People talk about SBOMs as if they are a document you can simply request and receive. In practice, asking a third-party vendor for an SBOM often exposes how little visibility exists into the software you already depend on. It can also surface tensions that were always there but never tested.
The question is not whether SBOMs matter. That debate is largely over. The real issue is how you get one that is useful, current and honest, without derailing a commercial relationship or accepting something that looks complete but tells you very little.
This is about how to approach that conversation properly.
Why SBOM Requests Feel Harder Than They Should
Most organisations now understand why an SBOM matters. Incidents like SolarWinds made it painfully clear that trusting upstream software blindly is no longer acceptable. Regulators noticed. Customers noticed. Boards noticed.
Vendors, however, are at very different stages.
Some generate SBOMs automatically and update them as part of the build pipeline. Others rely on a snapshot pulled together after a customer asks. A few still treat the whole idea as an inconvenience, or worse, a threat.
When you ask for an SBOM, you are not just asking for a document. You are asking a vendor to expose how well they actually understand their own codebase and supply chain. That is why responses can be slow, defensive or vague.
Start With Clarity, Not Compliance Language
If your first email references regulatory frameworks or executive orders, expect friction. Vendors tend to hear that as legal pressure instead of a security conversation.
A better starting point is plain language. Explain why you need the SBOM, how it will be used and what level of detail is actually required. If you are assessing exposure to newly disclosed vulnerabilities, say that. If the SBOM will feed into internal risk tooling, say that too.
You are not negotiating terms at this stage. You are setting expectations.
That small shift often changes the tone of the response.
Be Specific About Format and Scope
One of the most common problems is receiving an SBOM that technically exists but cannot be consumed. A PDF with component names and no versions. A spreadsheet without dependency relationships. A static export that is already outdated.
Before the vendor sends anything, be clear about three things.
-
The Format: CycloneDX or SPDX are not exotic choices anymore. If you can only process one, say so.
-
The Scope: Are you asking for the full product, or just the modules you deploy? Are transitive dependencies included? Clarifying this early avoids back-and-forth later.
-
Update Frequency: A one-off SBOM is of limited value. If the vendor cannot provide updates aligned with releases, you need to know that upfront.
This is not about being demanding. It is about avoiding misunderstandings that waste time on both sides.
Where The Process Usually Breaks Down
Even well-intentioned vendors can struggle once the initial request is made. Based on what we see in real engagements, the breakdown usually happens in one of a few places.
A Practical View of the SBOM Request Flow
-
The customer requests an SBOM as part of a security review or incident response.
-
The vendor extracts dependency data from build tools or scanners.
-
The data is manually adjusted or filtered.
-
The SBOM is delivered as a static file.
-
No mechanism exists to keep it updated.
Each step introduces risk. Manual handling leads to omissions. Filtering can hide indirect dependencies. Static delivery means the SBOM is outdated the moment the next build ships.
Understanding this flow helps explain why so many SBOMs look fine on the surface but fail under scrutiny.
Validate What You Receive, Even If It Looks Polished
An SBOM should not be accepted on trust alone.
Cross-check a sample of components against known dependency trees. Compare versions with what vulnerability scanners detect at runtime. Look for signs of truncation like missing build tools, test frameworks or common open-source libraries that almost every modern application uses.
If something feels incomplete, it probably is.
This does not mean accusing the vendor of bad faith. Often it simply reflects immature tooling or rushed processes. Raising specific and technical questions tends to get better answers than generic objections.
Contractual Leverage Comes Later, Not First
There is a temptation to push SBOM requirements straight into procurement language. Sometimes that is necessary. Often it is premature.
If a vendor has never produced a meaningful SBOM before, contractual pressure alone will not magically fix that. You are more likely to receive a checkbox doc that meets the letter of the contract and none of the spirit.
A better approach is to treat early SBOM requests as a maturity assessment. See how the vendor responds. See how accurate the output is. Then decide whether formal obligations are appropriate during renewal or expansion discussions.
This sequencing matters.
Internal Readiness is Part of the Problem
It is worth being honest about your own environment too. Many organisations request SBOMs before they have any real capability to ingest or analyse them.
If you cannot map components to deployed systems, or correlate SBOM data with vulnerability intelligence, the value quickly drops. Vendors notice this. It affects how seriously they take future requests.
SBOMs work best when they are part of a broader software supply chain visibility effort, not a standalone ask.
Conclusion
Knowing how to get an SBOM from your third-party software vendor is less about templates and more about approach. Clear intent, realistic expectations and the ability to validate what you receive makes a bigger difference than quoting standards.
This is also where many organisations realise they need support. Interpreting SBOMs, assessing their completeness, and folding them into real risk decisions takes experience and tooling.
CyberNX is a cybersecurity firm that can help you here. It provides an in-house built SBOM management tool which has an impressive range of features. It provides comprehensive visibility, vulnerability management and multiple deployment models to meet your specific requirements. When done properly, SBOMs stop being an awkward document exchange and start becoming a useful part of how you manage software risk.
