Download the editable SaaS Security Review Intake Form
The file is designed for real review work, with structured fields, ownership prompts, status controls, and space for evidence.
What this file is for
This saas security review intake form helps a buying team collect enough service, data, access, architecture, vendor, and business context to scope a security review. It is most useful when several functions need to contribute facts but one person must maintain a single decision record. The working question is which risk tier and evidence path should apply before the security assessment begins. Keeping that question visible prevents the team from collecting documents and comments that never change the decision.
Use the file before approval, and return to it whenever scope, quantities, data handling, delivery timing, or contract terms change. The expected coordinator is the requesting business or system owner, with input from information security, privacy, IT architecture, identity, procurement, legal, data owners, and the vendor. The tool does not replace legal, security, privacy, finance, or technical judgment. It makes each judgment traceable to evidence and an accountable owner.
What the download contains
| # | Working area | How to complete it |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Service Purpose And Business Criticality | Record the fact, its source, accountable owner, status, and the consequence if it remains unresolved. |
| 2 | Data Types, Volume, And Residency | Record the fact, its source, accountable owner, status, and the consequence if it remains unresolved. |
| 3 | Users, Privileged Roles, And Authentication | Record the fact, its source, accountable owner, status, and the consequence if it remains unresolved. |
| 4 | Integrations, Agents, And Network Connections | Record the fact, its source, accountable owner, status, and the consequence if it remains unresolved. |
| 5 | Vendor Hosting And Subprocessors | Record the fact, its source, accountable owner, status, and the consequence if it remains unresolved. |
| 6 | Availability Need, Incident Route, And Requested Launch Date | Record the fact, its source, accountable owner, status, and the consequence if it remains unresolved. |
The file also includes instructions, status choices, review notes, and a signoff area. Blank fields are intentional: they should be completed from the documents and tests for the actual purchase. Do not copy a previous vendor's answers unless the underlying facts are still current and apply to the same service scope.
Field-by-field review guide
Service Purpose And Business Criticality
Treat service purpose and business criticality as a decision input in the saas security review intake form, not as a label that proves completion. The entry should show the current fact, the source that supports it, and the consequence for which risk tier and evidence path should apply before the security assessment begins. Ask the requesting business or system owner to separate confirmed evidence from a planning assumption and to identify who can accept any limitation. Cross-check service purpose and business criticality against data types, volume, and residency, because those two areas can reveal a hidden scope, timing, ownership, or contract conflict. Input from information security, privacy, IT architecture, identity, procurement, legal, data owners, and the vendor should remain attributable to the person and evidence used. A specific risk to test here is submitting marketing material instead of architecture facts. Record the status, next action, due date, and proof needed for closure. The completed service purpose and business criticality record should still make sense to a renewal, incident, audit, or replacement team that did not attend the original meetings.
Data Types, Volume, And Residency
Treat data types, volume, and residency as a decision input in the saas security review intake form, not as a label that proves completion. The entry should show the current fact, the source that supports it, and the consequence for which risk tier and evidence path should apply before the security assessment begins. Ask the requesting business or system owner to separate confirmed evidence from a planning assumption and to identify who can accept any limitation. Cross-check data types, volume, and residency against users, privileged roles, and authentication, because those two areas can reveal a hidden scope, timing, ownership, or contract conflict. Input from information security, privacy, IT architecture, identity, procurement, legal, data owners, and the vendor should remain attributable to the person and evidence used. A specific risk to test here is excluding test or support data. Record the status, next action, due date, and proof needed for closure. The completed data types, volume, and residency record should still make sense to a renewal, incident, audit, or replacement team that did not attend the original meetings.
Users, Privileged Roles, And Authentication
Treat users, privileged roles, and authentication as a decision input in the saas security review intake form, not as a label that proves completion. The entry should show the current fact, the source that supports it, and the consequence for which risk tier and evidence path should apply before the security assessment begins. Ask the requesting business or system owner to separate confirmed evidence from a planning assumption and to identify who can accept any limitation. Cross-check users, privileged roles, and authentication against integrations, agents, and network connections, because those two areas can reveal a hidden scope, timing, ownership, or contract conflict. Input from information security, privacy, IT architecture, identity, procurement, legal, data owners, and the vendor should remain attributable to the person and evidence used. A specific risk to test here is missing browser extensions and desktop agents. Record the status, next action, due date, and proof needed for closure. The completed users, privileged roles, and authentication record should still make sense to a renewal, incident, audit, or replacement team that did not attend the original meetings.
Integrations, Agents, And Network Connections
Treat integrations, agents, and network connections as a decision input in the saas security review intake form, not as a label that proves completion. The entry should show the current fact, the source that supports it, and the consequence for which risk tier and evidence path should apply before the security assessment begins. Ask the requesting business or system owner to separate confirmed evidence from a planning assumption and to identify who can accept any limitation. Cross-check integrations, agents, and network connections against vendor hosting and subprocessors, because those two areas can reveal a hidden scope, timing, ownership, or contract conflict. Input from information security, privacy, IT architecture, identity, procurement, legal, data owners, and the vendor should remain attributable to the person and evidence used. A specific risk to test here is requesting an urgent review after the contract deadline. Record the status, next action, due date, and proof needed for closure. The completed integrations, agents, and network connections record should still make sense to a renewal, incident, audit, or replacement team that did not attend the original meetings.
Vendor Hosting And Subprocessors
Treat vendor hosting and subprocessors as a decision input in the saas security review intake form, not as a label that proves completion. The entry should show the current fact, the source that supports it, and the consequence for which risk tier and evidence path should apply before the security assessment begins. Ask the requesting business or system owner to separate confirmed evidence from a planning assumption and to identify who can accept any limitation. Cross-check vendor hosting and subprocessors against availability need, incident route, and requested launch date, because those two areas can reveal a hidden scope, timing, ownership, or contract conflict. Input from information security, privacy, IT architecture, identity, procurement, legal, data owners, and the vendor should remain attributable to the person and evidence used. A specific risk to test here is submitting marketing material instead of architecture facts. Record the status, next action, due date, and proof needed for closure. The completed vendor hosting and subprocessors record should still make sense to a renewal, incident, audit, or replacement team that did not attend the original meetings.
Availability Need, Incident Route, And Requested Launch Date
Treat availability need, incident route, and requested launch date as a decision input in the saas security review intake form, not as a label that proves completion. The entry should show the current fact, the source that supports it, and the consequence for which risk tier and evidence path should apply before the security assessment begins. Ask the requesting business or system owner to separate confirmed evidence from a planning assumption and to identify who can accept any limitation. Cross-check availability need, incident route, and requested launch date against service purpose and business criticality, because those two areas can reveal a hidden scope, timing, ownership, or contract conflict. Input from information security, privacy, IT architecture, identity, procurement, legal, data owners, and the vendor should remain attributable to the person and evidence used. A specific risk to test here is excluding test or support data. Record the status, next action, due date, and proof needed for closure. The completed availability need, incident route, and requested launch date record should still make sense to a renewal, incident, audit, or replacement team that did not attend the original meetings.
Decision rules
- Describe the intended configuration rather than the vendor generally.
- Classify the highest-risk data expected in normal or support use.
- List every production integration and privileged connector.
- Update the intake when scope changes during procurement.
Common failure modes
- Avoid submitting marketing material instead of architecture facts.
- Avoid excluding test or support data.
- Avoid missing browser extensions and desktop agents.
- Avoid requesting an urgent review after the contract deadline.
Evidence and signoff standard
A defensible file should let a later reviewer reconstruct the decision without relying on memory. For every material item, capture the source document or test, the date reviewed, the person responsible, and the next action. If evidence is restricted, record its approved location and a short conclusion rather than attaching it to an uncontrolled copy. If a vendor answer changes, preserve the final accepted version and note what superseded the earlier response.
Before signoff, verify that the record covers service purpose and business criticality, data types, volume, and residency, users, privileged roles, and authentication, integrations, agents, and network connections, vendor hosting and subprocessors, and availability need, incident route, and requested launch date. Resolve critical gaps or document a time-limited exception. The final approver should understand both the desired outcome and the residual risk. Store the signed or approved copy with the contract, quote, implementation decision, or service inventory entry that it supports.
Questions to ask before approval
- What evidence supports the entry for service purpose and business criticality?
- What evidence supports the entry for data types, volume, and residency?
- What evidence supports the entry for users, privileged roles, and authentication?
- What evidence supports the entry for integrations, agents, and network connections?
- What evidence supports the entry for vendor hosting and subprocessors?
- What evidence supports the entry for availability need, incident route, and requested launch date?
Authoritative references
The following public resources provide context for the control and acquisition principles used in this file. They do not answer vendor-specific questions; use the current vendor documents and your organization's policies for the actual decision.