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

What Information Security Process Manager Actually Does and Why Most Organizations Getting It Wrong
Cybersecurity

What Information Security Process Manager Actually Does and Why Most Organizations Getting It Wrong

INTRODUCTION Here is a number worth sitting with: organizations that detect breaches with a security AI and automation program save an average of USD 2.2 million compared to those that do not. Yet the operational role responsible for building, owning, and continuously improving those detection and response processes, the Information Security Process Manager, remains one of the least formally defined positions in enterprise security. Most organizations have the tools. Very few have the structured ownership that makes those tools work together as a system. ITSEC Asia, the cybersecurity leader in Indonesia with operations across Singapore, Australia, and the UAE, works directly with organizations to fill exactly this gap: turning fragmented security investments into managed, measurable, and genuinely effective programs. Sources: IBM Cost of a Data Breach Report 2024 [https://www.ibm.com/reports/data-breach] WHAT THE ROLE ACTUALLY OWNS An Information Security Process Manager is the operational architect of a security program. Where a CISO sets direction and a security analyst executes individual tasks, the Process Manager is responsible for defining, documenting, improving, and governing the processes that

|
Mei 25, 2026 5 minutes read
Why Annual Penetration Testing Is No Longer Enough in Today's Threat Landscape
Cybersecurity

Why Annual Penetration Testing Is No Longer Enough in Today's Threat Landscape

If you only went to the doctor once a year, you probably would not assume you were perfectly healthy for the other 364 days. Health changes over time. New conditions can develop, existing issues can worsen, and unexpected problems may arise between checkups. That is why people increasingly rely on regular monitoring and preventive care rather than waiting for an annual appointment to discover something has gone wrong. Cybersecurity works in much the same way. For many years, annual penetration testing has been considered a cybersecurity best practice. Organizations schedule an assessment, receive a report, address the findings, and repeat the process the following year. In relatively static environments, this approach provided a reasonable level of assurance. Modern organizations, however, no longer operate in static environments. Cloud adoption has accelerated. APIs have become essential to digital services. Development teams deploy updates continuously, and third-party integrations have become increasingly common. As organizations move faster, their attack surfaces evolve just as quickly. A system that was secure six months ago may look very

ITSEC AsiaITSEC Asia
|
Jan 09, 2026 7 minutes read
OWASP Top 10 Explained: The Risks Every Organization Should Understand
Cybersecurity

OWASP Top 10 Explained: The Risks Every Organization Should Understand

Modern applications have become increasingly interconnected and complex. Organizations rely on web applications, APIs and cloud services to support critical business operations and deliver digital experiences. Unfortunately, attackers are evolving just as quickly. As cyber threats continue to grow, understanding common application security risks has become essential. This is where the OWASP Top 10 plays an important role. Widely regarded as one of the most influential resources in application security, the OWASP Top 10 provides organizations with a practical framework for understanding and prioritizing the most critical risks affecting web applications. Whether you are a developer, security professional or business leader, understanding these risks is essential for building stronger cyber resilience. WHAT IS OWASP? OWASP, or the Open Worldwide Application Security Project, is a global non-profit organization focused on improving software security. Among its many initiatives, the OWASP Top 10 is perhaps the most widely recognized. It highlights the most significant security risks affecting modern web applications based on industry data and expert consensus. The list is not intended to be a compliance checklist. Instead,

ITSEC AsiaITSEC Asia
|
Jun 15, 2026 5 minutes read

Receive weekly
updates on new posts

Subscribe