Why Invela TPRM?

During my three months working with a third-party risk management (TPRM) client, I never heard anyone mention Invela.

Perhaps with reason. Although LinkedIn says the company was founded in 2024, it didn’t post its first blog until April 20, 2025, or its first LinkedIn posts until April 21.

But the second blog post, dated April 21, is the one that matters.

“Invela has officially launched a transformative network to bolster consumer protection and foster innovation within the open banking ecosystem. The Invela Network, developed in collaboration with industry-leading specialist partners, promises to revolutionize how financial institutions manage third-party risk…”

The post goes on to cite the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), but…well…that’s nice.

Invela’s TPRM solution specifically targets the open banking segment of the financial services industry. Open banking, featuring companies such as Plaid, Kong, and Camunda (among others), facilitates the interchange of financial data, rather than keeping it within each bank’s walled garden.

Which of course increases risk.

Hence companies such as Invela.

I was unable to find a “why” story for Invela that compared to the why story I previously found for Ubiety Technologies. Obviously the Invela people never read my book.

However, the principals at Invela come from companies such as Mastercard (although I could find no information on Invela’s CEO Steve Smith). But the Invela leadership team presumably knows their market. We will see if they know their marketing.

Which reminds me…if you need help with your cybersecurity product marketing, Bredemarket has an opening for a cybersecurity client. I can offer

  • compelling content creation
  • winning proposal development
  • actionable analysis

If Bredemarket can help your stretched staff, book a free meeting with me: https://bredemarket.com/cpa/

How Can You Maximize Your Facial Recognition Or Cybersecurity Marketing Impact?

(This news was originally supposed to be embargoed until Monday April 21, but…well…things happen.)

Facial recognition and cybersecurity marketing leaders,

Stretched?

Is a stretched team holding you back from creating stellar marketing materials? Are competitors taking your prospects from you while you remain silent?

I’m John Bredehoft from Bredemarket, and I currently have TWO openings to act as your on-demand marketing muscle for facial recognition or cybersecurity:

  • compelling content creation
  • winning proposal development
  • actionable analysis
CPA?

Bias can be good when it’s a bias to action.

Bias?

Satisfy your immediate needs and book a call: https://bredemarket.com/cpa/

A Mature Approach to Artificial Intelligence-Powered TPRM Automation

Deloitte conducts regular surveys on third-party risk management (TPRM), and just concluded a survey on (English warning) “the rise of AI in TPRM to maximise opportunities while managing the risks.”

One of the key findings:

“Despite low maturity levels, leadership teams are ambitious about embracing intelligent automation, while managing both the risks of AI in their organisations and those arising from third-party AI usage.”

I’ve talked about maturity levels before and their importance in cybersecurity. While ad hoc approaches to TPRM just won’t cut it in terms of protection, a managed or defined level or better will yield a positive return on investment.

(Imagen 3)

And one more thing…

The formal announcement is embargoed until Monday, but Bredemarket has TWO openings to act as your on-demand marketing muscle for facial recognition or cybersecurity:

  • compelling content creation
  • winning proposal development
  • actionable analysis

Book a call: https://bredemarket.com/cpa/ 

If the United States Won’t Pay For the CVE Program…Who Will?

From The Register:

“The [CVE] program is sponsored, and largely funded by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, aka CISA, under the umbrella of the US Department of Homeland Security. It appears MITRE has been paid roughly $30 million since 2023 to run CVE and associated programs.”

$30 million is peanuts. 

If the U.S. government won’t fund it (and it still may), and if private firms won’t fund it, perhaps the EU will take it over. Or Canada. Or China. 

The only complication is whether MITRE can run it if someone other than the feds is paying.

Frame, Assess, Respond, and Monitor (FARM) in Third-Party Risk Management

I just listened to a third-party risk management (TPRM) Mitratech webinar about NIST cybersecurity frameworks, hosted by OCEG, which talked about a farm.

No, they’re not planting corn at NIST’s Gaithersburg headquarters.

(At least I don’t think so. I haven’t been there since early 2009, back when Motorola and Safran people couldn’t talk about the possible acquisition. We did anyway. But I digress.)

Back to TPRM. In Mitratech’s case, FARM stands for “frame, assess, respond, and monitor.”

Here’s how Mitratech introduced the topic in a 2022 post:

NIST SP 800-53 is considered the foundation upon which all other cybersecurity controls are built. With SP 800-161 Rev. 1, NIST outlines a complementary framework to frame, assess, respond to, and monitor cybersecurity supply chain risks. Together, SP 800-53 and supplemental SP 800-161 control guidance present a comprehensive framework for assessing and mitigating supplier risks.

If you visit the latest (as of 2024) update to SP 800-161, you can find NIST’s explanation of the FARM in Appendix G. The three referenced levels in the quote below are the enterprise, mission, and operations levels.

The first approach is known as FARM and consists of four steps: Frame, Assess, Respond, and Monitor. FARM is primarily used at Level 1 and Level 2 to establish the enterprise’s risk context and inherent exposure to risk. Then, the risk context from Level 1 and Level 2 iteratively informs the activities performed as part of the second approach described in The Risk Management Framework (RMF). The RMF predominantly operates at Level 3 [SP80037], – the operational level – and consists of seven process steps: Prepare, Categorize, Select, Implement, Assess, Authorize, and Monitor.

Briefly:

  • Frame establishes the context.
  • Assess is the risk assessment itself.
  • Respond is where the assessors communicate the results of the assessment and propose mitigations and controls.
  • Monitor is compliance verification and continuous monitoring.

Section G.2 of the document includes much, much more detailed definitions of the FARM elements, should you be interested. I’d provide those details myself, but then I fear I’d have to say to you, “Sorry if I’ve stayed too long.”