Your vendors handle your data, run your infrastructure, and process your transactions. When they fail, you fail. Regulators hold you accountable for your supply chain. CyberHeed gives you real visibility into your vendors' compliance posture - not self-reported questionnaires, but AI-validated evidence assessed against the same frameworks you comply with.
The standard approach to third-party risk management is a spreadsheet questionnaire sent once a year. The vendor fills it out in fifteen minutes, self-reports that everything is fine, and you file it until the next audit. Meanwhile, you have no actual visibility into whether their controls are working.
This model is broken. Every major breach in the last five years has involved a third party. SolarWinds. MOVEit. Okta. The organisations that got breached all had vendor questionnaires on file. The questionnaires said everything was fine. Everything was not fine.
The problem isn't that organisations don't care about third-party risk. It's that the tools available to manage it produce theatre instead of assurance. A self-reported questionnaire is not evidence. A vendor's assertion that they "have an incident response plan" doesn't tell you whether the plan has been tested, whether it covers the specific services they provide to you, or whether their team actually knows how to execute it. CyberHeed changes this dynamic by putting your vendors through the same structured assessment process you use yourself - with AI validation that distinguishes genuine compliance from box-ticking.
CyberHeed's multi-tenant architecture means your vendors can be assessed on the same platform, using the same frameworks, with the same AI evidence validation. You see their compliance posture the same way you see your own - backed by evidence, not assertions.
Invite critical and material vendors to complete a CyberHeed assessment against the frameworks relevant to your relationship. ISO 27001 for general IT vendors. CPS 234 for vendors handling regulated data. PCI-DSS for payment processors. The vendor gets their own tenant - their data stays theirs. You see the compliance posture summary they choose to share.
Your vendors go through the same structured assessment your own team uses. AI-guided conversations that capture what they actually do, not what they claim to do. The AI probes, follows up, and identifies gaps. The output is a genuine compliance posture assessment, not a ticked questionnaire.
Vendors upload evidence for their controls. The AI scores it the same way it scores your own evidence - 0 to 5, with specific feedback on what's strong and what an auditor would flag. A vendor can't upload a generic policy template and get a passing score. The AI reads the document, assesses its relevance, and provides an honest evaluation.
See all your vendors' compliance postures in one view. Which vendors are strong? Which have gaps? Which are improving? Which are stagnating? Filter by framework, by risk level, by vendor category. When a vendor's posture drops, you know about it. When contract renewal comes around, you have evidence to inform the decision.
Vendor compliance isn't a point-in-time exercise. CyberHeed tracks vendor posture continuously. When evidence expires, when controls drift, when recurring assessments are overdue - the platform flags it. Your third-party risk management programme becomes continuous, not periodic.
See every vendor's compliance posture against every relevant framework in one dashboard. Sort by risk level, filter by framework, drill into specific vendors. When the board or the auditor asks about your third-party risk exposure, you have a data-backed answer.
Vendor evidence is assessed by the same AI that validates your own evidence. A self-reported "yes" on a questionnaire becomes a scored evidence assessment. You can see not just what your vendor claims, but how strong the evidence behind that claim actually is.
Each vendor has their own tenant. Their assessment data stays theirs. They control what they share with you. This isn't you logging into their system - it's them completing an assessment on a neutral platform and sharing the results. This model works because vendors keep their data sovereignty while you get genuine visibility.
CPS 230 requires a register of material service provider arrangements. ISO 27001 requires supplier management. NIST CSF requires supply chain risk management. CyberHeed generates the third-party risk documentation these frameworks require, populated with real data from your vendor assessments - not from a spreadsheet you filled in yourself.
APRA's CPS 230 requires regulated entities to maintain a register of material service providers, conduct due diligence, monitor performance, and maintain viable exit strategies. Fourth-party risk must be considered.
ISO 27001 Annex A controls A.5.19 through A.5.22 require information security in supplier relationships, supply chain security, monitoring, and management of changes to supplier services.
CPS 234 holds entities accountable for the information security capability of third parties managing their information assets. Material incidents at service providers must be reported to APRA.
The NCA ECC dedicates an entire domain (Domain 4) to third-party and cloud computing cybersecurity. Vendor risk assessment, contractual requirements, and ongoing monitoring are mandatory.
DFSA guidelines require DIFC-regulated firms to assess and manage cybersecurity risks from service providers, including due diligence, contractual provisions, and exit planning.
CPS 234 + CPS 230 + ISO 27001. Multi-framework prudential compliance for regulated institutions. [Links to: financial-services.html]
Centralised compliance across subsidiaries and regions. Third-party risk management at enterprise scale. [Links to: enterprise.html]
Multi-framework management, vendor oversight, and honest board reporting on third-party risk posture. [Links to: cisos.html]
Book a demo. We'll show you vendor assessment, AI evidence validation, the aggregated risk dashboard, and how it fits with your existing compliance programme.
Book a Demo