Third-Party Access Risks in Manufacturing: 2025 Cybersecurity Insights

42% of manufacturing organizations experienced third-party related breaches last year. Today’s interconnected manufacturing ecosystem relies heavily on vendors and partners, but these connections introduce serious cybersecurity vulnerabilities. The 2025 Imprivata | Ponemon Report reveals concerning trends: a 30% rise in third-party breaches (Verizon) and 86% of business leaders facing AI-related security incidents (Cisco).

For manufacturing security professionals, the consequences are severe—regulatory fines (45%), sensitive data loss (50%), and revenue impacts (45%). This comprehensive guide analyzes key findings from industry research and provides actionable strategies to secure your manufacturing operations in 2025.

Growing Threat of Third-Party Access Risks in Manufacturing

Manufacturing’s collaborative ecosystem creates unique vulnerabilities. The 2025 Ponemon Report highlights that 42% of manufacturers experienced third party-related breaches, with 35% of incidents stemming from excessive vendor privileges. This troubling trend aligns with broader industry patterns—Verizon’s 2025 DBIR confirms third-party breaches have doubled to 30% of all incidents, with supply chain dependencies significantly magnifying risks.

Remote access represents a particularly vulnerable attack surface, with 46% of respondents identifying it as their weakest security point. Cisco’s 2025 Cybersecurity Readiness Index underscores this concern, noting surging remote access vulnerabilities amid widespread hybrid work adoption. Adding further context, Google’s 2024 Zero-Day Exploitation Analysis reveals that 44% of zero-day attacks specifically target data exchange systems—critical infrastructure for manufacturing operations.

The resource burden is substantial. Manufacturing security teams spend a staggering 47+ hours weekly analyzing third-party access risks, with 31% investing over 100 hours. As Dr. Larry Ponemon, Chairman of Ponemon Institute, explains: “This time investment reflects the complexity of vendor relationship management. Resource-constrained manufacturers without clear security strategies face heightened vulnerability.”

Compliance Challenges: Navigating a Complex Regulatory Landscape

Manufacturing compliance grows increasingly complex, especially with third-party access considerations. The consequences of failure are significant—45% of organizations in the Ponemon Report faced regulatory fines following breaches. The financial impact aligns with IBM’s Cost of a Data Breach Report 2024, which places average breach costs at $4.88 million. Under regulations like GDPR, penalties can reach 4% of annual revenue.

The primary obstacles? 61% of respondents cite regulatory complexity as their biggest barrier, while 33% struggle with insufficient resources. This challenge intensifies with evolving regulations including GDPR, HIPAA, CMMC 2.0, and the upcoming EU AI Act (effective September 2025).

Cisco’s research highlights another emerging risk: 60% of companies cannot effectively track employee use of generative AI tools, potentially leading to unintentional compliance violations.

Compliance transcends checkbox exercises—it’s about comprehensive business protection. Yet only 29% of manufacturing organizations apply consistent strategies to manage privileged access risks—the lowest rate among surveyed industries. This strategic gap leaves manufacturers vulnerable to penalties, reputational damage, and operational disruptions.

Data Privacy: The Hidden Cost of Third-Party Oversights

Data privacy vulnerabilities create significant exposure through third-party access points. Half of all breaches result in sensitive information loss or theft (Ponemon Report), mirroring Verizon’s finding that 46% of breaches involve personally identifiable information. Beyond regulatory implications, privacy failures erode customer trust—a critical point highlighted in Cloudera’s The Future of Enterprise AI Agents Report: “Inadequate privacy controls rapidly undermine consumer confidence.”

Manufacturing’s approach to vendor security reveals concerning gaps:

• 54% don’t evaluate third-party security and privacy practices before granting access
• 64% cite resource limitations or misplaced vendor confidence as justifications
• 43% lack comprehensive inventories of third parties with network access
• Many rely solely on vendor assurances without verification or monitoring

These oversights create heightened risk, especially as Stanford’s 2025 AI Index Report documents a 56% increase in AI-driven security incidents that often exploit unvetted third-party systems. Cisco reinforces this concern, noting 43% of AI-related incidents involved unauthorized access. Manufacturing organizations must prioritize privacy controls to maintain regulatory compliance, protect intellectual property, and preserve stakeholder trust.

Third-Party Security Implementation Maturity Model for Manufacturers

Strategic Gaps in Managing Third-Party Risks

Effective risk management requires strategic approaches yet manufacturing shows concerning shortfalls. Only 29% of organizations implement consistent strategies for privileged access risk management—the lowest rate across industries—while 18% operate without formal strategies entirely. This fragmented approach leaves critical security vulnerabilities unaddressed.

Technology adoption presents additional challenges:

• Only 27% use enhanced identity and access management for high-value data protection
• Organizations with security AI and automation save $2.22 million per breach (IBM)
• While 86% of companies deploy identity management solutions, only 51% have fully implemented them (Cisco)

Resource constraints and control issues exacerbate these challenges. 46% of respondents cite resource limitations, while 37% lack centralized control over third-party relationships. Stanford’s research identifies a broader industry pattern: a persistent gap between risk awareness and implementation. Without cohesive strategies and modern security tools, manufacturers struggle to manage increasingly complex third-party risk landscapes.

Industry Insights: How Manufacturing Compares

Manufacturing faces unique cybersecurity challenges compared to other sectors. The Ponemon Report’s finding that manufacturing’s 29% consistent strategy rate ranks lowest among industries signals a critical improvement opportunity. By contrast, natural resource companies excel in identity intelligence implementation according to Cisco, likely due to stringent regulatory oversight—offering a potential model for manufacturing to emulate.

Cross-industry comparisons reveal varied security maturity:

• Healthcare lags with only 39% of leaders aware of AI-powered threats
• Technology and finance demonstrate greater awareness at 55% (Cisco)
• Manufacturing likely falls closer to healthcare given similar resource constraints
• Manufacturing’s 30% third-party breach rate exceeds less supply-chain-dependent industries (Verizon)

Manufacturing’s position in global supply chains creates distinctive vulnerability while its cybersecurity maturity often trails sectors with stronger regulatory pressure or greater resources. By adopting best practices from industries like natural resources, manufacturers can strengthen security postures and address this maturity gap.

Practical Solutions to Mitigate Third-Party Access Risks

Manufacturers need pragmatic approaches to address third-party risks. Here are six evidence-based strategies drawn from the Ponemon Report and industry research:

1. Enforce Least Privilege Access

Limit third-party permissions to only essential functions. With 35% of breaches stemming from excessive privileges (Ponemon), implementing proper access controls can significantly reduce exposure. Cisco’s finding that 86% of organizations now use identity management highlights this approach’s growing adoption.

2. Implement Rigorous Vendor Vetting

Address the 54% evaluation gap by prioritizing security and privacy assessments before granting access. In a new data security and compliance survey, Kiteworks found that 63% of buyers now require detailed security certifications before vendor engagement—an industry best practice.

3. Adopt Zero Trust Architecture

Implement continuous authentication, encryption, and monitoring for all data exchanges. This approach reduces the attack surface for the 44% of zero-day exploits targeting data systems (Google). As the data security and compliance buyer study emphasizes, zero trust represents a foundational security strategy.

4. Leverage AI-Powered Security Tools

Deploy AI for threat detection and response to reduce the 50+ weekly hours spent on risk analysis (Ponemon). With 85% of companies already using AI for threat detection (Cisco), these tools deliver proven value for resource-constrained teams.

5. Centralize Third-Party Oversight

Develop comprehensive third-party inventories to address the 43% visibility gap (Ponemon). This approach aligns with Cisco’s recommendation for greater visibility into tool usage—particularly important given 60% of organizations struggle to track AI applications.

6. Prioritize Security Awareness Training

Address the 48% awareness gap regarding AI-driven threats (Cisco) through regular, scenario-based training. Effective education reduces human error and strengthens your overall security posture.

Path Forward: Building a Resilient Manufacturing Security Strategy

The 2025 Ponemon Report clearly illustrates manufacturing’s cybersecurity challenges: 42% breach rates, 45% regulatory penalties, and 50% sensitive data loss. However, industry trends offer reasons for optimism—98% of companies plan increased cybersecurity investments in 2025 (Cisco), while Cloudera’s research confirms strong privacy controls create competitive advantages through enhanced customer trust.

Building resilience requires immediate action:

1. Prioritize vendor vetting and zero trust implementation to address critical vulnerabilities
2. Invest in AI-driven security tools to enhance detection capabilities while conserving resources
3. Develop comprehensive third-party risk management strategies aligned with your specific manufacturing environment

As Dr. Larry Ponemon notes, “A comprehensive strategy forms the foundation of effective risk management.” By aligning resources, technology, and training to address third-party risks, manufacturers can transform cybersecurity from an operational liability into a strategic strength.

Conclusion: Securing Manufacturing’s Future: Actionable Steps to Combat Third-Party Access Risks in 2025

Third-party access represents a critical security challenge for manufacturers, with 42% experiencing breaches, 45% facing regulatory penalties, and 50% suffering sensitive data loss (2025 Ponemon Report). Industry trends—including a 30% rise in third-party breaches (Verizon) and 86% of organizations encountering AI-related security incidents (Cisco)—confirm the urgency of this threat.

Manufacturers must take immediate action by implementing rigorous vendor vetting processes, deploying zero trust architectures, and leveraging AI-driven security tools. These measures not only mitigate immediate risks but also build long-term trust and operational resilience.

By addressing third-party access risks strategically, manufacturing organizations can protect their operations, maintain compliance, and secure their place in increasingly complex global supply chains.

Additional Resources

• Blog Post Zero Trust Architecture: Never Trust, Always Verify
• Video How Kiteworks Helps Advance the NSA’s Zero Trust at the Data Layer Model
• Blog Post What It Means to Extend Zero Trust to the Content Layer
• Blog Post Building Trust in Generative AI with a Zero Trust Approach
• Video Kiteworks + Forcepoint: Demonstrating Compliance and Zero Trust at the Content Layer