Security | Threat Detection | Cyberattacks | DevSecOps | Compliance

A vendor sends over a SOC 2 report. It lands in the queue, someone reads the cover page, sees the auditor's name and a clean-looking opinion letter, and marks the assessment complete. The reviewer moves on to the next vendor. Multiply that by a few hundred vendors a year, and it becomes less of a decision and more of a reflex.

Endpoint detection, cloud security posture management, email security, identity and access management, network segmentation. Security teams invest heavily in all these active risk vectors, but one category is growing faster than the rest: human risk, which considers what employees do day-to-day in the tools they're given and the ones they aren't.

It's 11:40 am. A security questionnaire just hit your inbox. You open the file and quickly realize you can't finish this alone. Legal needs to review the data processing language. Product has to complete the architecture section. Security is the only team that can sign off on incident response. So you split up the questionnaire, Slack each department their section to answer, and wait... and wait... and wait.

Most teams that assess cloud vendors already have a general idea of the Consensus Assessment Initiative Questionnaire (CAIQ) and Cloud Controls Matrix (CCM). However, you may not have a good answer for what it takes to run that assessment. Turning a vendor's trust center page, SOC 2 report, and security policy into a structured, defensible view of CCM control coverage is a different problem entirely.

Most vendor onboarding and app access work is waiting and follow-ups. Waiting for someone to notice a form came in, assign a tier, chase a questionnaire, or dig up the context behind a Slack request. Risk Automations workflows remove that wait and automate the follow-up. A trigger fires, and the workflow runs to a concrete outcome: a ticket created, a message sent, a risk tier assigned. To make those workflows easier to launch, Risk Automations includes an ever-expanding template library.

You approve five AI tools; your employees use 20. According to UpGuard's State of Shadow AI report, 81% of the workforce is already bringing unmonitored AI tools to work, and legacy security tools are leaving massive gaps in workforce Shadow AI and regulatory compliance. Modern AI governance platforms give you real-time visibility and runtime guardrails to close that gap. They back it up with automated auditing, so you have evidence when someone asks for it.

Most teams shopping for digital risk protection solutions already run three tools at once: one for brand monitoring, one for dark web monitoring, and another for social media defense. The signals don't line up, the alerts pile up, and there’s no single view to show what's exposed. Attackers keep wearing a trusted brand's face, which is why fragmentation matters.

Vendor assurance efforts are increasing, but risk leaders don’t trust the results of that effort. In KPMG’s Global Third-Party Risk Management (TPRM) Survey, only 15% of risk leaders said they have high confidence in the data that underpins their TPRM program. Only 17% rate their data quality as excellent. Security teams are running more assessments and sending more questionnaires than ever, but fewer than one in five leaders trust what any of that produces.

“The call is coming from inside the house.” It’s one of horror’s oldest lines, and you already know how the scene goes. The team scrambles, rechecks every firewall, audits every login, hunting for an intruder. Then the trace comes back, and there isn’t one because there is no malware or forced entry. Just an employee, at their own desk, with their own login, who pasted a confidential spreadsheet into an unapproved AI tool to save 10 minutes before a deadline.

Oracle's July 2026 Critical Patch Update (CPU) is nearly three times larger than any release in the company's history. To understand it, we parsed all 23 of Oracle's quarterly advisories going back to 2021, matched them against the official CVE record, and compared Oracle against eight other major vendors. We set out to answer three questions: How much of this is genuinely new? Does it really reflect AI-accelerated patching? And how unusual is it?