CrunchAtlasGuide
Your vendor was breached. Investigate your side.
The provider can explain what it found in its environment. Your team still has to review the access that existed on your side, the activity your tools recorded, and any exposure that needs follow-up.
If you only read one thing.
The vendor's report covers the vendor's side. Yours is a separate investigation.
Find the access
The accounts, tokens, keys, roles, and support paths tied to the provider.
Pull the evidence together
Identity, endpoint, network, SIEM, and application evidence in one case.
Bound it, then record it
Confirmed findings apart from possible exposure, carried into an incident record.
01 · Where the risk enters
A breached vendor may already have a trusted path into your university.
Universities connect vendors to identity, SaaS, APIs, administrative systems, research, and campus services. When one of those providers is compromised, the problem isn't just vendor risk anymore. It's an internal investigation. 2
- Trusted identity
- SSO, service accounts, OAuth tokens, delegated roles, and support credentials can give a provider legitimate access inside the university.
- Connected applications
- SIS, ERP, LMS, finance, research, and collaboration platforms exchange data through APIs, connectors, and trusted applications.
- Decentralized ownership
- Colleges, labs, research groups, and administrative units may hold separate credentials, integrations, and vendor relationships outside central IT.
- Operational pressure
- Keeping a connection offline can disrupt teaching, registration, payroll, research, or campus services, which pushes the team to restore quickly.
The more distributed the relationship, the more work it takes to piece together what your own environment recorded.
02 · Why investigation gets hard
The evidence you need may already be spread across the stack.
Identity, endpoint, network, application, and alert data each hold part of the picture. The challenge is bringing the relevant evidence into one investigation without rebuilding the case by hand across separate tools. 3
Find the relevant access
Identify the accounts, tokens, API keys, admin roles, trusted applications, and support paths tied to the affected provider.
Pull the evidence together
Bring identity, endpoint, network, SIEM, and application evidence into the same investigation instead of reviewing each source in isolation.
Trace related activity
Follow related activity across the available evidence to understand which systems, accounts, or connections need closer review.
Bound the investigation
Separate confirmed findings from possible exposure and unanswered questions so the team can focus the next step.
Retest the known path
After credentials, access, or segmentation change, retest an approved path to see whether that same tested path is still reproducible.
Document the findings
Carry the findings, remaining uncertainty, remediation, and approval decision into an incident record for review.
03 · Where HECVAT and GLBA fit
HECVAT and GLBA still matter. They solve a different problem.
They help universities assess providers, set safeguards, and manage third-party risk before an incident. Once a provider is actually compromised, the institution still has to review its own evidence and decide what follow-up is needed.
- HECVAT and TPRM
- Use vendor-reported security, privacy, accessibility, and compliance information to support the decision to approve and manage a technology provider. 1
- GLBA service-provider oversight
- For covered institutions, the Safeguards Rule includes requirements around selecting service providers and requiring appropriate safeguards by contract. 4
- Cyber supply chain risk
- NIST C-SCRM gives institutions a framework for identifying and managing cybersecurity risk tied to suppliers, technology, and services. 5
Governance defines how the relationship should be managed. Incident response deals with the evidence available after something goes wrong.
When a vendor reports an incident, your team still has an investigation to run.
Talk with our team about bringing your evidence into one investigation.
04 · Where CrunchAtlas fits
Where CrunchAtlas fits.
AtlasCyber monitors the network and ClemAI investigates what it finds. It organizes related evidence for investigation, host, and network analysis, threat hunting, approved validation, and reporting. What it can investigate depends on the telemetry and evidence available in the environment.
The result is a reviewable case record: the evidence considered, findings, remaining uncertainty, recommended next steps, and any approved validation work.
Correlate the signal
Correlate vendor-related alerts and indicators with available telemetry to surface related activity for review.
Investigate host and network evidence
Examine related systems, activity, persistence indicators, or internal movement when those signals are present.
Look beyond the first indicator
Hunt available telemetry for related connections and activity that weren't in the provider notification or original detection.
Retest an approved path
Within an approved scope, retest a known path after credentials, access, or segmentation change.
05 · FAQ
Where CrunchAtlas fits in the university security stack.
How does CrunchAtlas fit with our SIEM, EDR, IAM, and TPRM program?
CrunchAtlas takes in the evidence those systems produce, and ClemAI investigates it through threat hunting, validation, and reporting inside your existing response process.
What does CrunchAtlas add during a third-party incident?
It correlates related activity, examines host, and network evidence, looks beyond the original indicator, retests approved paths, and carries findings into a reviewable incident record.
Can CrunchAtlas retest an approved path after remediation?
Yes, within an approved test scope. PurpleHaze retests a known path on your side of the connection after access, credential, or segmentation changes.
06 · Sources
Sources.
Higher-ed, federal, and NIST guidance used to frame third-party risk, incident response, and service-provider oversight on this page.
- EDUCAUSE, Higher Education Community Vendor Assessment Toolkit (HECVAT)
- EDUCAUSE Review, how higher education is responding to the 2026 Canvas LMS incident
- NIST, SP 800-61 Rev. 3, Incident Response Recommendations
- eCFR, 16 CFR 314.4, Safeguards Rule elements
- NIST, SP 800-161 Rev. 1 Update 1, Cybersecurity Supply Chain Risk Management
Educational guidance only. Requirements and response decisions depend on institutional scope, contracts, evidence, and applicable law.
Keep reading.
Run your side of the investigation.
Talk with our team about how AtlasCyber brings vendor-related evidence into one case for central IT and security.
Talk to our teamSign up for our newsletter