Startups lose trust in SBOM reviews with five answers: "we have no open source," "our SBOM is complete," "we have zero vulnerabilities," "we will have it next week" with no owner, and "it is confidential" with no alternative. Each has a plainer replacement that is true and checkable.
Myth versus fact
1. "We do not really use open source."
Almost every modern codebase pulls in third party packages, often hundreds of transitive ones. A reviewer who runs a scanner will find them. Say instead: "Yes, we use open source. Here is how we track it."
2. "Our SBOM is complete."
Completeness is hard to prove. CISA's 2026 minimum elements guidance asks for coverage of all components including transitive dependencies, and notes that organizations may use other sources such as repositories or binary analysis tools to detect components not listed in an SBOM (see Sources). Say instead: "It covers our lockfile dependencies and container images. Here is what it does not cover."
3. "We have zero known vulnerabilities."
That statement is a snapshot at best, and new advisories appear daily. Say instead: "As of the date on this file, here is what our scan reports, and here is how we handle new advisories."
4. "We will get that to you soon."
An open promise with no owner or date reads as a stall. Say instead: "I will send it by Thursday, and here is who to contact if it slips."
5. "SBOMs are confidential."
A flat refusal ends the conversation. The guidance says access controls can limit sharing with unauthorized parties but should not prevent sharing between authorized parties. Say instead: "We share SBOMs under our confidentiality terms. Here is how to set that up."
A swap table
| Instead of | Say |
|---|---|
| "No open source" | "Yes, and here is how we track it" |
| "Complete" | "Covers X and Y, not Z" |
| "Zero vulnerabilities" | "As of this date, here is the scan result" |
| "Soon" | "By Thursday, owned by this person" |
| "Confidential" | "Available under our NDA" |
Why specific beats polished
Reviewers compare answers across vendors without naming anyone. Polished answers with no detail all sound alike. A reply with a date, a scope and a named owner stands out because it can be checked.
Prepare before the call
- Write your honest scope in one sentence.
- Run a fresh scan the day before and note the date.
- Decide who owns follow up.
- Have your confidentiality route ready, whether an NDA or a customer portal.
When you do not know
Say so. "I do not know, and I will find out by Friday" is a complete, credible answer. The guidance's own advice for SBOM data is to state when something is unknown rather than leave it blank, and the same habit works in conversation.
Where Safeguard fits
Safeguard's SBOM and dependency scanning and its reachability analysis can give you a dated, specific answer rather than a general one. Try the free scan on a repository before your next call.
Try it yourself
Click through it at your own pace, or open it full screen.
Look at how findings carry a status and date, since that is the shape of a specific answer.
Quick check
Can I say our SBOM is up to date?
Only with a date. Say when it was generated and for which release, so the claim can be checked.
What if a buyer insists on a public SBOM?
Explain your sharing route and ask what they need it for. Often a shared file under agreed terms meets the underlying need.
Sources
Last reviewed: 19 October 2026.
