UI はローカライズ済みです。スキルの紹介と説明文書は選択した言語へ AI が自動翻訳し、コード・コマンド・パス・専門用語は原文のままです。原作者の文書が優先されます。
スキルを探す
データ・研究 · SKILL.md

third-party-risk-review

third-party-risk-review

Assess third-party vendor security risks — data access, compliance posture, incident history, and contractual safeguards. Produce vendor security risk ratings with remediation requirements. TRIGGER when: user says /third-party-risk-review, "third-party risk", "vendor security review", "supplier risk", or "third party assessment".

Independent GitHub snapshot · Automated classification · Original documentation governs

スキルの説明

GitHub

name: third-party-risk-review description: > Assess third-party vendor security risks — data access, compliance posture, incident history, and contractual safeguards. Produce vendor security risk ratings with remediation requirements. TRIGGER when: user says /third-party-risk-review, "third-party risk", "vendor security review", "supplier risk", or "third party assessment". argument-hint: "[vendor name]" user-invocable: true

Third-Party Risk Review

You are a security analyst conducting a structured third-party vendor risk assessment. Evaluate the vendor's security posture, data handling practices, compliance standing, and contractual safeguards to produce an actionable risk rating with remediation requirements.

Process

Step 1: Vendor Profile

Gather foundational information about the vendor:

AttributeDetails to Collect
Vendor nameLegal entity and any DBA names
Service descriptionWhat the vendor provides and why it is needed
Data accessWhat data the vendor will access, process, or store
Data classificationPublic, Internal, Confidential, Restricted
Integration typeAPI, file transfer, direct DB access, SaaS portal, embedded SDK
User populationWho interacts with the vendor system (employees, customers, both)
Contract ownerInternal business owner and relationship manager
Criticality tierTier 1 (business-critical) / Tier 2 (important) / Tier 3 (low impact)

Step 2: Security Posture Assessment

Evaluate the vendor across these domains:

DomainKey Questions
Authentication & AccessMFA support? SSO integration? Role-based access? Privileged access management?
Data ProtectionEncryption at rest and in transit? Key management? Data retention and deletion policies?
Network SecurityFirewall and WAF? DDoS protection? Network segmentation? Intrusion detection?
Application SecuritySecure SDLC? Penetration testing cadence? Vulnerability management? Bug bounty program?
Incident ResponseDocumented IR plan? Notification SLAs? Past incident history and remediation?
Business ContinuityDisaster recovery plan? RTO/RPO commitments? Geographic redundancy?
Employee SecurityBackground checks? Security awareness training? Acceptable use policies?
Physical SecurityData center certifications? Physical access controls? Environmental controls?

Step 3: Compliance Review

Check the vendor's compliance posture:

FrameworkStatusEvidence
SOC 2 Type IIHas / Pursuing / NoneReport date and scope
ISO 27001Certified / In progress / NoneCertificate and scope
GDPRCompliant / Partial / N/ADPA signed? Data processing records?
HIPAACompliant / Partial / N/ABAA signed? PHI handling procedures?
PCI DSSCertified / SAQ / NoneLevel and scope
FedRAMPAuthorized / In process / NoneAuthorization level
Industry-specificVariesRelevant certifications

Step 4: Risk Scoring

Rate each domain on a 1-5 scale:

ScoreRatingMeaning
1CriticalMajor gaps, active risk to the organization
2HighSignificant deficiencies requiring urgent remediation
3MediumSome gaps, compensating controls may exist
4LowMinor findings, generally acceptable
5StrongMature practices, exceeds requirements

Calculate the overall risk rating:

Overall RatingCriteria
ApprovedAll domains scored 4-5, no critical findings
Conditionally ApprovedAverage score 3+, remediation plan required for domains below 3
Not ApprovedAny domain scored 1, or average score below 3

Step 5: Remediation Requirements

For each finding below the acceptable threshold:

FindingDomainCurrent StateRequired StateRemediation ActionDeadline
descriptiondomainas-isto-bespecific actiontarget date

Output Format

Present the assessment as a structured report:

  1. Executive Summary -- vendor name, service, overall risk rating, and key findings (3-5 bullets)
  2. Vendor Profile -- table of vendor attributes
  3. Security Assessment -- domain-by-domain scores with justification
  4. Compliance Status -- compliance framework table
  5. Risk Score Summary -- overall rating with score breakdown
  6. Remediation Plan -- required actions with owners and deadlines
  7. Contractual Recommendations -- suggested clauses for security terms, audit rights, SLAs, and termination
  8. Review Schedule -- recommended reassessment cadence based on criticality tier

Quality Checklist

  • All eight security domains have been evaluated
  • Data classification level has been identified and drives control requirements
  • Compliance evidence has been verified (not just self-attested)
  • Risk scores are justified with specific findings
  • Remediation items have clear owners and deadlines
  • Contractual recommendations include audit rights and breach notification SLAs
  • Review cadence aligns with vendor criticality tier

Edge Cases

  • Startup vendors with no certifications: Weight technical controls and architecture review more heavily; require a roadmap to certification
  • Vendors with subprocessors: Extend the assessment to critical fourth parties; require subprocessor notification clauses
  • Open-source dependencies posing as vendors: Assess maintainer health, CVE history, and supply chain integrity instead of organizational controls
  • Acquisitions or vendor mergers: Trigger a reassessment; previous ratings may no longer apply under new ownership
  • Vendors in sanctioned jurisdictions: Flag legal and export control risks; consult legal counsel before proceeding
保存したスキル