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

A Guide to CSOC
Cybersecurity

A Guide to CSOC

Hacks

CSOC stands for Cyber Security Operation Center, but it can be a bit confusing because CSOC teams can also be referred to as Computer Security Incident Response Teams (CSIRT), Computer Incident Response Centers (CIRC), Security Operations Centers (SOC), or Computer Emergency Response Teams (CERT). For the purpose of this article, we will stick to the term CSOC. CSOC works in defense to combat unauthorized activities occurring in strategic networks. Its activities include monitoring, detection, analysis, response, and restoration. CSOC is a team of network security analysts organized to detect, analyze, respond to, report, and prevent network security incidents 24/7, 365 days a year. There are various types of CSOCs categorized based on their organizational and operational models, so let's delve deeper and take a closer look at the different types of CSOCs. Virtual CSOC: As the name suggests, this type of operation often lacks dedicated facilities, and team members work periodically using a reactive approach to cyber threats. I believe that the reactive capabilities of virtual CSOCs cannot be sustained

ITSEC AsiaITSEC Asia
|
Jul 10, 2023 — 7 minutes read
How AI Helps Reduce False Positives in Security Assessments
Cybersecurity

How AI Helps Reduce False Positives in Security Assessments

Modern security teams are drowning in alerts. Vulnerability scanners, SIEM platforms, threat detection tools and security assessments generate thousands of findings every day. While visibility is essential, not every finding represents a genuine threat. Many turn out to be false positives. As organizations expand their attack surfaces and adopt increasingly complex environments, managing false positives has become one of the biggest operational challenges in cybersecurity. Because ultimately, cybersecurity is not about generating more alerts. It is about identifying the risks that truly matter. WHAT ARE FALSE POSITIVES IN CYBERSECURITY? A false positive occurs when a security tool or assessment identifies something as a vulnerability or threat, even though it poses little or no actual risk. In other words, a finding appears dangerous but cannot realistically be exploited or does not have meaningful impact. False positives can originate from: * Vulnerability scanners. * Automated security assessments. * Threat detection systems. * SIEM platforms. * Security monitoring tools. * Misconfigured rules and signatures. Although these tools are designed to maximize detection, excessive false positives

ITSEC AsiaITSEC Asia
|
Jun 15, 2026 — 5 minutes read
Cybersecurity Has a People Skills Gap Too
Cybersecurity

Cybersecurity Has a People Skills Gap Too

An analyst has spent two hours investigating suspicious activity. They understand the sequence, know which systems may be affected and have a reasonable hypothesis about what the attacker did. Then the incident manager asks a simple question: “What do we need to do now?” The answer suddenly requires more than technical knowledge. Cybersecurity work is full of moments like this. Findings need to be explained. Assumptions need to be challenged. Teams need to disagree without losing time. Technical specialists have to communicate with executives, engineers, auditors and people who would prefer never to hear the phrase “lateral movement” before their first coffee. NIST’s NICE program treats these capabilities as part of cybersecurity work itself. Its workplace skills resources include communication, collaboration, critical thinking, conflict management, resilience, strategic thinking and relationship building. That matters for how organizations train cybersecurity professionals. COMMUNICATION CHANGES THE VALUE OF TECHNICAL SKILL Consider a penetration tester who discovers a serious vulnerability. Finding it requires technical skill. Explaining why it matters requires another set of abilities. The tester needs to describe

ITSEC AsiaITSEC Asia
|
Sep 25, 2026 — 3 minutes read

Receive weekly
updates on new posts

Subscribe