Rick Orloff, a Fortune 1000 CISO and Strategic Advisor at A-LIGN, leverages over 20 years of experience at companies like Apple and eBay to guide enterprise security and audit strategies.

If you’ve ever spent weeks preparing a SOC 2 or ISO audit report only to wonder whether anyone actually reads it — the answer is yes. But probably not in the way you think. 

Experienced security leaders have a very deliberate, efficient approach to reviewing these reports. They’re not reading every word. They’re pattern-matching for risk. Here’s what that actually looks like.  

Customers are emerging as a driving factor for concern over AI risk, too. Four out of five organizations now face direct inquiries from customers about their AI risk management practices, according to the 2026 Compliance Benchmark Report. This shows that your stakeholders want to know that the tools you use are safe, ethical, and secure. 

Step 1: Scope — before anything else 

The very first thing an experienced CISO looks at is the scope. Why? Because a clean report means nothing if it doesn’t cover the services and systems that actually matter to the business relationship. A vendor can produce a beautifully audited report that excludes the exact infrastructure handling the most sensitive data — and that gap must be identified. 

The key question being asked is: Does this audit actually cover what the organization is exposed to? 

A common red flag: sensitive data, like Personally Identifiable Information (PII) or HIPAA-covered information, being processed by a system, while critical components like identity and access management are left out of scope. That’s not necessarily a dealbreaker, but it demands an explanation. What’s the reason for the exclusion? What’s the residual risk? 

Scope gaps don’t have to kill a deal. But they do have to be understood.  

Step 2: Findings — context is everything 

Here’s something that surprises a lot of vendors: findings don’t automatically spell trouble. Experienced security leaders evaluate findings with a sense of what is reasonable.  

For example, a large company with 15 years of infrastructure history is going to have technical debt that includes end-of-life operating systems, legacy configurations, and so on. A finding around that isn’t shocking. What matters is whether the auditor has flagged it repeatedly, and more importantly, what the vendor does about it. 

The finding itself is almost secondary. The management response is where the real signal lives. A good management response: 

• Acknowledges the finding clearly 
• Doesn’t read like it was trying to minimize liability 
• Outlines specific, actionable mitigating controls or a remediation plan 

If the management’s response is reasonable and the plan seems credible, many reviewers will stop right there, and the report passes.  

Step 3: The management response — where deals are won or lost 

The management response is often the deciding factor in whether a report builds trust or raises concerns. Consider two scenarios for the same finding — say, insufficient log retention for sensitive data: 

Scenario A:  

“We didn’t have the logs for 45 days. Here’s our plan to address it.”  

This response demonstrates accountability and a clear path forward. 

Scenario B:  

“Log retention isn’t something we prioritize.” 

This response doesn’t just raise a technical concern — it signals a cultural one. It tells the reviewer that the organization either doesn’t understand the risk or doesn’t care about it.  

When it goes sideways: How CISOs decide to walk away 

What happens when a vendor pushes back on a serious concern? The decision to escalate or walk away often comes down to two factors: who gave the problematic response, and how unique the vendor is. 

If the dismissive answer came from the CISO themselves — someone who should know better — most experienced security leaders will end the conversation. There’s no escalation path when the top of the security organization has already signed off on a flawed position.  

But if the response came from a senior manager or director, and the vendor offers something genuinely differentiated, it may be worth escalating to higher-level leadership. This allows for a clearer understanding of whether the organization’s security leadership supports the position or is open to course-correcting. 

The key test: does the senior leader double down, or do they acknowledge the concern and commit to action? One answer keeps the conversation alive. The other ends it. 

The takeaway for vendors 

If you’re preparing for an audit or getting ready to share a report with a prospective partner or customer, here’s what actually moves the needle: 

• Be deliberate about scope. If something is out of scope, know why — and be ready to explain it clearly. 
• Don’t fear findings — own them. They’re expected, especially in mature organizations. 
• Invest in your management response. This is your opportunity to demonstrate maturity, accountability, and a credible path forward. A thoughtful response can neutralize almost any finding. A dismissive one can end the relationship entirely. 
• Culture shows. How your team talks about risk, findings, and remediation tells reviewers everything they need to know about whether your security program is real or performative. 

The auditors have already done their job. When a CISO picks up that report, the question they’re really asking is: Do these people take security seriously? Make sure your report and your responses answer that clearly.