Organizations are taking on more cyber risk than ever before and a large part comes in the form of third-party and fourth-party risk. The news is inundated with data breaches and data leaks and the average cost of a data breach has reached nearly $4 million globally. It's safe to say that the financial cost alone is enough proof to start investing in tools to prevent data breaches.
The unfortunate truth is third-parties cause data breaches. That's why cybersecurity and vendor risk management (VRM) has become a top priority for CISOs, Vice Presidents of Security, security professionals, and other members of senior management, even at the Board level.
In addition to financial costs, there are increased regulatory and reputational costs.
Governments are enacting laws and regulations designed to promote, or require, third-party cyber risk management programs to identify, assess, mitigate and oversee risks created by vendors, fourth-parties, and customers.
While this is BAU for some industries, it's a new problem to tackle for many others. The introduction of general data protection laws means most organizations need to follow vendor risk management best practices.
For example in the United States California has introduced CCPA and Florida has introduced FIPA to protect the personally identifiable information of their constituents. Outside of the United States, GDPR, LGPD, and PIPEDA are three important extraterritorial laws from the European Union, Brazil, and Canada respectively. Alongside the protection of PII and PHI, many of these laws have introduced mandatory data breach notification requirements which have greatly increased the reputational impact of inadequate vendor and cybersecurity risk management practices.
To add to this, security teams have more expected to not only manage and improve security postures and information security policies, but to translate technical details from cybersecurity risk assessments and vendor questionnaires into terms that non-technical stakeholders can understand.
The good news is third-party risk management tools can help you do exactly that. The issue is it's hard to decide on which ones to assess, let alone what criteria to assess them against.
That's why we wrote this post to provide you with a clear comparison between RiskRecon, Whistic, and UpGuard, so you can make an informed decision and choose the tool that is right for you.
RiskRecon is headquartered in Salt Lake City, UT with a presence in Boston, MA and representatives around the world. RiskRecon is lead by its CEO and Co-founder Kelly White.
They makes it easy to gain deep, risk contextualized insight into the cybersecurity risk performance of all third-parties by continuously monitoring across 11 security domains and 41 security criteria.
Like UpGuard, it can be used for third-party risk management, enterprise risk management, and mergers & acquisitions.
Whistic, Inc is based in Salt Lake City, Utah and aims to help companies hold each other accountable for protecting their shared data. Whistic's CEO is Nick Sorensen.
The Whistic platform helps customers conduct and respond to security reviews in a single platform.
Their platform has tools to help you onboard, assess, and track vendors, allowing you to compare third-parties against a set of predefined criteria based on vendor questionnaires, documentation, and metadata.
Vendors can assess themselves against one of the top vendor questionnaires and publish it to their profile, along with supporting documentation including audits and certifications.