Policy Register

Supply chain security policy

How risk beyond the direct supplier is handled: components, sub-processors, provenance, the tiers below the contract.

How the register reads it

Also calledSCRM, software supply chain
FamilySuppliers and third parties
Document typePolicy. The regimes ask for the content, not the label; a line pasted as a standard, procedure, plan or schedule is placed here with the label noted.
Folds intoThe regimes accept it folded into the supplier and third-party security policy; when neither is listed, the gap is counted once, under the parent.
Expected ownerProcurement or the vendor manager, with the information security lead.
Review cadenceAnnual (the register's default: the clauses say planned intervals and on significant change, and do not fix a period).
On the gap list whennever on its own: the register recognises it and names the clauses, but no ticked regime lists it as a separate document (its parent, supplier and third-party security policy, is).
TemplateSupply chain risk management policy.

Which standards require it, and what each expects it to contain

3 requiring clauses, 2 regimes

Shown on a register for the regimes you tick; with none ticked, ISO 27001 is applied. Requirement text drawn from a human-verified compliance corpus under licence: the corpus statement of each clause, not the instrument verbatim.

ISO/IEC 27001:2022

ISO 27001 5.21 Managing information security in the ICT supply chain

Extend security requirements down the ICT products and services supply chain.

What the ISO 27002 guidance expects the document to say: Requires processes and procedures to be defined and implemented to manage information security risk arising along the supply chain for ICT products and services.

Evidence an auditor accepts: The process for managing ICT supply chain risk, distinct from general supplier management; requirements imposed on ICT suppliers regarding their own suppliers, component provenance and secure development; evidence of verification, such as a software bill of materials, component listings or attestation of development practice
Common gap: Treating supplier security as one-off check
Source: ISO/IEC 27001:2022; guidance ISO/IEC 27002:2022

The NIS2 Directive

NIS2 Art. 21(2)(d) Supply chain security, covering the relationship with each direct supplier and service provider

The Directive scopes this deliberately at direct suppliers and service providers, which makes the first artefact an inventory of who those parties are and which of them touch the network and information systems behind the service. From there the entity has to manage the security-related aspects of each relationship: what the supplier may access, what security obligations bind it, what happens on incident, and what happens at exit. Contract terms are the enforcement mechanism, so contracts that predate NIS2 and carry no security clauses are a live gap rather than a legacy inconvenience. Managed service providers and managed security service providers deserve separate attention because they hold privileged access into the estate, which makes their compromise the entity's incident.

Evidence an auditor accepts: Inventory of direct suppliers and service providers, flagged for access to in-scope systems; risk assessment per supplier proportionate to the access and criticality involved; contractual security clauses, including incident notification obligations and audit or assurance rights
Common gap: Inventory built from the procurement system, so shadow and free-tier services are missing
Source: NIS2 Directive
NIS2 Art. 21(3) Take account of supplier-specific vulnerabilities and of Union coordinated supply chain risk assessments

Deciding what supply chain measures are appropriate is not left to general judgement. The entity has to take into account the vulnerabilities specific to each direct supplier and service provider, and the overall quality of those parties' products and cybersecurity practices including their secure development procedures. Separately, it must take into account the results of the Union level coordinated security risk assessments of critical supply chains carried out under Article 22(1). That second limb creates an external input the entity has to watch for and respond to: when a coordinated assessment lands on a technology the entity uses, the outcome has to reach the supplier risk decisions rather than stop at a policy team. Evidence of consideration is what is being asked for, including reasoned decisions not to change anything.

Evidence an auditor accepts: Per-supplier assessment records that address that supplier's own vulnerabilities and secure development practice; a watch process for Union coordinated supply chain risk assessments and the outputs it has captured; decision records showing how each relevant coordinated assessment was reflected in supplier measures
Common gap: Supplier assessment reduced to a questionnaire score with no view of that supplier's actual weaknesses
Source: NIS2 Directive

Do this for every document on your list

Paste the list and get this reading for every document at once, with the owner and cadence against each, the clauses quoted, and the documents the regimes expect that the list does not carry. Eight documents free, no account.

Build a register

Supplier and third-party security policy · Vendor contract security requirements