Interview scorecard template

Cyber-Physical Systems Security Expert interview scorecard

Evaluate Cyber-Physical Systems Security Expert candidates across 4 weighted areas: technical depth, real incidents and findings, risk judgement, and getting things fixed. Technical depth leads at 35%, so probe depth in OT protocols (Modbus TCP, DNP3, EtherNet/IP, PROFINET), PLC and safety instrumented system architecture, and how they apply IEC 62443 zones. Use the rubric to compare role-specific evidence consistently.

See AI scoring
security complianceics securityiec 62443ot networksscada
TL;DR
For technical depth, look for evidence the candidate names controller families and protocol quirks precisely, and maps 62443 security levels to real segmentation decisions rather than reciting the standard. For real incidents and findings, look for evidence the candidate recounts named assessments with findings, exploited paths, and the physical consequence prevented, including evidence gathered without disrupting production. Apply the written 1–5 anchors to every answer, record the evidence behind each rating, and use the factor weights to reach a consistent overall assessment.
Complete evaluation framework

What to assess and how to score it

Review the evidence signals before interviewing. Then use the anchored descriptions—not instinct alone—to choose the score that best matches each answer.

01
Evaluation factor

Technical depth

35% weight

Probe depth in OT protocols (Modbus TCP, DNP3, EtherNet/IP, PROFINET), PLC and safety instrumented system architecture, and how they apply IEC 62443 zones and conduits to a live plant.

Evidence to listen for

  • Command of the specific attack surface, tooling, and controls the role covers
  • Understands how the underlying system works, not just how the tool reports on it
  • Can explain an attack or control chain end to end
  • Distinguishes what they found themselves from what a scanner flagged

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Tool operator only; no understanding of the systems underneath.

2
Needs Improvement

Runs tooling but cannot explain findings or how the attack works.

3
Satisfactory

Solid working knowledge; depth thins outside familiar tooling.

4
Very Good

Strong command of the domain; explains attack and control chains clearly.

5
Excellent

Names controller families and protocol quirks precisely, and maps 62443 security levels to real segmentation decisions rather than reciting the standard.

02
Evaluation factor

Real incidents and findings

30% weight

Ask for specific engagements: firmware teardowns, HMI or historian compromise, Purdue Level 3 network captures, or response to an incident that risked physical process disruption.

Evidence to listen for

  • Brings specific incidents, findings, or audits they personally worked
  • States their own role rather than the team's
  • Describes what was actually at risk and what changed afterwards
  • Can talk about a finding that turned out to be wrong

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

No hands-on work; knowledge is entirely certification or coursework.

2
Needs Improvement

Limited exposure; cannot describe their contribution to an incident.

3
Satisfactory

Real casework with adequate detail; ownership sometimes vague.

4
Very Good

Specific incidents with clear personal scope and what changed after.

5
Excellent

Recounts named assessments with findings, exploited paths, and the physical consequence prevented, including evidence gathered without disrupting production.

03
Evaluation factor

Risk judgement

20% weight

Test how they weigh availability and safety against patching, when compensating controls beat a shutdown window, and how they treat legacy Windows HMIs that cannot be upgraded.

Evidence to listen for

  • Prioritises by actual exploitability and business impact, not raw severity scores
  • Can argue for accepting a risk as well as fixing it
  • Knows the difference between a finding and a problem
  • Does not cry wolf or wave things through

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Treats every finding as critical, or waves real risk through.

2
Needs Improvement

Follows severity scores mechanically; no business context.

3
Satisfactory

Reasonable prioritisation; less confident arguing for risk acceptance.

4
Very Good

Prioritises by exploitability and impact; can justify accepting a risk.

5
Excellent

Ties risk ratings to process hazard consequence, argues for compensating controls where downtime is unaffordable, and states what they would accept.

04
Evaluation factor

Getting things fixed

15% weight

Look for evidence they moved plant engineers and vendors to act: change windows negotiated, ICS asset inventory built, secure remote access replacing vendor modems.

Evidence to listen for

  • Writes findings engineers can act on rather than a wall of output
  • Has persuaded a team to fix something they did not want to fix
  • Explains risk to executives in business terms
  • Works with the org rather than policing it

Five-point scoring guide

1
Poor

Adversarial with engineering; findings never get fixed.

2
Needs Improvement

Reports are unactionable; no influence beyond raising tickets.

3
Satisfactory

Adequate reporting; relies on mandate rather than persuasion.

4
Very Good

Actionable findings and a real record of getting fixes shipped.

5
Excellent

Shows remediation completed with control engineers as allies, citing before and after states such as removed dual-homed hosts or jump host adoption.

Evidence-led prompts

Interview questions for a Cyber-Physical Systems Security Expert

Use these prompts to surface evidence for the weighted factors above and compare candidates against the same role-specific criteria.

  1. 01

    Can you describe your experience securing systems that control physical processes?

  2. 02

    Can you discuss a time you reduced a significant security risk in one of these systems?

  3. 03

    What experience do you have with industrial control systems and their security?

  4. 04

    What methods do you use to assess vulnerabilities in these systems?

  5. 05

    What is your approach to penetration testing in these environments?

See the complete Cyber-Physical Systems Security Expert question set
Put this rubric to work

Score every candidate against the same standard

Add these weighted factors to Hirevire and let AI evaluate recorded answers against your rubric.

Explore AI Scorecards