Organisations send security questionnaires to vendors, receive back completed forms confirming excellent security practices, then suffer breaches through those same vendors. The questionnaire-based approach to third-party risk management creates paperwork without providing meaningful security assurance. Vendors know the “right” answers to security questionnaires. They confirm having incident response plans, conducting security training, and implementing access controls. Whether these controls actually exist and function effectively remains unverified. The questionnaire creates comfortable illusions rather than genuine risk management.
Why Questionnaires Fail
Vendors have strong incentives to present positive security postures. Admitting to security weaknesses risks losing business relationships. Most questionnaires aren’t independently verified, so vendors can claim whatever sounds good without facing accountability. This dynamic makes questionnaire responses nearly worthless for actual risk assessment. Questions often use vague terminology that allows subjective interpretation. When a vendor confirms they perform “regular security testing”, that could mean annual automated scans or continuous manual penetration testing. The response sounds identical despite dramatically different security postures. Questionnaires capture point-in-time snapshots that become outdated immediately. A vendor might have robust security when completing your questionnaire, then suffer a breach next week. Static assessments don’t reflect dynamic risk.
Building Effective Third-Party Risk Management
Differentiate vendors by criticality and access. Not every vendor requires the same level of scrutiny. The document destruction service has different risk profiles than the cloud provider hosting customer data. Invest assessment effort proportional to actual risk.
Expert Commentary
Name: William Fieldhouse
Title: Director of Aardwolf Security Ltd
Comments: “We conduct third-party security assessments for clients and routinely find vendors whose questionnaire responses bore little resemblance to actual security controls. The questionnaire claimed comprehensive logging; the reality was minimal monitoring with no retention. Written assurances mean nothing without verification.”
Require evidence of security controls for high-risk vendors. Don’t accept claims about having incident response plans; request the actual plan. Don’t accept assertions about penetration testing; ask for executive summaries of recent tests. Vendors serious about security will provide evidence; those who won’t probably don’t have what they claim. Conduct on-site assessments or require independent audits for critical vendors. Questionnaires supplemented with SOC 2 reports, ISO 27001 certifications, or custom security assessments provide much better risk visibility. These cost more than questionnaires but actually validate security claims. Monitor vendors continuously rather than assessing them once. Security postures change as vendors grow, change leadership, or face their own security incidents. Continuous monitoring through automated tools and regular check-ins maintains current risk awareness.
Working with the best penetration testing company includes assessment of vendor security controls for your most critical suppliers. External validation provides confidence that vendor claims match reality.
Contract and Legal Protections
Include specific security requirements in vendor contracts. Generic language about “maintaining reasonable security” provides no real protection. Specify technical controls, incident notification timelines, and audit rights. Make security obligations legally enforceable. Negotiate liability clauses that reflect actual risk exposure. If a vendor breach exposes your customer data, your costs include notification, remediation, regulatory penalties, and reputation damage. Standard limitation of liability clauses rarely cover these expenses. Push for terms that provide meaningful recourse. Establish clear incident notification requirements. Many vendor contracts allow notification within unreasonably long timeframes. You need to know about vendor breaches within hours or days, not weeks or months. Specify tight notification windows and verify vendors can actually meet them.
Regular penetration test quote services for your critical vendors help validate their security posture. Testing should happen before initial engagement and periodically throughout the relationship.
Ongoing Relationship Management
Create processes for offboarding vendors that include data destruction verification. When relationships end, ensure vendors actually delete your data as contractually required. Request certificates of destruction and audit the process for high-risk data. Review vendor access regularly and remove unnecessary permissions. Vendor relationships often start with limited access that gradually expands as needs change. Periodic reviews identify and eliminate access that’s no longer required. Maintain vendor inventories that document what data each vendor accesses and how they connect to your systems. Many organisations can’t answer basic questions about their vendor relationships until investigating security incidents. This lack of visibility prevents effective risk management. Track vendor security incidents and near-misses. When vendors experience security issues, even if your data wasn’t impacted, that information helps assess ongoing risk. Vendors with frequent security problems warrant increased scrutiny or relationship termination.
Building Vendor Security Partnerships
Frame security assessments as partnerships rather than adversarial compliance exercises. Vendors respond better to collaborative approaches that help them improve security rather than punitive requirements that treat them as adversaries. This doesn’t mean accepting poor security; it means working constructively toward better outcomes. Share threat intelligence with vendors when appropriate. If you detect attacks targeting your industry, your vendors face similar threats. Helping vendors improve their security reduces your risk. This collaborative approach builds relationships that improve security for everyone. Third-party risk management requires moving beyond the questionnaire checkbox mentality toward substantive verification of vendor security controls. This takes more effort and resources than sending forms, but it actually reduces risk instead of creating paperwork that gives false comfort whilst leaving organisations vulnerable to vendor-related breaches.
