive red team assessment (attached) was conducted by [Third-Party Company] in [Month/Year]. The assessment simulated 500+ attack vectors and generated detailed remediation guidance for each finding. We re-test quarterly and maintain an active vulnerability log."

Tier 3 — The Framework: "This process aligns with OWASP LLM Top 10 testing requirements (specifically LLM-01 Prompt Injection and LLM-02 Insecure Output Handling). We document all findings using the CVSS v3.1 severity framework."

Why Manual Answers Fail (And Why Third-Party Testing Is Essential)

The Problem With DIY Answers

Most Series A–C AI startups have 2–4 engineers. None of them are dedicated to security. When they try to answer a 120-question security assessment manually:

1. Answers are vague — "We follow best practices" doesn't satisfy enterprise procurement.

2. Answers lack third-party credibility — A bank values external validation more than self-reported security.

3. Answers take weeks — Your CTO spends 15 hours per week on questionnaires instead of shipping product.

4. Answers are inconsistent — Different people answer similar questions differently across multiple assessments.

5. Answers fail follow-up scrutiny — When procurement asks "Can you provide evidence?" you don't have it.

Result: The deal stalls. Procurement escalates to the bank's CISO. The CISO asks harder questions. The timeline stretches from 30 days to 90 days.

Why Third-Party Red Teaming Changes Everything

When you have a formal third-party red team report, the dynamic shifts:

• Credibility — An external security firm's assessment carries weight. Banks trust it.

• Specificity — The report documents attack types tested, vulnerabilities found, and remediation guidance. This is exactly what procurement wants.

• Compliance mapping — A professional report maps findings to regulatory frameworks (OWASP, GDPR, EU AI Act).

• Proof of ongoing diligence — You can show quarterly re-tests, demonstrating continuous security posture.

• Faster approvals — When a bank sees a credible third-party assessment, security reviews compress from 90 days to 14–21 days.

The Timeline: When Enterprises Ask These Questions

Enterprise AI security questionnaires typically appear at these stages:

Deal Stage	Timeline	What Triggers It
Initial qualification	Week 1–2	Sales team submits company info
First questionnaire	Week 2–4	Procurement team receives RFQ
Follow-up questions	Week 5–8	Procurement escalates unclear answers
CISO review	Week 8–12	CTO/security lead gets involved due to vague answers
Final approval	Week 12–14	All questions answered with evidence

Without third-party proof: The timeline often stretches to 90+ days because every unanswered question triggers escalation.

With a third-party red team report: The timeline compresses to 14–21 days because procurement has evidence to show the CISO.

The Fastest Solution: Third-Party AI Red Teaming

If you're running a Series A–C AI startup and you don't have time to build enterprise security documentation from scratch, there's a proven path:

What You Need

1. Automated AI Red Teaming (48-hour turnaround)

   • 500+ attack simulations on your LLM

   • Prompt injection, data exfiltration, model poisoning, context manipulation

   • Executive summary + technical findings + remediation guidance

   • Compliance mapping (SOC 2, OWASP LLM Top 10, EU AI Act, NIST)

1. Runtime Protection & Monitoring (real-time)

   • Continuous monitoring of your LLM in production

   • Automated blocking of prompt injection attempts

   • PII leak detection and prevention

   • Anomaly detection for unexpected behavior

   • 90-day audit logs for security reviews

Together, these give you answers to all 10 of the most common questions in a format enterprise procurement teams recognize and trust.

The ROI

• Cost: $3K–$10K for a comprehensive assessment

• Time saved: 40–60 hours of CTO/security time (instead of manual questionnaire completion)

• Deal acceleration: 90-day reviews compress to 14–21 days

• Revenue impact: If you accelerate even one $200K+ deal, this pays for itself 20 times over

• 
  

Regulatory Compliance: What Each Framework Requires

Enterprise buyers aren't asking these questions randomly. They're checking boxes for compliance.

Regulation	Applies To	What It Requires	How Third-Party Red Teaming Helps
DORA	EU financial institutions	AI vendor risk assessment + third-party validation	Red team report is direct evidence of risk assessment
EU AI Act	High-risk AI in fintech	Risk assessment, testing documentation, bias audit	Red team report covers testing; maps to AI Act requirements
SOC 2 Type II	Any SaaS vendor	Security controls audit	Red team findings + Shield logs provide AI-specific evidence
ISO 42001	AI management systems	AI risk management framework	Red team assessment directly addresses ISO 42001 requirements
NIST AI RMF	U.S. federal vendors	Risk management framework	Red team report maps to NIST framework

The Bottom Line

Enterprise AI security questionnaires aren't going away. They're becoming the default for any fintech, healthcare, or regulated industry buyer.

You have two paths:

Path 1 — Manual:

• Spend 15 hours/week answering questionnaires

• Hope your vague answers don't trigger follow-ups

• Watch deals stall for 90 days

• Have your CTO pulled off product

Path 2 — Professional:

• Get a third-party red team assessment in 48 hours

• Attach audit-ready reports to every security questionnaire

• Compress security reviews from 90 days to 14–21 days

• Keep your CTO on product

The difference is not just time — it's revenue. Every week your enterprise deal is stalled is a week you're not closing it.

Next Steps

If you have an enterprise deal stalling on security review:

1. Document which questions are blocking approval

2. Get a third-party red team assessment

3. Attach the report to your responses

4. Watch the timeline compress

If you're just starting enterprise sales:

1. Get a red team assessment before your first deal

2. Use it proactively in early security conversations

3. Build your vendor security assessment responses around your assessment

4. Compress your sales cycle before it becomes a problem

The companies closing enterprise deals fastest aren't the ones with the best products. They're the ones with the best security answers.

Learn more: For a sample red team report and a checklist of the 40 most common AI security questions, visit Rockfort AI.