DE
In today’s interconnected economy, the resilience of an organization is no longer defined only by its own security posture, but by the strength of its extended ecosystem. While third-party cyber risk management (TPCRM) has gained momentum in recent years, it is still evolving. Other domains, however – such as physical security and supply chain security – have already built mature frameworks and practices.
The question we should ask is: What can TPCRM learn from these established third-party security functions?
Looking beyond cyber: Learning from mature models
Organizations have long faced third-party risks in the physical and supply chain realm. To manage these, entire standards and frameworks have been developed that embed risk-based approaches, certification schemes, and industry-wide trust models.
Some examples include:
- ISO 28000 – A standard focusing on security management systems for the supply chain. It defines how to identify critical assets, assess risks, and build resilience across logistics networks.
- TAPA FSR (Transported Asset Protection Association – Facility Security Requirements) – A framework widely used in logistics and warehousing to protect high-value goods, with a strong focus on auditable controls and certifications.
- CTPAT (Customs Trade Partnership Against Terrorism) – A US government–business initiative that ensures importers and supply chain partners implement rigorous security practices to safeguard global trade.
These frameworks have one thing in common: they don’t just rely on questionnaires or self-attestations. They embed standardized controls, verification mechanisms, and industry trust networks.
There’s no need for cybersecurity to reinvent the wheel
Too often, third-party cyber risk management programs rely heavily on spreadsheets, lengthy questionnaires, and inconsistent monitoring. Compared to physical security, this feels immature.
Drawing inspiration from ISO 28000, TAPA FSR, and CTPAT, we can identify three lessons:
- Risk-Based Tiering: Not all suppliers are equal. Just as CTPAT differentiates risk tiers in supply chains, TPCRM should define differentiated assurance levels – high-risk vendors require continuous monitoring and certification, low-risk vendors require lighter oversight.
- Independent Validation: Physical security frameworks rely on accredited audits and certifications. Cybersecurity can follow this model by integrating independent attestation standards (e.g., ISO 27001, ISAE 3000, SOC 2) and industry consortia that reduce redundancy across assessments.
- Shared Responsibility Networks: TAPA and CTPAT thrive because they are industry communities: members share intelligence and benchmarks. Cyber TPCRM should evolve towards similar collaborative ecosystems (cf. Swiss FS-CSC), where risk intelligence is pooled, rather than every company reinventing the wheel.
Towards an integrated view of security
The lesson is clear: Third-party cyber risk management should not be an isolated silo. It should be seen as part of a broader Enterprise Security Risk Management (ESRM) approach, where logical, physical, and personnel security are converged.
If we align cyber TPCRM with established physical and supply chain models, we can accelerate maturity, reduce redundancy, and – most importantly – build real trust across the value chain.
Conclusion
Cybersecurity leaders don’t need to start from scratch. Decades of experience in physical and supply chain third-party security have already shown what works: risk-based tiering, independent validation, and trusted communities.
As CISOs and risk advisors, our task is not just to protect the digital perimeter, but to embed cyber resilience into the same trust frameworks that already safeguard goods, people, and supply chains.
What about you, do you see further lessons TPCRM can learn from already established functions?
