# SOC 2 (2017 TSC) CC9.2 — Vendor Risk Management - Source: https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/soc-2-trust-services-criteria/cc9-2-vendor-risk-management - Section: [Compliance](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance) › [SOC 2 Trust Services Criteria (2017, with 2022 points of focus)](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/soc-2-trust-services-criteria) › Common Criteria (Security) — CC9 - Last updated: 2026-06-05 - Publisher: iCompaas, Inc. (https://www.icompaas.com) **SOC 2 (2017 TSC)**·Criterion `CC9.2`·high·Component: **Common Criteria (Security)** ## What this control requires > The entity assesses and manages risks associated with vendors and business partners. > > — SOC 2 (2017 TSC), Criterion CC9.2 ### In plain English The entity assesses and manages risks associated with vendors and business partners. In practice, this means you can prove you risk management-level controls on a defined cadence. ## Why it matters Every SOC 2 audit opinion is built control-by-control from the Trust Services Criteria. A missing or failing criterion produces an exception in the report, which buyers, partners and procurement teams read line-by-line during vendor reviews. This control is rated **high**. Auditors expect a named owner, a remediation SLA, and a tooling artefact that evidences continuous operation. ## What an auditor looks for A SOC 2 auditor (under AT-C §§ 105/205) tests both design and operating effectiveness over the audit window. For each criterion they expect a written control, a control owner, a population of events, and a sample tested against the population — including remediation tickets for exceptions. Within **Common Criteria (Security)**, the assessor will trace your implementation back to the catalogue reference (Criterion CC9.2) and look for objective evidence on the latest two assessment cycles. ## How to implement 1. Write a short policy stating intent, scope and named owner. 2. Encode it as a platform guardrail — SCP, Azure Policy initiative, Organisation Policy, or repository policy. 3. Wire a monitoring signal that catches drift (CSPM rule, SIEM rule, scheduled query, Workspace alert) and ticket it. 4. Review on a documented cadence and capture the review in the risk register or compliance tracker. ### Operational checklist - **Risk.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Security.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Business.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Vendor.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Management.** Document the trigger, the owner and the cadence. - **Scope:** management, risk management. ## Evidence to collect - **Vendor Risk Management.** `vendor_risk_management` evidence - **Infra Scan.** Continuous infrastructure-posture telemetry — AWS Config, Azure Policy compliance, GCP Organisation Policy, Wiz / Prisma findings. Third-party risk management evidence (assessments, contracts, due diligence) shows supplier oversight. Focus: Vendor Risk Management (Original component: Risk Mitigation). ## How it maps to other frameworks Computed from shared tags, control component and key-operation subjects — handy when you are reconciling controls across an audit. - [**BSI C5:2020 OIS-03** — Interfaces and Dependencies](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/bsi-c5-2020/ois-03-interfaces-and-dependencies) - [**ISO/IEC 27001:2022 A.5.20** — Addressing information security within supplier agreements](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/iso-27001-2022/a-5-20-addressing-information-security-within-supplier-agreements) - [**ISO/IEC 42001:2023 A.10.3** — Suppliers](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/iso-42001-2023/a-10-3-suppliers) - [**GDPR Article 76** — Confidentiality](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/gdpr/article-76-confidentiality) - [**CIS Controls v8 9.1** — Ensure Use of Only Fully Supported Browsers and Email Clients](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/cis-controls-v8/9-1-ensure-use-of-only-fully-supported-browsers-and-email-clients) ## Related controls in SOC 2 (2017 TSC) - [**Criterion P6.1** — Third-Party Disclosure with Data Subject Consent](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/soc-2-trust-services-criteria/p6-1-third-party-disclosure-with-data-subject-consent) - [**Criterion P6.4** — Third-Party Privacy Commitments](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/soc-2-trust-services-criteria/p6-4-third-party-privacy-commitments) - [**Criterion CC9.1** — Business Disruption Risk Mitigation](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/soc-2-trust-services-criteria/cc9-1-business-disruption-risk-mitigation) - [**Criterion P6.5** — Third-Party Breach Notification Commitments](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/soc-2-trust-services-criteria/p6-5-third-party-breach-notification-commitments) - [**Criterion CC3.3** — Fraud Risk Assessment](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/soc-2-trust-services-criteria/cc3-3-fraud-risk-assessment) ## References - [AICPA / ASEC — SOC 2 (2017 TSC)](https://www.aicpa-cima.com/topic/audit-assurance/audit-and-assurance-greater-than-soc-2) - Catalogue identifier: `Criterion CC9.2` Topics: vendor riskvendor managementsupply chain securitythird party monitoring ## Related compliance guidance - [SOC 2 compliance: a practical implementation guide for cloud-native SaaS teams](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/soc-2-trust-services-criteria): Start with the full SOC 2 implementation guide — scope, roadmap, evidence and how the assessment runs. - [ISO/IEC 27001:2022 compliance: a practical implementation guide](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/iso-27001-2022): The certificate most non-US customers ask for instead of SOC 2; the controls overlap enough to run one matrix for both. - [HIPAA compliance for SaaS: a practical implementation guide](https://support.icompaas.com/compliance/hipaa): If health-tech customers ask for SOC 2, they will also ask about the Security Rule; the two are usually evidenced from the same controls.