Questionnaires tell you what a supplier claims. This use case shows you what’s actually true: which exposure at third parties is realistically exploitable – and whether it creates a risk for you (e.g. via access, integrations, shared systems). Goal: less debate, more proof.
If you’d like, we’ll show you the proof approach in a short demo, together with our technology partner.
Many third-party programmes stay at documents and scores. Meanwhile, some real risks aren’t visible until something goes wrong. Without proof, prioritisation remains difficult – and suppliers respond slowly.
We check within a clearly scoped framework what’s realistically exploitable and whether it creates a path to your systems. This produces a short, clear action list – and verification that confirms things truly improved.
Typical timeframe: 2–4 weeks for proof → actions → verification (for one supplier/scope).
Select critical supplier/scope
Check exposure/attack points (controlled, scoped)
Validate: what’s truly exploitable?
Prioritise actions (supplier + internal)
Verify (does the fix work?)
Is this a supplier pentest?
Not as a “report for the report”, but as a proof cycle for prioritisation and remediation.
What about legal boundaries?
Scope and approvals are cleanly clarified before anything starts.
Why not just questionnaires?
Because proof creates clarity faster and shortens debates.
How does it scale?
Top suppliers first, then by criticality – not all at once.
Let’s prove what’s truly relevant at the most critical suppliers – and remediate it cleanly.