Aikido Security interview questions

An Extraordinary Level of Arrogance for a Company at This Stage I have interviewed with some of the largest and most respected cybersecurity companies in the industry. None required as much candidate investment as this process, and few demonstrated so little respect for it. The interview process was long, demanding and seemingly designed to project exclusivity rather than identify talent. Multiple rounds, assessments, presentations, extensive discussions and reference checks were all required before the company eventually reached a decision. Throughout the process there was a recurring emphasis on humility, self-awareness and avoiding ego. The irony was impossible to miss. Few interview processes I have experienced have radiated such a strong sense of self-importance. Every interaction seemed to carry an assumption that candidates should be grateful for the opportunity to participate, regardless of the amount of time and effort being demanded of them. The conclusion was the most disappointing part. After investing weeks of time, completing assessments and involving professional references, the process ended with effectively no meaningful feedback. No real explanation of concerns. No discussion of assessment outcomes. No insight into why the decision was made. Just a generic rejection after a substantial investment of effort. At that point, the message becomes clear: the company's time is valuable, the candidate's is not. The experience left me with the impression of an organisation that has become deeply invested in its own mythology. There was a striking gap between the confidence with which the company spoke about itself and the professionalism demonstrated throughout the hiring process. Much of the product positioning appeared focused on making existing security capabilities more accessible through a better user experience and simplified workflows. There is nothing wrong with that. Many successful companies are built on exactly that premise. What was surprising was the level of reverence with which this was treated internally, as though the company had single-handedly redefined application security. The hiring process reflected that mindset. Every stage seemed to reinforce the idea that candidates were being granted access to something uniquely special, while basic standards of transparency, communication and professional courtesy were treated as optional. The most telling moment was not the rejection itself. It was the fact that after all the interviews, all the assessments, all the references and all the discussion around culture, nobody appeared to feel any obligation to provide a meaningful explanation for the outcome. For a company that speaks so frequently about values, culture and humility, that disconnect was remarkable. I left the process not disappointed that I didn't receive an offer, but genuinely surprised by how little respect was shown for the people investing their time in it. Candidates should be prepared for a lengthy process, minimal transparency, and an organisational culture that appears far more impressed with itself than it has earned the right to be.

1st screening call went well. They told me that they wanted to be speedy in the process because they needed to fill in the post ASAP, so I'd hear from them just in a week. Of course I didn't. I followed up with the HR person and they just ignored me. Fast forward 3 weeks after that and I send them my usual weekly follow up, only for the HR person to send me a very typical automated email (after careful consideration blabla...) with an addition that went along the lines of 'actually when we interviewed you we already knew who we'd hire'. So disrespectful and a waste of the candidate's time.