All news with #third-party risk tag
Thu, November 20, 2025
3 Ways CISOs Can Win Over Their Boards This Budget Season
🔒 As CISOs finalize next year’s cybersecurity budgets, winning board approval requires translating technical needs into business value. First, quantify risk in financial terms—estimate value at risk across worst-, best- and most‑likely scenarios, using industry reports, internal experts and vendor assessments to model direct losses, business interruption and reputational impact. Second, go beyond compliance: reserve budget for emerging threats (generative AI, quantum, third‑party risk) and repurpose existing line items such as Data Security Posture Management, SASE and GRC hours to limit net new spend. Third, know thy board and tailor your message—use dollars-and-cents for finance‑focused directors and vivid attack narratives for others, while maintaining regular engagement year-round.
Mon, November 17, 2025
How Attack Surface Management Will Change Noticeably by 2026
🔒 Enterprises face expanding, complex attack surfaces driven by IoT growth, API ecosystems, remote work, shadow IT and multi-cloud sprawl. The author predicts 2026 will bring centralized cloud control—led by SASE—a shift to proactive, continuous ASM, stricter zero trust enforcement and widespread deployment of intelligent, agentic AI for autonomous detection and remediation. The analysis also emphasizes greater attention to third‑party and supply-chain risk.
Tue, October 28, 2025
Rethinking Service Provider Risk: A CISO Imperative
🔍 As organizations outsource more critical systems and security functions to managed service providers, the complexity and frequency of third-party incidents are rising — 47% of organizations reported a third-party breach in the 12 months to mid-2025. Security leaders must balance rigorous, standards-based assurance (for example ISO 27001 or SOC 2) with relationship-driven vetting that fosters transparency and shared responsibility. Experts from media company Advance, the University of Queensland and vendor advisors argue that questionnaires alone are insufficient: meaningful dialogue, selective disclosure (summaries of pen tests rather than full reports), contractual clarity, and AI-aware controls are all needed to assess and manage evolving risks.