Access Auditing as the SaaS Vendor Risk to Focus On
A company uses a SaaS vendor to host its customer database. The company would like to reduce the risk of customer data exposure if the systems are breached. Which of the following risks should the company focus on to achieve this objective?
Community Votes
48% of anonymous learners picked answer A. Votes are pick records left by other test-takers — they are not the verified answer.
Community Insight
In a SaaS relationship the customer's lever is data and access governance rather than infrastructure, so the question becomes who can read the customer database and whether the vendor will hand over the evidence through audit logs and right-to-audit terms.
Because the SaaS vendor runs the platform, the company cannot patch those servers or close their ports. The exposure it can still govern is who reaches the customer database, so access auditing is the risk area worth concentrating on.
Choosing supply chain simply because a vendor is involved. Supply chain risk covers tampered or counterfeit components and software provenance, and it does not change how much customer data an attacker can read once a breach happens.
Community Discussion (21 comments)
Comments & Corrections
No comments yet — spotted an error or have a note? Share it below.
Expert Analysis
Why the Answer Is Correct
Access auditing determines whether the company can see who opened the customer database, when, and from where, which is the only lens it still has over data it no longer hosts. Under the shared responsibility model the vendor runs the platform, so the customer's remaining levers are entitlement reviews, least privilege, and continuous review of access logs. That focus limits exposure directly, because a breached account can only read what its holder was entitled to read, and unusual reads are caught while the window is still small.Why the Other Options Are Wrong
Open ports and services are the vendor's infrastructure responsibility in a SaaS model, so the company cannot close them and can take no action by focusing there. Outsourced code development applies when a third party writes code for you, which does not happen when you simply subscribe to a hosted application. Supply chain risk addresses tampered or counterfeit components and software provenance; the vendor's place in the supply chain is real, but it does not decide how much customer data is exposed after the breach occurs.Community Comment Notes
The vote splits three ways with access auditing ahead and supply chain second, and the strongest supporting argument is that the stem asks for a risk the company can act on rather than a condition it merely inherits. Commenters favouring supply chain point out that a SaaS provider is a third party, which is true but describes a relationship rather than a control over data exposure. Several also flag the trap in open ports and services: it is the right answer for IaaS, where the customer builds and hardens the host, and the wrong one for SaaS, where it does not.Official Reference
Exam Strategy
Match the control to the cloud model before answering: infrastructure hardening belongs to IaaS, so port and service answers are distractors the moment the stem says SaaS, leaving access and data governance as the customer's own responsibility.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why are open ports and services a SaaS distractor but an IaaS risk?
In IaaS the customer builds and hardens the host, so exposed ports and unused services are its own misconfiguration to fix; in SaaS the provider runs the OS and network layer, so it cannot close them.
Does focusing on access auditing replace vendor due diligence?
No. Auditing continuously governs access to the data, while due diligence such as SOC 2 reports, penetration test results, and right-to-audit clauses assesses the vendor during the contract.