In Case You Missed it: The TPRM Top 10

In Case You Missed it

If you were too busy dealing with PHP2Shell to keep up with our TPRM Top 10 series, we get it.

Cybersecurity teams have had plenty competing for their attention lately. But while the threat landscape keeps moving, the challenges facing third-party risk management aren't slowing down either.

Throughout our TPRM Top 10 series, we've taken a closer look at some of the biggest challenges putting pressure on today's TPRM programs, from growing vendor ecosystems and limited resources to gaps in assurance, visibility, and risk data.

And if you missed a few along the way, we've got you covered.

The Challenges Facing TPRM aren't Getting any Simple 

Third-party ecosystems continue to grow in size and complexity. At the same time, organizations are being asked to better understand who they're doing business with, where risk exists across those relationships, and whether the information they're relying on gives them enough confidence to make informed decisions.

That's a lot to manage.

Throughout the TPRM Top 10 series, we explored where common approaches to third-party risk can fall short and the challenges organizations should be thinking about as they evaluate and strengthen their programs.

But instead of making you hunt down every blog in the series, we've brought it all together in one place.

Ready to Strengthen Your TPRM Program?  

Third-party risk isn't standing still, and neither are the challenges that come with managing it.

If you missed the series, or simply want all the insights in one place, we've made catching up easy.

Start with the TPRM Top 10, then talk with HITRUST about how we can help tackle the challenges facing your program.

Download the TPRM Top 10 paper to explore the full series. | Connect With HITRUST

HITRUST CSF Threat and Mitigation Analysis

The Threat Landscape is Evolving, but the Way in Still Looks Familiar

Cyber threats are moving faster. AI is giving attackers new ways to scale their efforts. But beneath all that change, some of the most effective ways into an organization remain surprisingly familiar.

HITRUST’s Q3 2026 threat analysis found that general malware, browser malware, phishing, backdoor malware, and software supply chain attacks were the five most commonly mentioned entry points in the threat research reviewed.

It’s a reminder that preparing for what’s next doesn’t mean leaving established risks behind.

Phishing tells that story particularly well. It remained the leading technique across both traditional MITRE ATT&CK and AI-focused MITRE ATLAS threat activity in Q3. And it frequently appeared alongside another familiar technique: User Execution.

In other words, attackers may have more sophisticated technology at their disposal, but getting someone to click, open, download, or act still works.

What does that mean for security assurance?

As attack methods evolve, organizations need to know whether their security controls are keeping pace with the threats they’re actually facing, not simply whether those controls existed at a point in time.

That’s the idea behind HITRUST’s Cyber Threat Adaptive process. Current threat intelligence is continuously analyzed against the HITRUST CSF to evaluate how assessment requirements align with observed adversary activity.

For Q3 2026, that analysis included:

• 9,859 threat articles
• 42,602,746 MITRE ATT&CK and MITRE ATLAS technique-level indicators
• 75 real-world breaches

The findings help evaluate whether HITRUST requirements continue to provide meaningful coverage against current and emerging threats.

But which techniques showed up most often? Where are organizations most exposed? And how do HITRUST’s e1, i1, r2, and AI Security Certification requirements map back to the threats being observed?

Read the Q3 2026 HITRUST CSF Threat and Mitigation Analysis for the full findings. 

The TPRM Top 10 - Closing Perspective on The TRPM Top 10

The challenges covered across this series of blog are not isolated weaknesses. They are interconnected symptoms of a TPRM operating model struggling to keep pace with complexity of modern vendor ecosystems:

• Insufficient staffing and technology limit capacity.
• Unreliable assurance creates additional review work
  
• Business dependencies pressure organizations to accept risks they do not fully understand or cannot adequately mitigate
  
• Manual processes consume scarce capacity
  
• Incomplete vendor data undermines risk visibility
  
• Limited supply chain visibility obscures material exposures

Emerging Themes from the Top 10

Across the ten issues, four areas consistently appear:

• Focus: Apply accurate risk tiering so the strongest requirements and most experienced judgment are directed toward the vendors that can create the greatest harm.
  
• Trust: Require independently validated assurance that makes scope, control coverage, exceptions, and shared responsibilities clear.
  
• Scale: Automate routine evidence collection, control mapping, and reassessment activity so analysts can spend more time evaluating and reducing material risk.
  
• Transparency: Extend ecosystem visibility beyond individual vendors to downstream providers, shared platforms, and concentration points

The answer is not another questionnaire or spreadsheet. The stronger model is both risk-based and evidence-driven. It directs attention to the vendors and control areas where failure would have the most significant consequences. Instead of requiring organizations to repeatedly collect the same evidence, it relies on reusable assurance that has been independently validated. The model also supports more effective oversight by linking monitoring activities to events which can change a vendor's risk profile over time.

These 10 issues are connected symptoms of an operating model struggling to keep pace with modern third-party ecosystems. They capture the key areas where TPRM leaders report their programs are breaking down, with the objective of equipping organizations to address these challenges in order to make more timely, defensible risk decisions.

Solving these challenges will require more than incremental improvements to existing processes. Organizations need a more scalable, risk-based model built on complete vendor data, standardized and independently validated assurance, greater automation, and deeper supply chain visibility. The objective is to develop sufficient confidence to identify material exposures early, focus expertise where it matters most, and make timely and defensible decisions.

The organizations best positioned for the future will be those that treat TPRM as an enterprise risk capability. By modernizing vendor assurance, TPRM programs can reduce friction while improving visibility and confidence. Ultimately, the goal is a program that can scale alongside the business without sacrificing the rigor needed to protect critical operations and data.

Check Out the Previous Blogs

•  Traditional Third-Party Risk Management Has Reached Its Operating Limit 
• The TPRM Top 10 - Vendor Growth Is Outrunning TPRM Capacity 
•  The TPRM Top 10 - Critical Vendors Become Too Important to Fail 
•  The TPRM Top 10 - Lack of Assurance Comparability 
•  The TPRM Top 10 - Manual Work Is Consuming TPRM Capacity  
•  The TPRM Top 10 - Hidden Vendor Risks 
•  The TPRM Top 10 - Incorrect or Incomplete Risk Tiering Is Directing Attention to the Wrong Places 
•  The TPRM Top 10 - Limited Visibility Into the Deep Supply Chain 
•  The TPRM Top 10 - Concentration Risk Turns Vendor Failures Into Enterprise Events 
•  The TPRM Top 10 - Unreliable Vendor Data Undermines Risk Decisions 
•  The TPRM Top 10 - Vendor Risk Is Changing Faster Than Reassessment Cycles 

*CHIME Digital Health Analytics. Third-Party Risk Management Assurance: Strategic Market Validation Survey. Commissioned by HITRUST. Ann Arbor, MI: College of Healthcare Information Management Executives, Digital Health Analytics 2026. In July 2026, HITRUST commissioned CHIME Digital Health Analytics to conduct a blinded market-validation survey of 102 qualified respondents from separate healthcare provider organizations with more than $1 billion in annual revenue. Respondents represented security and GRC leadership, TPRM ownership, procurement and vendor management, legal and contracting, and executive leadership. Every participating organization actively managed at least 200 third-party vendors, and 87% managed more than 500.