Logo
Cybersecurity

Supply Chain Attacks Are Growing: Why Third-Party Risk Needs Continuous Testing

Third-party breaches doubled from 15 to 30 percent in a single year, per Verizon's DBIR. ITSEC Asia, Indonesia's leading cybersecurity company, explains why continuous testing is now essential for supply chain risk.

ITSEC AsiaITSEC Asia
|
Jul 31, 2026
Supply Chain Attacks Are Growing: Why Third-Party Risk Needs Continuous Testing

Introduction
Third-party involvement in data breaches doubled from 15 percent to 30 percent in a single year, the largest one-year shift ever recorded in the Verizon 2025 Data Breach Investigations Report. That is not a gradual trend line, it is a structural shift in how attackers reach their targets. Rather than breaching a company directly, they go after the vendor, the software dependency, or the service provider sitting quietly inside that company's trust boundary. As Indonesia's leading cybersecurity company, ITSEC Asia works with organizations across finance, healthcare, and technology who are only now realizing that their own defenses were never the whole picture, because a breach can start three vendors away and still land squarely on their desk.


Source: Supply Chain Attack Statistics 2026, Stingrai Research · Supply Chain Attack Statistics for 2026, Swif


The Numbers Behind the Shift
A supply chain compromise now costs an average of 4.91 million US dollars and takes 267 days to identify and contain, the longest lifecycle of any breach vector tracked in IBM's Cost of a Data Breach Report. That is nearly nine months where a vulnerability introduced by a vendor, a plugin, or an open source package sits undetected while attackers move laterally through connected systems. The scale of the problem shows up clearly once the separate data points are lined up side by side.

  1. A supply chain breach costs 4.91 million US dollars on average and takes 267 days to identify and contain, the longest lifecycle of any breach vector tracked by IBM
  2. Sonatype identified more than 454,600 new malicious open source packages in 2025 alone, a 75 percent jump from the year before
  3. Checkmarx research found that 63 percent of organizations experienced a supply chain attack within the past two years

Put together, these numbers suggest this is no longer a rare event reserved for large enterprises with complex vendor networks, but something most organizations should now expect to face directly.


Source: Supply Chain Attack Statistics for 2026, Swif · Supply Chain Attack Statistics 2026: 65+ Key Facts & Data, AppSec Santa


Why the Old Vendor Review Model No Longer Works
Most organizations still manage third-party risk the way they always have, through a questionnaire sent once a year and a signed compliance checklist filed away until the next renewal. That approach assumes a vendor's security posture on the day they were reviewed still holds true twelve months later, and a closer look at how vendor access actually behaves shows why that assumption rarely survives contact with reality.

  1. 60 percent of security leaders reported an increase in third-party security incidents over the past year, per a 2026 CISO survey from Panorays
  2. Only 15 percent of those same CISOs said they had full visibility into their third-party risks, up from just 3 percent the year before
  3. Vendor access today spans SaaS platforms, APIs, cloud integrations, identity providers, and outsourced development teams, often indistinguishable from internal access

A static annual review simply cannot keep pace with how quickly that access, and the risk attached to it, changes. Continuous testing closes that gap by validating a vendor's actual exposed surface on an ongoing basis, catching the moment a new integration or an unpatched dependency opens a door that a once a year checklist would never have caught until it was too late.


Source: 2026 Study from Panorays: 85% of CISOs Can't See Third-Party Threats, CIO · Third-Party Risk Statistics 2026, DeepStrike


Closing the Gap with Continuous Validation
This is precisely the shift ITSEC Asia has been helping clients make, moving third-party risk management from a paperwork exercise into a continuously validated process. Through Bronyx, ITSEC Asia's AI powered autonomous penetration testing platform, organizations can extend the same continuous testing discipline they apply to their own infrastructure to the vendors, APIs, and software dependencies connected to it, surfacing exploitable weak points across an extended attack surface rather than relying on a vendor's self reported questionnaire. Given that a supply chain breach now costs roughly 4.91 million US dollars and takes over eight months to resolve, the economics favor catching a misconfigured vendor integration or a vulnerable dependency early, while it is still cheap to fix, over discovering it only after an attacker already has been inside for months. For Indonesian organizations operating under UU PDP, where a third party's failure can still trigger the company's own regulatory exposure, that distinction is not academic, it is the difference between a routine fix and a breach notification.


Source: Supply Chain Attack Statistics for 2026, Swif · Supply Chain Risk in 2026, Cyberlab
 

Talk to ITSEC Asia About Third-Party Risk
Vendor and partner ecosystems are no longer an edge case in an organization's threat model, they are the default path attackers are already using. Visit bronyx.ai or connect with the ITSEC Asia team at itsec.asia/contact to see how continuous, AI powered testing can validate the vendors and integrations your organization depends on before they become the next entry point.

Share this post

You may also like

Behind the Running Machines: The Cyber Threats Lurking in Your Industrial Systems
Cybersecurity

Behind the Running Machines: The Cyber Threats Lurking in Your Industrial Systems

INTRODUCTION For years, the cybersecurity conversation has revolved almost entirely around the IT world  corporate email, enterprise software, cloud storage. But the threat landscape has shifted. Quietly, and aggressively. Attackers have figured out something that many security teams are only beginning to reckon with: Operational Technology (OT) and Internet of Things (IoT) environments are high-value targets, and by the standards the IT world now takes for granted, they are largely undefended. The numbers don't leave much room for optimism. Ransomware attacks in the industrial sector spiked 87% year-over-year in 2024, making manufacturing the top ransomware target for four consecutive years. In the same period, the number of ransomware groups specifically targeting OT and ICS environments grew by 60%  not because these systems suddenly became more valuable overnight, but because attackers realized how exposed they already were. One in every four penetration tests conducted on industrial environments still finds default credentials in active use. Sixty-five percent of OT environments have insecure remote access conditions. These aren't edge cases. They are the norm. The question,

|
Jun 05, 2026 — 7 minutes read
This is Why You Should Automate Your Cybersecurity
Cybersecurity

This is Why You Should Automate Your Cybersecurity

DO YOU NEED TO AUTOMATE YOUR CYBERSECURITY OPERATIONS? The answer is likely "yes," and whenever I ask anyone about automation, they unequivocally state that automation will undoubtedly enhance the overall cybersecurity foundation if implemented correctly in their organizations. They say "if" because the organizations I speak with, not many of them have actually implemented automation into their operations, even if they intend to do so. They usually reason that they are too busy to stop and learn how. Here are some of the strongest reasons to automate... We live in a world where launching cyber attacks on an organization is far cheaper than defending it. To make matters worse, the threat landscape is becoming increasingly difficult to cover. You face exponentially growing threats where adversaries are getting the upper hand every day while your security tools incessantly warn you. Business resilience is the ultimate goal of any cybersecurity operation, and the only way to improve the overall resilience of your organization is to improve your overall efficiency in protecting it.

ITSEC AsiaITSEC Asia
|
Jul 20, 2023 — 4 minutes read
A SOC Can’t Detect What It Never Learned to See
Cybersecurity

A SOC Can’t Detect What It Never Learned to See

A security alert arrives. An analyst opens it, checks the surrounding activity and begins reconstructing what happened. That sounds like the beginning of detection work. In reality, a considerable amount of work happened earlier. Someone decided which events should be logged, configured the systems to produce them, collected those records centrally and made sure the data contained enough detail to support an investigation. If that work is poor, even an excellent analyst is starting with missing pages. An upcoming ITU cybersecurity exercise in Dushanbe makes this dependency unusually explicit. During the three day program from 21 to 23 September 2026, teams will configure centralized monitoring and telemetry collection before responding to simulated ransomware, data exfiltration, server compromise and command and control traffic. The methodology has a catch: performance against attacks on Day 3 depends on the monitoring participants configured on Day 2. That’s a useful model for SOC training. VISIBILITY IS A SKILL SOC development often concentrates on the visible part of the job: analysing alerts, threat hunting and incident response. Those capabilities

ITSEC AsiaITSEC Asia
|
Sep 17, 2026 — 3 minutes read

Receive weekly
updates on new posts

Subscribe