> The problem here would be that there's not enough people who can provide the level of protection a third-party vendor claims to provide, and a person (or persons) with comparable level of expertise would be much more expensive likely.
Is that because of economies of scale or because the vendor is just cutting costs while hiding their negligence?
I don't understand how a single vendor was able to deploy an update to all of these systems virtually simultaneously, and _that_ wasn't identified as a risk. This smells of mindless box checking rather than sincere risk assessment and security auditing.
Kinda both I think, with an addition of principal agent problem. If you found a formula that provides the client with an acceptable CYA picture it is very scalable. And the model of "IT person knowledgeable in both security, modern threats and company's business" is not very scalable. The former, as we now know, is prone to catastrophic failures, but those are rare enough for a particular decision-maker to not be bothered by it.
Is that because of economies of scale or because the vendor is just cutting costs while hiding their negligence?
I don't understand how a single vendor was able to deploy an update to all of these systems virtually simultaneously, and _that_ wasn't identified as a risk. This smells of mindless box checking rather than sincere risk assessment and security auditing.