Skip to main content

Permissions

Add user
Done

Start your AI search

AI search
Outbound call compliance Gamification for customer service Outsourcing services

How to write an RFP for deception

Requirements, questions, and evaluation criteria specific to deception procurement

7 min read

RFPs for deception technology require careful consideration of both technical capabilities and the vendor's understanding of adversarial behavior. The effectiveness of a deception solution hinges on its ability to convincingly mimic real systems and adapt to evolving attack tactics, making detailed requirements and scenario-based questions essential.

What makes deception RFPs different

Procuring deception technology differs significantly from traditional security solutions due to its active engagement with attackers. Unlike passive defenses, deception platforms require a deep understanding of attacker psychology and the ability to create realistic, yet fake, environments. RFPs must address the platform's credibility, instrumentation capabilities, and ability to securely exfiltrate threat intelligence.

Furthermore, the effectiveness of deception relies heavily on its integration with existing security infrastructure, making interoperability a critical factor.

  • Realism and adaptability of decoys to mimic the production environment
  • Granularity of telemetry and forensic data captured during attacker interaction
  • Integration capabilities with SIEM, SOAR, and EDR systems
  • Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), including implementation, maintenance, and training

RFP vs RFI vs RFQ

Here's when to use each document type when procuring deception software.

RFI

Request for Information

Use early in your search to understand what vendors offer and narrow your list. Gather general capabilities, company background, and high-level pricing ranges.

RFP

Request for Proposal

Use when you know your requirements and want detailed vendor solutions and pricing. This is your main evaluation document for shortlisted vendors.

RFQ

Request for Quote

Use when requirements are fixed and you just need final pricing. Often used after RFP when you're ready to negotiate with finalists.

For deception technology, an RFI is valuable for exploring the range of available solutions and understanding different approaches to deception. An RFP is critical for a detailed evaluation of a vendor's specific capabilities, integration options, and ability to meet the organization's unique security requirements. An RFQ is generally unsuitable due to the complexity and customization required for effective deception.

Technical requirements checklist

Use this checklist when defining your RFP scope.

Decoy Realism & Adaptability

  • AI-driven decoy creation and customization
  • Dynamic adaptation to environment changes
  • Mimicry of real applications and data patterns
  • Full OS emulation vs. lightweight honeypots

Telemetry & Forensics

  • Detailed logging of attacker actions (commands, tools, IPs)
  • MITRE ATT&CK framework mapping
  • Secure data exfiltration methods
  • Integration with threat intelligence feeds

Integration Capabilities

  • SIEM integration (specify platforms)
  • SOAR integration (specify platforms)
  • EDR integration (specify platforms)
  • Active Directory integration

Deployment & Scalability

  • Cloud deployment options (AWS, Azure, GCP)
  • On-premise deployment options
  • Support for IoT and OT environments
  • Scalability to tens of thousands of decoys

Response Capabilities

  • Automated incident response playbooks
  • Dynamic environment manipulation
  • Integration with ticketing systems
  • Real-time attacker behavior shaping

Questions to include in your RFP

Decoy Technology & Realism

  • Describe your approach to creating realistic decoys that are indistinguishable from production assets.
    Ensures attackers are effectively lured and engaged.
  • How does your platform automatically adapt decoys to changes in our environment (e.g., software updates, new applications)?
    Maintains the credibility of decoys over time.
  • What types of decoys do you support (e.g., servers, databases, applications, files)?
    Determines the breadth of coverage offered by the solution.
  • How do you prevent attackers from fingerprinting and identifying decoys?
    Prevents attackers from avoiding the deception layer.

Telemetry & Threat Intelligence

  • What specific attacker actions are logged and tracked when they interact with a decoy?
    Determines the level of forensic detail available for incident response.
  • How is the captured telemetry integrated with threat intelligence feeds to identify known malicious actors and tools?
    Enhances the accuracy and effectiveness of threat detection.
  • Describe your secure data exfiltration methods for bringing gathered intelligence back to our security team.
    Ensures the deception layer remains hidden from the attacker.
  • How does your platform map attacker activity to the MITRE ATT&CK framework?
    Facilitates standardized threat analysis and reporting.

Integration & Interoperability

  • Describe your integration capabilities with our existing SIEM, SOAR, and EDR systems (specify platforms).
    Ensures seamless data sharing and coordinated incident response.
  • How does your platform integrate with Active Directory to deploy and manage deceptive credentials?
    Enables detection of credential theft and lateral movement.
  • Do you offer an open API for custom integrations?
    Provides flexibility to integrate with other security tools and workflows.
  • How do you ensure minimal performance impact on production systems during integration?
    Avoids disruption to legitimate business operations.

Deployment & Scalability

  • What deployment models do you support (cloud, on-premise, hybrid)?
    Ensures compatibility with our infrastructure and security requirements.
  • How does your platform scale to protect our entire environment, including cloud workloads, IoT devices, and OT systems?
    Addresses the growing attack surface and emerging threats.
  • Describe your automated deployment capabilities and the level of manual configuration required.
    Reduces the operational burden on our security team.
  • What are the resource requirements (CPU, memory, storage) for deploying and managing decoys?
    Helps estimate infrastructure costs and capacity planning.

Response & Remediation

  • What automated incident response actions can be triggered when an attacker interacts with a decoy?
    Enables rapid containment and mitigation of threats.
  • Describe your dynamic environment manipulation capabilities and how they can be used to deceive and redirect attackers.
    Allows for active engagement and shaping of attacker behavior.
  • How does your platform integrate with our ticketing system to escalate deception alerts?
    Streamlines incident management and workflow.
  • Can your platform automatically isolate infected machines or revoke compromised credentials?
    Prevents further damage and lateral movement.

Pricing & Licensing

  • Provide a detailed breakdown of your pricing model, including licensing fees, implementation costs, and ongoing maintenance fees.
    Ensures transparency and avoids hidden costs.
  • What are the costs associated with threat intelligence feeds, professional services, or premium integrations?
    Helps calculate the total cost of ownership (TCO).
  • Do you offer flexible licensing options based on the number of decoys, protected assets, or users?
    Allows for scalability and cost optimization.
  • Describe any discounts or incentives available for long-term contracts or volume purchases.
    Reduces overall investment costs.

Compliance and security requirements

Depending on your industry, you may need to require proof of these certifications and standards.

PCI-DSS

Required if the organization handles payment card data and aims to detect unauthorized access to cardholder data environments.. If applicable, request documentation demonstrating how the deception technology assists in meeting PCI-DSS Requirements 10 and 11 regarding monitoring and regular testing of security measures.

HIPAA

Required if the organization is a covered entity or business associate handling protected health information (phi).. If applicable, request documentation demonstrating how the deception technology assists in meeting HIPAA Security Rule requirements for technical safeguards to protect ePHI from unauthorized access.

GDPR

Required if the organization processes personal data of eu citizens and needs to detect data breaches within the 72-hour notification window.. If applicable, request information on how the deception technology supports compliance with GDPR's 'Data Protection by Design' mandate and aids in the timely detection of data breaches.

SOC 2

Required if the organization needs to demonstrate its security posture and controls to customers, particularly saas providers.. If applicable, request a SOC 2 Type II report and documentation demonstrating how the deception technology addresses the "Security," "Confidentiality," and "Privacy" trust principles by detecting unauthorized data access in real-time.

Evaluation criteria

Here is the suggested weighting for deception RFPs.

Decoy Realism and Adaptability The ability of the platform to create and maintain realistic decoys that are indistinguishable from production assets.
25%
Threat Intelligence and Forensics The depth and quality of telemetry data captured during attacker interaction, and its integration with threat intelligence feeds.
20%
Integration Capabilities The ease and effectiveness of integrating the deception platform with existing security tools and workflows.
15%
Deployment and Scalability The flexibility and scalability of the platform to protect various environments, including cloud, on-premise, IoT, and OT.
15%
Response and Remediation The automated incident response actions and dynamic environment manipulation capabilities offered by the platform.
10%
Vendor Experience and Support The vendor's track record, customer references, and the quality of their support services.
10%
Total Cost of Ownership The overall cost of the solution, including licensing, implementation, maintenance, and training.
5%

Some weights were adjusted based on your priorities.

  • Increase if the organization has a complex and dynamic environment.
  • Increase if seamless integration with SIEM, SOAR, and EDR is critical.
  • Increase if the organization has a diverse and distributed infrastructure.

Red flags to watch

  • Reliance on static decoy templates

    Indicates a lack of adaptability and realism, making decoys easily identifiable by attackers.

  • Limited integration capabilities

    Hinders the ability to correlate deception alerts with other security data for a comprehensive view of the attack lifecycle.

  • High operational overhead

    Suggests a lack of automation and scalability, requiring significant manual effort to manage decoys.

  • Lack of customer references in your industry

    Indicates limited experience with your specific requirements and use cases.

  • Vague or complex pricing structures

    May conceal hidden costs and inflate the total cost of ownership.

Key metrics to request

Ask vendors to provide benchmarks from similar customers.

Mean Time to Detect (MTTD) for attacks involving decoy interaction

Indicates the speed and effectiveness of the deception platform in detecting threats.

Reduction in dwell time compared to previous security measures

Demonstrates the value of deception in minimizing the time attackers remain undetected in the network.

Alert fidelity (true positive rate)

Measures the accuracy of deception alerts and the reduction in false positives.

Number of attacks detected via deception technology

Quantifies the effectiveness of the platform in identifying and preventing real-world attacks.

Time to value (time to initial deployment and threat detection)

Shows how quickly the organization can realize the benefits of the deception solution.