A security-questionnaire question, answered without certification
Do you have a vulnerability-disclosure or bug-bounty process?
The honest answer pattern
Publishing a monitored security contact address and committing to acknowledge reports is a complete small-vendor answer — paid bounty programs are not expected at this size. State the address and your realistic response posture. Mark a formal disclosure policy page as planned if you have not written one.
What a credible answer looks like
A credible answer is specific and current-tense only where it's true: it names your actual provider and systems, states what is in place today, and moves anything that isn't into a clearly labelled roadmap item instead of an aspirational “yes”. Reviewers read dozens of these a quarter — vague assurances are what get a vendor flagged, not missing certifications.
You can see this pattern applied end-to-end in the full sample security pack — a real trust page, three policies, and an answer bank generated by the same pipeline a paying customer uses, shown without any email gate.
The facts your answer needs (from the Trustpack intake):
- Which email should security questions and disclosures be sent to?
- How do you handle vulnerabilities and dependency updates?
Answer the whole questionnaire, not one row
Trustpack turns your own attested answers into three security policies, a copy-paste answer bank covering the canonical questionnaire topics, and a live public trust page. Every document is vendor-attested and says so plainly — it never claims certification. Flat $49, one time.