Certified: The CompTIA Security+ Audio Course

As more organizations move to hybrid environments, rely on cloud services, and partner with external vendors, managing third-party risk has become one of the most important parts of cybersecurity governance. A single vendor with poor security practices can become the weakest link in an otherwise secure system. That is why vendor risk assessments are no longer optional—they are essential. In this episode, we cover three major techniques used to assess vendor risk: vendor penetration testing, right-to-audit clauses, and independent assessments and internal audits. Together, these techniques help organizations hold vendors accountable and verify that their security practices meet expectations.
Let’s begin with vendor penetration testing. Just like internal penetration testing evaluates the security of your own environment, vendor penetration testing is used to evaluate the security of third-party systems, services, or applications. When an organization relies on a vendor to host sensitive data, manage business processes, or deliver critical services, it needs assurance that those systems are secure. Penetration testing helps provide that assurance.
A vendor penetration test may be conducted by the vendor itself, by a trusted third party, or by the organization engaging the vendor, depending on the agreement. These tests simulate real-world attacks, looking for weaknesses in authentication, encryption, access control, software configuration, and other areas. The goal is to discover exploitable vulnerabilities before threat actors do.
Requiring vendors to undergo regular penetration testing is a sign of mature vendor governance. These tests can be conducted annually, before onboarding a vendor, after a significant system change, or in response to specific threats. Reports from these tests should be shared with the customer in a redacted or summary format, allowing both parties to understand risks and corrective actions.
Let’s look at a real-world example. A health insurance company was preparing to launch a new customer portal developed by a third-party vendor. Before go-live, the insurer required the vendor to submit to an independent penetration test. The test revealed a misconfigured application programming interface that could have exposed customer data. Because the issue was caught early, it was remediated before any harm occurred. The insurer’s insistence on vendor testing prevented a breach and demonstrated the power of proactive security assurance.
Sometimes, organizations conduct their own testing against vendor systems—especially in private environments or dedicated cloud resources. This must always be coordinated in advance and written into contracts. Unauthorized testing can violate terms of service and even break the law. That is why it is critical to establish permissions, scope, and expectations ahead of time.
Now let’s move on to right-to-audit clauses. These contractual provisions give the customer the legal right to review and verify a vendor’s security practices. A right-to-audit clause allows organizations to inspect controls, processes, records, and security logs to ensure that the vendor is meeting agreed-upon standards. These audits can be conducted by the organization’s staff, by an appointed third party, or sometimes by regulators.
Including a right-to-audit clause in vendor contracts gives organizations more than just visibility—it gives them leverage. If a vendor fails to meet security expectations, the organization has a legal mechanism for investigation and response. This clause helps avoid situations where a vendor says “trust us” without providing evidence.
A typical right-to-audit clause includes language specifying how often audits can occur, how much notice must be given, what areas are in scope, and how findings must be addressed. Some clauses also allow for unannounced audits or emergency reviews in the event of an incident. While not all vendors agree to every request, even limited audit rights send a clear message that security is not negotiable.
Let’s consider a practical case study. A financial services firm was working with a payment processor to manage online transactions. As part of the vendor agreement, the firm negotiated a right-to-audit clause allowing for an annual review of the processor’s security program. During one of these reviews, the processor’s internal access controls were found to be poorly enforced, with several employees sharing administrative credentials. The issue was flagged in the audit report and remediated within weeks. Without the audit clause, the problem might never have been discovered—or addressed. In this case, the clause protected both the firm and its customers.
Right-to-audit clauses also support compliance. Many regulatory frameworks require organizations to monitor and validate the security of their third parties. If a vendor processes sensitive data subject to privacy or financial regulations, the organization must be able to demonstrate due diligence. Audit rights create the paper trail needed for that validation.
Finally, let’s talk about independent assessments and internal audits. Vendors often conduct their own internal audits or hire independent assessors to evaluate their security posture. These assessments are sometimes referred to as third-party attestations. Common examples include System and Organization Control Two reports, International Organization for Standardization twenty-seven thousand one certifications, or Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard compliance letters.
These assessments provide an independent view of the vendor’s control environment. They typically include evaluations of risk management, access control, physical security, incident response, and policy enforcement. The best assessments are performed by accredited firms and include clear documentation of scope, testing procedures, and findings.
For the customer, reviewing these assessments saves time and builds trust. Rather than conducting a full audit themselves, the customer can review the assessment reports and determine whether the vendor meets their own internal security requirements. Many organizations maintain a checklist of required documents—such as penetration test summaries, audit reports, certifications, and vulnerability scan results—as part of their vendor onboarding process.
Let’s walk through an example. A regional hospital wants to use a third-party transcription service to handle medical dictation. The service provider offers a recent System and Organization Control Two Type Two report that includes details on access control, data encryption, and monitoring procedures. The hospital’s information security team reviews the report and compares it to their internal standards. They follow up with questions and ask for confirmation of remediation timelines for any control gaps. This review process allows the hospital to evaluate the vendor’s security without performing a full audit of their own.
Independent assessments are particularly useful for small organizations that do not have the resources to conduct detailed audits themselves. They also streamline procurement processes, especially when vendors work with many customers and cannot accommodate custom audits for each one.
However, it is important to understand the limitations. A certification means the vendor met the standard at the time of the assessment—it does not guarantee ongoing security. That is why internal follow-ups, periodic reassessments, and continuous monitoring are essential. Certificates and reports are part of the picture—not the whole picture.
As you prepare for the Security Plus exam, make sure you can distinguish between vendor testing, audit rights, and third-party assessments. You may see scenario questions where an organization must decide how to verify vendor security. Think about what each technique offers. Penetration testing reveals technical vulnerabilities. Right-to-audit clauses give legal access to verify controls. Independent assessments provide documentation of security posture based on a framework.
Here’s a quick tip for the exam. If the question asks about active testing of a vendor’s systems, think penetration testing. If it describes contractual language allowing review or oversight, it is about audit rights. If it mentions certifications, reports, or external auditors, the correct answer will likely involve independent assessments. Knowing the vocabulary and matching it to context is the key to scoring well.
To download a sample vendor assessment checklist, contract clause templates, or a guide to reading audit reports, visit us at Bare Metal Cyber dot com. And for the most trusted, exam-focused study guide covering all Security Plus domains, visit Cyber Author dot me and get your copy of Achieve CompTIA Security Plus S Y Zero Dash Seven Zero One Exam Success.