Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
12/06/2026 9:02 pm
TL;DR: Vendor risk management policies are meant to govern third-party access, due diligence, monitoring, and offboarding, but the article shows how often those controls are treated as documentation instead of operating discipline. Zluri's guidance frames vendor risk as a lifecycle problem, not a one-time contract exercise, and that is the right governance lens.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Zluri: Vendor Management Vendor Risk Management Policy: A Risk Prevention Measure
By the numbers:
- Last year, over half (52%) of cybersecurity professionals experienced an increase in cyber-attacks compared to a year ago.
- Only 20% have formal processes for offboarding and revoking API keys, and even fewer have procedures for rotating them.
- 97% of NHIs carry excessive privileges, increasing unauthorised access and broadening the attack surface.
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should organisations govern vendor access across the full lifecycle?
A: They should treat vendor access as an identity lifecycle problem.
Q: Why do third-party vendors increase identity risk more than many internal users?
A: Third-party vendors often operate outside normal employee controls, which makes recertification, monitoring, and offboarding harder to enforce.
Q: What breaks when vendor offboarding is only handled contractually?
A: Access persists after the relationship ends, which leaves dormant accounts, keys, or integrations available for misuse.
Practitioner guidance
- Tie vendor approval to explicit access scope Require every vendor request to name the system, data class, business owner, and expiry condition before credentials or delegated access are issued.
- Link offboarding to technical revocation Make vendor termination trigger removal of accounts, API keys, tokens, shared mailboxes, and downstream integrations before contract closure is approved.
- Review vendor entitlements on a fixed cadence Reassess vendor access for justification, privilege level, and dormant usage on a regular schedule, then remove anything that no longer maps to an active need.
What's in the full article
Zluri's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- A step-by-step vendor risk management policy structure covering purpose, scope, responsibilities, and exceptions.
- Detailed vendor onboarding and offboarding workflow guidance, including access provisioning and revocation checkpoints.
- Operational examples of continuous vendor monitoring, reassessment, and breach notification procedures.
- A practical breakdown of what to include in contracts, SLAs, and policy enforcement clauses.
👉 Read Zluri's vendor risk management policy guidance →
Vendor risk management policy gaps: what IAM teams miss?
Explore further
12/06/2026 10:50 pm
Vendor risk management policy is an identity control surface, not a procurement appendix. The article correctly frames vendor management as a lifecycle discipline covering onboarding, monitoring, and offboarding. That is the right lens because vendor access is identity access, and once a third party can authenticate or act on behalf of the organisation, the risk becomes operational, not just contractual. Practitioners should treat vendor policy as part of IAM and NHI governance, not as a separate compliance document.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Only 20% have formal processes for offboarding and revoking API keys, and even fewer have procedures for rotating them, according to Ultimate Guide to NHIs.
- 71% of NHIs are not rotated within recommended time frames, increasing the risk of compromise over time.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own vendor risk management in an identity programme?
A: Ownership should sit with a cross-functional group, but identity and security teams must control the access mechanics. Procurement can manage commercial terms, yet IAM, security, and business owners need to define who gets access, how much access is granted, and when it is removed. Without that ownership model, vendor policy stays theoretical.
👉 Read our full editorial: Vendor risk management policy gaps are identity governance gaps
