The Reality of Remediation in TPRM: A Symptom of a Broken System

Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM) is fundamentally broken. It is supposed to provide visibility and control over vendor-related risks, but in practice, it leaves organizations overwhelmed and vulnerable.

One of the issues plaguing TPRM is remediation failure. Plans of remediation in TPRM often fail to translate into tangible risk reduction, leaving organizations with more exposure than they realize.

The follow-through problem in TPRM

Research indicates that organizations remediate only about 10% of the vulnerabilities they identify each month. This is not just a matter of negligence — it is a systemic failure caused by competing priorities, resource constraints, and an ever-growing vendor ecosystem that is too large to manage effectively. Organizations may have robust assessment processes in place, but they struggle to ensure third-party vendors actually follow through on remediation commitments. This results in a backlog of unmitigated risks that continue to accumulate, leaving organizations exposed to known threats that should have been addressed.

The illusion of risk reduction in vendor management

When vendors report that remediation is complete, organizations often lack the reporting mechanisms to verify and measure these efforts. Without proper tracking and accountability, there is no clear picture of whether remediation efforts have truly reduced risk. The lack of standardized third-party assurance only exacerbates the issue, making it difficult to hold vendors accountable and gain efficient visibility.

For example, a healthcare provider may identify vulnerabilities in a vendor’s remote access system and initiate a remediation plan. However, without structured follow-up through TPRM processes, there is no assurance that the vendor has taken the necessary corrective actions. In some cases, issues marked as “resolved” may persist due to miscommunication, incomplete implementation, or new dependencies that introduce similar vulnerabilities.

The continuous monitoring challenge in TPRM

Continuous monitoring is the ideal solution for ensuring remediation in TPRM that leads to lasting security improvements. By maintaining real-time visibility into third-party cyber risks, organizations can track vulnerabilities, measure remediation progress, and proactively address emerging threats. However, few organizations have the means to achieve this because

• TPRM programs are overwhelmed with too many vendors to monitor effectively.
• Many approaches, such as point-in-time assessments, provide only a partial view of risk.
• There is no universally accepted standard for vendor risk management, making consistency impossible.
• Third-party vendors lack incentives to provide sufficient assurance and transparency.

HITRUST helps address these challenges by providing a standardized and scalable framework for assessing vendor security postures. Unlike traditional compliance checklists, HITRUST ensures that security controls are continuously monitored and validated, offering a more dynamic and reliable approach to vendor risk management. Organizations leveraging HITRUST can enforce accountability through a well-defined and industry-accepted certification process that ensures vendors meet and maintain rigorous security standards.

Bridging the gap: Fixing TPRM to enable effective remediation

Organizations must address the broader failures to turn remediation in TPRM into a reality.

1. Prioritizing critical vendor vulnerabilities: Since remediating all vendor-related vulnerabilities is unrealistic, organizations must focus on those that pose the highest risk. Establishing clear prioritization criteria, based on threat intelligence rather than subjective opinions, ensures the most dangerous threats are addressed first.
2. Standardizing third-party assurance: Vendors must be held to consistent security and remediation standards. HITRUST certification provides a reliable mechanism for verifying vendor security postures, enforcing SLAs around remediation, and requiring real-time reporting on security controls.
3. Enhancing reporting and metrics: Organizations need robust reporting mechanisms that track vendor remediation efforts and their impact on overall risk reduction. HITRUST assurance mechanism helps establish clear, auditable metrics that go beyond self-attested compliance.
4. Simplifying stakeholder engagement: Too many stakeholders slow down remediation efforts. Organizations should streamline vendor management responsibilities and clarify ownership of risk mitigation tasks while leveraging HITRUST’s structured governance approach to simplify oversight.
5. Investing in continuous monitoring capabilities: While achieving true continuous monitoring is difficult, organizations can implement more frequent risk assessments, automated scanning, and real-time alerts to improve visibility into vendor risks. HITRUST integrates continuous monitoring requirements that provide an ongoing assessment of vendor compliance and security effectiveness.

Conclusion

Without structured follow-up, organizations become more vulnerable to third-party cyber risks, often without realizing it. HITRUST offers a viable path forward by providing a standardized and continuously monitored approach to TPRM. Remediation will remain an illusion until organizations adopt structured third-party assurances like HITRUST to address systemic flaws.