Most founders don’t lose deals because their security is bad.
They lose them because they can’t prove it’s good. Those are different problems and only one of them requires building something.
A pentest is only as useful as the scope that defines it. If the scope was written by someone who didn't know what to ask for, the report isn't telling you what you think it's telling you.
Hiring a Head of Security at Series A is usually the wrong move.
$200K base before equity, and you don't have enough surface area to keep a senior person busy. What you have are 4 or 5 real risks. Fix those. Don't build a department around them.
How much of your security work is actually getting done versus sitting in a doc somewhere?
Not a judgment. Genuinely asking. The gap between the policy and the practice is where every audit gets complicated.
@KaiXCreator Depends what's blocking you. If you have pipeline and deals stalling on technical questions, it's the developer. If you have a product and no one's looking at it, it's the salesperson.
Two patterns I see at Series A: ignoring security until a buyer's DDQ stalls a deal, or hiring a Head of Security before there's enough surface area to justify it. Both are expensive. Better to name the 4-5 risks that actually matter at your stage and get outside help for those.
Most compliance firms are selling time, not outcomes.
They’ll take 12 months because 12 months is what they bill. We’ve done Type 2 in 5. The difference isn’t effort. It’s whether the firm has done it enough times to know what actually matters.
It lowered the floor on effort and raised the ceiling on ambition. Nobody’s doing less work, they’re just attempting things they would’ve said no to two years ago.