Hardware Security Engineer interview scorecard

Tool operator only; no understanding of the systems underneath.

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

Solid working knowledge; depth thins outside familiar tooling.

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

Names specific trace counts, glitch parameters and countermeasures such as masking or redundant boot checks, and explains why each defeats a given attack.

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

Limited exposure; cannot describe their contribution to an incident.

Real casework with adequate detail; ownership sometimes vague.

Specific incidents with clear personal scope and what changed after.

Walks through a concrete break end to end, from decapsulation or bus probing to the extracted asset, with the vendor fix that followed.

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

Follows severity scores mechanically; no business context.

Reasonable prioritisation; less confident arguing for risk acceptance.

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

Ties each risk to attacker budget and equipment tier, and defends accepting a residual risk with cost, yield or schedule reasoning.

Adversarial with engineering; findings never get fixed.

Reports are unactionable; no influence beyond raising tickets.

Adequate reporting; relies on mandate rather than persuasion.

Actionable findings and a real record of getting fixes shipped.

Cites mitigations that survived silicon respin or certification review, and describes how they persuaded design teams to absorb the area or power cost.