When organizations talk about third-party risk management (TPRM), the conversation often revolves around frameworks, checklists, and questionnaires.
But here’s the uncomfortable truth: most failures in third-party risk don’t happen because of what was missed.
They happen because of what was assumed.
Risk programs often collapse not from lack of effort, but from faulty beliefs. Let’s walk through three common myths that undermine vendor risk strategies—and what to do instead.
Myth #1: “Fewer vendors = less risk.”
At first glance, this makes sense. If you reduce the number of external partners, you shrink the attack surface.
In practice, risk doesn’t scale with quantity—it scales with criticality.
A single vendor with privileged access or sensitive data can cause as much damage as 50 smaller, low-impact vendors combined.
The SolarWinds incident proved this point: one compromised vendor had global consequences.
Better approach: Prioritize vendors by business impact. Focus resources on those that could disrupt operations, leak sensitive data, or create regulatory exposure.
Myth #2: “Due diligence is a one-time exercise.”
Many programs treat due diligence like a project:
- Vendor fills out a lengthy questionnaire.
- The security team reviews it.
- Everyone moves on.
But vendors are not static. They merge, outsource, get new leadership, face financial distress, or suffer breaches.
If you’re only reassessing annually, you’re effectively flying blind for most of the year.
Better approach: Shift from point-in-time reviews to continuous monitoring. Use external threat intelligence, financial indicators, industry news, and contractual requirements for disclosure. Risk management should reflect change, not just status quo.
Myth #3: “Compliance = safety.”
Certifications and audit reports—SOC 2, ISO 27001, PCI DSS—often provide a false sense of comfort.
These attestations prove that certain controls existed at a particular time. They do not guarantee resilience against today’s threats or tomorrow’s vulnerabilities.
Better approach: Treat compliance as a baseline, not the finish line. Validate evidence, supplement with independent assessments, and ensure controls map to real risk exposure, not just regulatory minimums.
The Common Thread
All of these myths share a core flaw: the assumption that risk is static.
But risk isn’t static. It evolves with vendors, markets, and threat actors. A program built on assumptions isn’t a strategy—it’s a comfort blanket. And comfort blankets don’t prevent breaches.
The organizations getting this right are those that:
- Tier vendors by impact, not just by count.
- Monitor continuously, not once a year.
- Use compliance as input, not the final verdict.
Final Takeaway
Third-party risk management isn’t about paperwork or proving compliance—it’s about realism.
If your program is built on assumptions, it won’t stand up when conditions change.
If it’s built on adaptability, prioritization, and continuous oversight, you’re managing risk—not just documenting it.
