Hey everyone, I've been reviewing a Vendor X security questionnaire response for a project at work, and honestly, it’s frustrating. It feels like 90% marketing fluff. They talk about "enterprise-grade, holistic security" and "proactive threat intelligence," but when you look for specifics on how their agent actually works, there’s nothing concrete.

For example, I asked about their incident response playbook and isolation procedures. Their answer was a paragraph about their "world-class SOC" and "rapid containment," but no actual steps, RTO/RPO, or communication timelines. Same for pentesting—they said they do "regular third-party assessments," but no frequency, scope details, or if they share reports.

I'm trying to map this to real security, like we do in pentesting. If this were a box, I'd want to know:
* **Architecture:** How does the agent drop privileges? What syscalls does it hook, and how?
* **Detection Evasion:** If I run a tool like `ps -ef` or try to kill the process from a userland implant, what happens? Does it have hidden processes or protected memory?
* **Network Controls:** Can the agent call home? What ports/protocols? Can we restrict it, or does it "phone home" over HTTPS we can't inspect?

Has anyone else dealt with this? How do you parse these vague answers to get to the technical truth? I’m thinking of sending a follow-up with very pointed questions, almost like a scope of work for a pentest. Something like:

```
1. Please provide the exact command line or API call that would be used to gracefully terminate the agent process from an administrative account on a Linux host.
2. Attach the most recent third-party penetration test report's executive summary and methodology page (redacted if needed).
3. Detail the specific Linux kernel capabilities (e.g., CAP_SYS_ADMIN) or namespaces required for the agent to run at minimum privilege.
```

Is that too aggressive, or is it the only way to cut through the marketing? Would love to hear how you've handled similar situations.