Third parties help organisations move faster. They support IT, finance, software delivery, procurement, customer service, and day-to-day operations. But every outside vendor, consultant, contractor, or service provider also adds risk.
This risk grows when third parties can access systems, data, user accounts, or cloud environments. If controls are weak, one trusted external account can become the entry point for a breach.
This is the core issue in third-party cyber security. The problem is not only the vendor itself. It is also how the organisation grants access, writes contracts, checks suppliers, monitors activity, and responds when something goes wrong.
A recent public sector audit showed that many entities still have important gaps in these areas. The findings matter beyond government. They apply to any organisation that depends on outside providers to run critical services.
Why Third-Party Risk Matters
Most organisations now rely on an extended digital supply chain. Software vendors, managed service providers, outsourced finance teams, marketing agencies, cloud partners, and specialist consultants all play a role. Some need direct access to internal systems. Others process sensitive data on the organisation’s behalf.
That creates a wider attack surface. A threat actor does not always need to breach the organisation first. It may come through a supplier, a shared credential, a poorly secured remote access path, or a contractor account with more privileges than needed.
The impact can be serious. It can lead to data loss, privacy issues, service disruption, financial damage, and loss of trust. According to the Australian Signals Directorate, it responded to 107 cyber supply chain incidents in FY2023–24, accounting for 9% of all incidents it handled.
Understand what happens when a cyber breach halts your operations.
What the Audit Found
The audit looked at three public sector entities and assessed how well they managed third-party cyber security risk. The results were clear. Basic controls existed, but they were not strong enough.
Using third-party accounts, testers were able to move beyond the access that should have been allowed. They obtained passwords, reached systems outside the intended scope, and extracted sensitive information. In two cases, they gained administrator-level access.
This is exactly why cybersecurity testing matters. It shows what happens in practice, not just what a policy says should happen. When access controls fail under realistic conditions, the issue is no longer theoretical.
The findings also show the value of regular vulnerability assessment. Small gaps in identity controls, monitoring, and contract management may look manageable on their own. Together, they create a path to compromise.
Weak Access Control Remains a Major Issue
Third-party users should only have the access they need to do their work. No more. That principle sounds simple, but many organisations still struggle to apply it consistently.
In the audited entities, some controls worked. Sessions timed out. Reauthentication was required. Some access routes were blocked. But other weaknesses allowed testers to move laterally through the environment, find exposed credentials, and gain more access than intended.
This points to a basic problem in identity and access management. Access was not limited tightly enough. Controls were not applied consistently across the environment. Monitoring did not always catch abuse quickly.
A strong vulnerability assessment program can help identify these weak points before an attacker does. It can also show whether privileged accounts, shared accounts, service accounts, and contractor access are being managed properly.
Monitoring Needs to Improve
Access control alone is not enough. Organisations also need strong logging, alerting, and response capability.
The entities in the audit had security teams and some monitoring controls in place. Certain suspicious actions were flagged. Some unauthorised tools were detected. That is a good start. But major gaps remained.
Testers were still able to extract data, run scripts, and create or modify user accounts without being stopped. That means monitoring controls were either incomplete, poorly tuned, or not covering the full environment.
Cybersecurity testing gives real value, it validates whether alerts fire when they should. It checks whether suspicious actions trigger investigation. It also helps security teams understand what they are missing.
For environments with web applications and integrations, API penetration testing is also important. Many third-party services connect through APIs. If those interfaces are weak, suppliers or attackers may reach sensitive data without using normal user pathways. It also helps find those gaps before they become incident pathways.
Risk Management Should Start Earlier
Many organisations focus on third-party cyber risk only after a supplier is already in place. That is too late.
Risk management must start during procurement. Before any contract is signed, the organisation should know what the supplier will access, what data it will handle, what security controls it has, and what obligations it must meet.
The audit found that entities were not doing this consistently. Supplier questionnaires were sometimes used, but the responses were not always assessed properly. Risk registers were incomplete. Supply chains were not fully mapped. Some entities had only general cyber risks recorded, not specific third-party risks.
This is a governance issue as much as a technical one. Procurement, legal, IT, cyber security, and risk teams all need to work together.
A well-run vulnerability assessment process should support this work. It should not only look inward at internal systems. It should also help assess external exposure, supplier-connected services, and inherited risk from third-party technologies.
Contracts Need Stronger Cyber Clauses
If security expectations are not written into the contract, they are hard to enforce later.
The audit found that only 2 of 36 reviewed contracts required third parties to report cyber incidents and vulnerabilities. That is a major blind spot. If a supplier suffers an incident and does not have to notify the customer quickly, response time is lost.
Contracts should clearly cover security obligations, breach notification, audit rights, access control expectations, data handling, subcontractor obligations, and review processes. This is even more important where fourth-party risk exists, meaning the supplier also relies on its own vendors.
For digital platforms, software services, and integrated environments, API penetration testing should also be considered as part of assurance. Where suppliers expose business-critical APIs, security testing should not stop at the web front end. It also helps confirm whether authentication, authorisation, session control, and data exposure issues are under control.
Capability Building Still Needs Work
The audit also found that central support across the public sector is still developing. Guidance exists, and more is being built, but coverage and follow-up remain limited.
Training, frameworks, and threat sharing all help. But they are most useful when they are targeted. To do that well, agencies need a clearer picture of which entities face the most supply chain risk and where maturity gaps are greatest.
This is true in the public sector and in the private industry. Good advice is helpful. Measured action is better. Mature organisations do not rely on guidance alone. They validate controls through cybersecurity testing, regular vulnerability assessment, and focused assurance work across suppliers, systems, and interfaces.
What Organisations Should Do Now
Any organisation that relies on third parties should act in five areas.
First, tighten identity and access management. Give vendors the least access possible and review it often.
Second, improve monitoring and alerting. Make sure suspicious activity by third parties is visible across the full environment.
Third, identify and assess third-party risks properly. Know your supply chain. Know which vendors access what. Know where your most sensitive exposure sits.
Fourth, strengthen procurement and contract management. Set clear cyber requirements from the start and keep checking them through the life of the contract.
Fifth, test what matters. Run cybersecurity testing regularly. Use vulnerability assessment to uncover weak controls. Include API penetration testing where external systems, third-party platforms, or business integrations are involved.
Third-party cyber risk is not a side issue. It is part of core business risk. Organisations that treat it that way will be in a stronger position to prevent breaches, reduce exposure, and respond faster when threats appear.
Why is immediate cyber security review utmost during the ongoing global conflict.
Get in Touch with Cybernetic Global Intelligence Today
Third-party cyber risk is no longer a side concern. It sits at the centre of modern cyber security. As organisations rely more on vendors, contractors, cloud platforms, and external service providers, the chance of risk entering through the supply chain grows. This blog shows that weak access control, poor monitoring, incomplete risk reviews, and weak contract terms can leave serious gaps. It also makes one point clear: policies alone are not enough.
Organisations need regular cybersecurity testing, a clear vulnerability assessment process, and focused API penetration testing where third-party systems and integrations are involved. When these steps are part of routine security practice, teams are better placed to detect gaps early, reduce exposure, and respond with confidence.
Need clarity on your third-party cyber risk exposure? Cybernetic Global Intelligence (CGI) helps organisations identify security gaps, assess supplier-related risks, and strengthen controls through expert-led cybersecurity testing, vulnerability assessment, and API penetration testing.
Get in touch with CGI to build a stronger, more resilient security posture.