Skip to main content
[THIRD-PARTY RISK]

Agentic Third-Party Risk

33% of enterprise software will be agentic by 2028. 40% of those projects will be canceled due to governance failures. A risk overview for CTOs.

The adoption curve

33% of enterprise software will include agentic AI by 2028 (Gartner). These agents use third-party skills, MCP servers, and tool integrations that most security teams have no process for vetting.

Three risk categories

Skill supply chain: 36.82% of agent skills have vulnerabilities. Protocol security: 7.2% of MCP servers are exploitable. Agent-to-agent trust: multi-agent systems enable 58-90% arbitrary code execution success rates.

33%
Enterprise software agentic by 2028
40%
Agentic projects canceled by 2027
36.82%
Agent skills with vulnerabilities

What CTOs need to know about agentic third-party risk

33% of enterprise software will include agentic AI by 2028, up from less than 1% in 2024 (Gartner). These agents use third-party skills, MCP servers, and tool integrations that most security teams have no process for vetting. 40% of agentic AI projects will be canceled by end of 2027 due to inadequate risk controls (Gartner). See agent governance for compliance frameworks.

Traditional vendor risk management evaluates software as a static artifact. Agentic third-party risk evaluates behavior: what an agent does with the tools you gave it, how it interacts with external services, and whether its outputs are safe to merge. This is a new risk category that existing security controls do not cover.

Three risk categories

Skill supply chain

36.82% of 3,984 agent skills have known vulnerabilities. 13.4% have critical issues including credential theft and data exfiltration (Snyk ToxicSkills, Feb 2026). See building secure skills.

Protocol security (MCP)

7.2% of 1,899 open-source MCP servers contain vulnerabilities. 5.5% exhibit tool poisoning. 85%+ of identified attacks compromise at least one platform. See MCP security.

Agent-to-agent trust

Multi-agent systems enable 58-90% success rates for arbitrary code execution. Some configurations reach 100% (arXiv:2503.12188). See agent attack landscape.

What traditional VRM misses

Traditional SAST/DAST

Finds code vulnerabilities in static artifacts

Traditional SCA

Finds dependency vulnerabilities in package manifests

XOR

Evaluates agent behavior: what the agent does with its tools, how skills interact, whether the output is safe to merge

Gap

No existing tool evaluates runtime agent behavior against third-party skill integrity

Key stats from published research

36.82%

Agent skills with any security flaw (of 3,984 audited)

Snyk ToxicSkills

85%+

MCP attacks compromising at least one platform

MCPSecBench

20%

Jailbreak success rate across 2,000+ LLM apps

Pillar Security

92%

AI vendors claiming broad data usage rights

Stanford CodeX

[NEXT STEPS]

Deep-dive pages

FAQ

What is agentic third-party risk?

AI agents use external tools, MCP servers, and skills with real permissions. 36.82% of agent skills have vulnerabilities (Snyk ToxicSkills, 3,984 audited, Feb 2026). Traditional vendor risk management doesn't evaluate agent behavior.

How fast is agentic AI adoption growing?

33% of enterprise software will include agentic AI by 2028, up from less than 1% in 2024 (Gartner). 40% of agentic AI projects will be canceled by end of 2027 due to inadequate risk controls.

How does XOR address third-party agent risk?

XOR verifies agent behavior, not just agent code. The platform scans skills for vulnerabilities, checks MCP server integrity, and produces signed compliance evidence for every triage.

[RELATED TOPICS]

See which agents produce fixes that work

128 CVEs. 15 agents. 1,920 evaluations. Agents learn from every run.