Many companies rely on external services to keep their operations running smoothly. However, while third-party vendors help power systems and support day-to-day operations, each new integration adds a potential access point that attackers can target. In 2026, third-party risk influences the speed at which incidents spread, the effectiveness of compliance, and the rate at which teams can recover. To prepare for what lies ahead, it is helpful to understand the current risks and know the steps IT teams can take to secure vendor access.
The State of Third-Party Cybersecurity in 2026
Third-party risk is everywhere in 2026. It is apparent on the web, where third-party code runs on customer-facing pages and can access sensitive areas such as login and account recovery.
A recent study reviewed 4,700 major websites and found that 64% of third-party apps were accessing sensitive data without a clear need — up from 51% in 2024. The same report highlighted an execution gap where many security leaders rank web attacks as a top priority, while far fewer have deployed solutions aimed at reducing that exposure.
Third-party risk is not limited to website tags and scripts — it also encompasses other potential vulnerabilities. Many outside providers connect to core business functions like payments, user accounts, support systems, and analytics. Survey data shows that over 60% of organizations have dealt with a cybersecurity incident linked to a vendor. In real incidents, a vendor might be how an attacker gains entry, how they remain undetected, or how they spread access across additional systems.
Attackers have also improved at exploiting business trust. Techniques that work against internal users also work against vendor relationships, including credential theft, session hijacking, OAuth abuse, token replay, malicious updates, and injected browser-side scripts. The difference lies in speed and blast radius.
A good example is what happened to Ledger. In 2023, attackers exploited vulnerabilities in decentralized finance applications connected to Ledger-related services and stole nearly $500,000 from users. The incident exposed a hard lesson on dependency sprawl. Hardware wallet safety can be undermined by adjacent services that handle customer data and workflows, including integrations, payment and fulfillment layers, and support tools.
Why Traditional TPRM Is Falling Short
Many third-party risk management (TPRM) programs still run on old procurement checklists. They assume vendor onboarding is centralized, the vendor list remains stable, and periodic reviews are enough. These break down in 2026.
Teams can now purchase tools independently, connect apps through marketplaces and application programming interfaces, and onboard new vendors for fast experiments. All these can happen before security realizes the changes.
Classic TPRM was built for slower and more predictable procurement cycles and often struggles when vendor decisions happen across the business with agile onboarding patterns. In addition, many workflows have not yet evolved at the same pace as cloud adoption and modern software delivery methods. The result is a predictable set of gaps.
Point-in-time assessments miss fast changes in ownership, infrastructure, subcontractors, and release cadence. Vendor inventories also fall behind real usage, especially when teams add scripts and integrations through self-service workflows. Contracts often lag behind technical reality, as well, resulting in weak requirements for breach notification, log retention, forensic cooperation, and subprocessor transparency.
Despite knowing these realities, some organizations skip the fundamentals. Fifteen percent of businesses skip third-party risk checks, even while positioning strong TPRM programs to address supply chain concerns. That omission is critical because vendor onboarding is often the only structured moment to restrict access and prevent unsafe integrations.
A Disconnect Between Awareness and Action
Security leaders understand that vendors can expose companies to risk — the problem is follow-through. Many organizations lack a tested plan for vendor-driven incidents and cannot see all the vendor connections that matter, especially when integrations and subcontractors are involved.
Regulators have also become stricter. The Securities and Exchange Commission’s cybersecurity disclosure rules push public companies to share material incident details quickly. The agency noted that a Form 8-K Item 1.05 filing is generally due within four business days after the entity decides an incident is material.
A 2026 Panorays survey found that while 77% of chief information security officers (CISOs) viewed third-party risk as a major threat, only 21% said their enterprises have tested crisis response plans. It also reported that although 60% saw a rise in third-party security incidents, only 15% had full visibility into such situations.
Response speed depends on how quickly the vendor shares impact details. If agreements do not require fast notification and evidence preservation, internal teams are left to make decisions even with missing information. If scenarios have never been practiced, coordination between teams slows down dramatically.
Key Strategies for a Resilient TPRM Program in 2026
Resilience starts with viewing third parties as extensions of the security perimeter. That shift favors enforceable technical controls and contracts that align with real incident workflows, not just theoretical models.
Embrace Automation and AI
Automation can keep vendor inventories current, classify vendors by data access and business criticality, and monitor for meaningful posture changes. High-value signals include exposed credentials, new internet-facing assets, security advisories, and unexpected permission growth in SaaS integrations. Of course, privileged connections and high-impact vendors should still be left to human reviewers.
Foster a Culture of Security
Make vendor security everyone’s job. Ensure that the right elements are listed up-front at each vendor — a security contact, a legal contact, and an operations contact. For internal teams that add scripts or connect new apps on their own, provide quick training on what access they are granting, where the data will go, and who needs to sign off.
Adopt a Zero-Trust Approach
Default to least privilege. Require strong authentication and limit vendor access to a specific time frame with full logging and regular reviews. For SaaS integrations, control OAuth approvals, limit token scopes, and audit permissions on a schedule.
Prioritize Continuous Monitoring
Track vendor posture changes and production web changes continuously — don’t just rely on annual reviews. Monitor what third-party code can read and transmit, especially on login, checkout, and account recovery pages.
Develop a Robust Incident Response Plan
Third-party incident response should include shared severity levels, notification timelines, and evidence preservation steps. Plans should cover how to disable integrations quickly, rotate secrets, revoke tokens, and ship compensating controls. Testing vendor-driven scenarios can reveal coordination gaps and areas for improvement.
Building a Proactive and Future-Proof TPRM Framework
Future-proofing TPRM means anticipating and controlling real-world exposure. Inventories should trace back to data flows, identity privileges, code execution paths, and operational dependencies. This deep visibility reveals hidden risk concentrations, specifically identifying vendors who may still hold high-level administrative access or operate inside your most critical processes despite having low contract values.
Compliance checklists no longer measure readiness. True progress is defined by reducing standing privileges, endorsing rapid vendor offboarding, and eliminating unknown scripts in production. By defining these technical responsibilities before a crisis happens, organizations avoid rushed coordination and can make immediate containment decisions the moment an incident strikes.
Ultimately, treating TPRM as an ongoing risk discipline creates significant operational resilience. Speed and precision ultimately protect customer trust and minimize disruptions in an interconnected environment.
Fortify Your Business in the Interconnected Age
Third-party risk in 2026 demands continuous visibility and strictly enforced access controls. Unmonitored connections can turn minor vendor breaches into major operational failures. To close this gap, companies must aggressively limit privileges and validate response plans through real-world simulations. This guarantees that the threat can be isolated instantly when a partner is compromised, preventing an external incident from becoming an internal disaster.
