You’ve done the hard part: the security questionnaire is filled out, the buyer’s team has reviewed it, and the deal should be moving forward. Then a new document lands in your inbox—often from Procurement or Legal—with a subject line like “Security Addendum”, “Security Schedule”, or “Supplier Security Terms.” Suddenly, you’re no longer answering questions. You’re being asked to commit—contractually.
This is the moment many SME deals slow down or quietly stall. Not because your security is “bad,” but because a security addendum shifts the conversation from what you do to what you will be legally responsible for. It can introduce tight timelines (e.g., breach notification windows), broad audit rights, hard remediation commitments, or warranties that sound harmless until they’re tied to penalties and renewal leverage. And under pressure to keep momentum, teams often do the two things that hurt them most: overpromise (to get it signed) or freeze (because no one owns the answer).
In this article, we’ll break down the 7 contract clauses that most often block SMEs—and a practical playbook to respond fast without taking on unnecessary risk. You’ll learn how to triage a clause (accept / negotiate / refuse), what “safe wording” looks like when you can’t meet a requirement today, and what evidence to attach so your response reads as credible—not defensive. The goal isn’t perfection. It’s control: keeping procurement moving while staying honest, consistent, and ready to back up what you sign.
What a “Security Addendum” really is (and why it shows up late)
A Security Addendum is not another questionnaire. It’s a set of contractual security obligations attached to the agreement—often introduced after the buyer’s security team has reviewed your answers and flagged perceived gaps.
It usually sits alongside (or inside) documents like:
- MSA / Services Agreement (commercial terms)
- DPA (data processing and privacy terms)
- Security Addendum / Supplier Security Terms (security controls, commitments, audit, incident obligations)
Why it appears late: because it’s the buyer’s way of converting “security comfort” into legal leverage—so they can reduce risk, satisfy internal governance, and keep their own auditors happy. This is also why the addendum is often written as if every supplier is a large enterprise—even if you’re a growing SME.
The hidden trap: when you sign an addendum without aligning Sales + IT + Legal, you’re not just agreeing to “best practices.” You’re agreeing to deadlines, audit rights, and remedies—and those can come back during renewals, disputes, or incidents.
This is practical guidance, not legal advice. For high-stakes contracts, always involve your legal counsel.
The 7 clauses that most often stall SME deals (and what to do about them)
Below are the clauses that create the most back-and-forth—and a practical way to respond without overpromising.
Incident notification windows (e.g., 24/48/72 hours)
Why it stalls: buyers want speed; SMEs worry about committing to a timeline they can’t meet, especially without a mature incident response program.
How to respond (principle):
- Commit to rapid acknowledgement + ongoing updates, not a perfect full incident report in 24 hours.
- Make language precise: “notify upon confirmed security incident affecting…” vs “any suspected issue”.
Safer positioning (example wording):
- “We will notify the Customer without undue delay upon confirmation of a security incident that materially impacts Customer data/services, and provide regular updates as more information becomes available.”
Audit rights (onsite audits, frequency, cost)
Why it stalls: “audit rights” can be written broadly enough to be disruptive and expensive.
How to respond (principle):
- Offer reasonable audit mechanisms: remote review, evidence packs, third-party reports.
- Cap frequency and scope. Define who pays.
What you want to clarify:
- Frequency (e.g., annually)
- Notice period (e.g., 30 days)
- Scope (systems relevant to the service)
- Format (remote-first; onsite only if necessary)
- Confidentiality + cost allocation
Security warranties (“we guarantee…” / “we will ensure…”)
Why it stalls: absolute guarantees are risky. Even strong programs can’t guarantee “no vulnerabilities” or “no breaches.”
How to respond (principle):
- Replace absolutes with reasonable measures and defined standards.
- Anchor to documented controls and continuous improvement.
Red-flag phrases to avoid signing as-is:
- “will ensure no unauthorized access occurs”
- “guarantees the system is free of vulnerabilities”
- “will prevent all cyber attacks”
Remediation commitments (fixed deadlines for all findings)
Why it stalls: buyers demand strict SLAs for patching/remediation—without considering severity, environment, or testing windows.
How to respond (principle):
- Agree to a severity-based approach: Critical/High/Medium/Low with realistic windows.
Include exception handling (business impact, vendor dependencies, compensating controls).
What good looks like:
- “Critical findings remediated within X days or mitigated with compensating controls while remediation is in progress.”
Sub-processor / supplier obligations (third-party risk)
Why it stalls: buyer wants control over every vendor you use (cloud, tooling, subcontractors).
How to respond (principle):
- Provide transparency and a process: list categories + notification for material changes.
- Don’t promise “buyer approval for any supplier” unless you can operationalize it.
Good compromise levers:
- Maintain an up-to-date sub-processor list
- Notify ahead of material changes
- Allow objection window with reasonable resolution process
SLA + monitoring / security operations requirements (24/7 SOC, etc.)
Why it stalls: many addendums assume 24/7 SOC, SIEM, continuous monitoring, etc.
How to respond (principle):
- Be precise about what you do today and what is “best effort / roadmap.”
- Offer a staged approach: baseline now, maturity upgrades over time.
Avoid: signing language that implies capabilities you don’t actually have (buyers will notice later).
“Pre go-live” gates (extra checks before onboarding)
Why it stalls: buyer adds “must pass X before go-live”—penetration tests, assessments, policy reviews—often with unclear scope and timelines.
How to respond (principle):
- Clarify what’s required, by whom, and when.
- Convert it into a defined baseline + roadmap instead of open-ended gates.
Practical move: propose a short, fixed-scope baseline assessment that produces an evidence-backed roadmap (this is exactly where a CyberCheck-style approach fits).
A practical response playbook (Sales + IT + Legal)
Here’s a lightweight process you can run in 48–72 hours without chaos.
Step 1: Triage each clause into 1 of 3 buckets
Create a simple table:
- Accept (already true + easy to prove)
- Negotiate (principle is fine, wording/scope unrealistic)
- Reject / Replace (absolute guarantee, unbounded audit, impossible SLA)
This stops the “everything is urgent” panic and lets you move clause-by-clause.
Step 2: Replace “yes/no” with “yes + scope + evidence”
Procurement loves clarity. Your goal is to answer in a way that’s:
- Specific (what you do)
- Scoped (where it applies)
- Provable (how you can show it)
Think: “Yes, for systems in scope of this service. Evidence: policy + ticket history + logs.”
Step 3: Use “exceptions + plan” instead of overpromising
If you can’t meet a clause today, don’t freeze and don’t bluff.
Use a consistent structure:
- Current state (truth)
- Risk control today (compensating controls)
- Improvement plan (roadmap with timeline)
This keeps credibility intact and still gives the buyer a path to approval.
Step 4: Attach proof once, reuse forever (your Evidence Pack)
Instead of crafting bespoke responses every time, build a reusable kit:
- Security overview (1–2 pages)
- Key policies (access control, incident response, backups, change mgmt)
- Evidence index (where proof lives)
- Standard exceptions statement (approved wording)
- Optional: recent security assessment summary / baseline report
This is how you move from “heroic effort” to “repeatable deal enablement.”
Where each Sunbytes package fits
If you want to position this cleanly on the blog without sounding salesy:
- Sunbytes CyberCheck: gives you a practical security baseline + prioritized roadmap—so you can respond to addendums with clarity and evidence, not guesswork.
- Sunbytes Compliance Readiness: helps translate your baseline into audit-ready compliance alignment (ISO/SOC2/HIPAA/NIS2/DORA depending on context) and the evidence structure auditors expect.
- Sunbytes CyberCare: keeps your controls and evidence continuously current, so your answers remain true quarter after quarter (and renewals don’t become painful).
About Sunbytes
Sunbytes is a Dutch technology company headquartered in the Netherlands, with 14 years of experience helping international teams Transform · Secure · Accelerate.
- Our Secure-by-Design approach isn’t a standalone “security project”—it’s reinforced by how we deliver and scale.
- Transform strengthens Secure by Design by embedding security into modern product delivery: senior engineering teams, disciplined QA/testing, and reliable maintenance practices that reduce defects, rework, and risk.
- Accelerate strengthens Secure by Design by ensuring you can scale capability and capacity without losing control—bringing the right people, processes, and continuity so security requirements don’t collapse under growth.
The result: practical security that supports delivery speed, buyer confidence, and long-term resilience.
If you want security requirements to stop slowing delivery and sales, let’s talk. We’ll help you establish a clear baseline, build credible proof, and create a roadmap you can stand behind—then keep it continuously up to date.
FAQs
They often appear after the buyer reviews your questionnaire and decides they need legal protections to reduce risk. Procurement/Legal use addendums to formalise expectations and create enforceable commitments before signing.
No. A DPA focuses on privacy and data processing roles/obligations (controller/processor, GDPR terms, etc.). A Security Addendum focuses on security controls, incident notification, audits, remediation timelines, and operational requirements.
Not necessarily. Many addendums are written for large enterprises and can be overly broad for SMEs. The practical approach is to triage clauses into accept / negotiate / replace based on what you can actually operationalise and prove.
Let’s start with Sunbytes
Let us know your requirements for the team and we will contact you right away.
