Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Risk

Financial Firms Scrutinize Third-Party Supplier Risk

But executives aren't confident in the accuracy of cybersecurity assessment data received from their vendors, a new study shows.

Financial services executives and managers responsible for the corporate checkbook would rather forgo business with a partner that is not serious about cybersecurity than run the risk of a breach, a new report found.

Some 97% consider cyber risk to be an important or critical issue, and 78% of those surveyed would refuse a partnership with a company that had poor cybersecurity performance, according to a new survey of 129 financial service professionals by security-rating firms BitSight and the Center for Financial Professionals.

"These results not only talk to the importance of having a strong third-party risk management program in place, but - when you think about the implication that they have for a company doing business with financial firms - now you have to demonstrate strong cybersecurity performance or you might lose business," said Jake Olcott, vice president of government affairs for BitSight.

Suppliers and supply chains have become the latest focus of companies trying to reduce their cyber risk. In 2018, a survey by the Ponemon Institute found that nearly 60% of organization had a data breach caused by a third party, but that only 34% of companies had created an inventory of all their suppliers. 

The most recent high-profile attack on a third-party supplier — the breach of remote work enabler Citrix — underscores the danger. The company announced in early March that the FBI had notified the firm that attackers had downloaded business documents from its internal network.

About half of all attacks involve jumping from one corporate network to another, a technique dubbed "island hopping," according to a recent report.

"Supply chains are easy and lucrative targets," Mike Bittner, digital security and operations manager at The Media Trust, a website security firm, said in a statement. "In today's digital environment, they are extremely complex and dynamic, they lie outside the perimeter of the IT infrastructure, and they are, therefore, hard monitor."

For the most part, company executives believe — whether correctly or not — that they have a handle on the situation. More than 80% of respondents indicate that their executive management is "confident in their approach to measuring and managing third-party risk," according to the BitSight/CeFPro survey. Yet, only 44% of boards had regular reports on their third-party risk.

The Attestation Situation

Among the greatest challenges facing companies are a lack of faith in the accuracy of cybersecurity assessment data received from vendors, as well as the timeliness of that data, the survey found.

Part of the problem is that companies often continue to manually poll their vendors, asking the firms to attest to certain security measures without conducting any sort of assessment. Such attestation requires a great deal of time on the part of both companies, resulting in a great deal of paperwork.

Yet, ask a supplier whether such attestation is effective, and most will say no, BitSight's Olcott says.

"It is definitely inefficient and most people think it is ineffective," he says. "I think what we will see in the real world is that being replaced by real-time, automated and continuous data collection."

Automation and continuous data collection are already growing popular in another area of third-party risk: The management of open-source components used in software development. Companies such as Sonatype, WhiteSource, and Snyk are using a variety of scanning to take stock of the third-party libraries being used by developers.

The adoption of such technologies is a direct result of increasing pressure on software vendors to reduce the number of vulnerabilities in their products and online services. With enterprises increasingly focusing on their third-party cyber risk, software vendors won't be the only suppliers under pressure to up their security game, Olcott says.

"Companies are increasingly trying to compete, not only on price and performance, but also on security," he says. "This issue is becoming much more critical."

Related Content:

 

 

 

Join Dark Reading LIVE for two cybersecurity summits at Interop 2019. Learn from the industry's most knowledgeable IT security experts. Check out the Interop agenda here.

Veteran technology journalist of more than 20 years. Former research engineer. Written for more than two dozen publications, including CNET News.com, Dark Reading, MIT's Technology Review, Popular Science, and Wired News. Five awards for journalism, including Best Deadline ... View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Our Endpoint Protection system is a little outdated... 
Current Issue
The Year in Security: 2019
This Tech Digest provides a wrap up and overview of the year's top cybersecurity news stories. It was a year of new twists on old threats, with fears of another WannaCry-type worm and of a possible botnet army of Wi-Fi routers. But 2019 also underscored the risk of firmware and trusted security tools harboring dangerous holes that cybercriminals and nation-state hackers could readily abuse. Read more.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-16246
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-12
Intesync Solismed 3.3sp1 allows Local File Inclusion (LFI), a different vulnerability than CVE-2019-15931. This leads to unauthenticated code execution.
CVE-2019-17358
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-12
Cacti through 1.2.7 is affected by multiple instances of lib/functions.php unsafe deserialization of user-controlled data to populate arrays. An authenticated attacker could use this to influence object data values and control actions taken by Cacti or potentially cause memory corruption in the PHP ...
CVE-2019-17428
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-12
An issue was discovered in Intesync Solismed 3.3sp1. An flaw in the encryption implementation exists, allowing for all encrypted data stored within the database to be decrypted.
CVE-2019-18345
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-12
A reflected XSS issue was discovered in DAViCal through 1.1.8. It echoes the action parameter without encoding. If a user visits an attacker-supplied link, the attacker can view all data the attacked user can view, as well as perform all actions in the name of the user. If the user is an administrat...
CVE-2019-19198
PUBLISHED: 2019-12-12
The Scoutnet Kalender plugin 1.1.0 for WordPress allows XSS.