Sample output

A vendor verification report, start to finish

Watermarked as a sample on every page. This is the format a client receives monthly, and the format an auditor is handed. Print it to PDF and the watermark comes with it.

Illustrative content. No real organisation appears in this document.

Sample document. Every organisation named below is invented and every figure is illustrative. It is published so you can judge the output before booking a call. Use your browser's print to PDF to keep a copy; the watermark is part of the document.

Download the PDF See a single finding

The PDF carries the SAMPLE watermark on every page, plus a header and footer saying it is not a client deliverable.

Penthropic Security  ·  Third-party assurance

Monthly vendor verification report

Prepared for: Meridian Group Ltd  ·  Period: 1 to 30 June 2026  ·  Issued: 3 July 2026

1. Summary

Meridian's supplier register held 34 active vendors this period. All 34 were re-checked against public exposure and against the attestations held on file. Six findings were raised, of which two are high severity. Four findings from previous periods were closed.

34

Vendors verified

6

Findings raised

4

Findings closed

2. What was checked

Each vendor was assessed against two independent sources, then compared.

  • Attested. The questionnaire responses, certificates and reports held on file for that vendor.
  • Observed. Public certificate transparency, DNS and mail policy, published security headers, disclosed breach corpora, and the vendor's own published policy pages.

No active scanning was performed. No credentials were used. Every observation is reproducible from public sources.

3. Findings this period

Ordered by severity, then by date first seen.
RefVendorFindingSeverityControl
F-241Northwind AnalyticsSOC 2 attestation 19 months out of date while contract activeHighA.5.22
F-242Calder LogisticsDMARC policy relaxed from reject to none during the periodHighA.5.23
F-243Brightlane HRNew subdomain issued a certificate outside the declared estateMediumA.5.21
F-244Orrell PrintNamed data-protection contact has left; no replacement suppliedMediumA.5.20
F-245Vale SoftwareSub-processor added without the contractual notice periodMediumA.5.19
F-246Tarn MediaPublished privacy policy no longer names a UK representativeLowA.5.34

4. Finding detail: F-242

Calder Logistics, DMARC policy relaxed during the period.

Attested
Questionnaire of 8 January 2026, question 6.1: email authentication is "enforced with DMARC at reject".
Observed
On 2 June the published DMARC record read p=reject. On 17 June it read p=none. It has remained at p=none since.
Delta
The control was in place at the time of assessment and was removed 5 months later. An annual questionnaire would have recorded this as compliant for a further 7 months.
Impact
Mail spoofing Calder's domain is no longer rejected by recipients. Calder issue delivery notifications to Meridian's customers, so the practical risk is phishing that appears to come from a trusted logistics partner.
Action
Raised with Calder on 18 June. Awaiting a date for restoring enforcement. Recommend a contractual notice requirement for material changes to email authentication.

This is the finding type that only continuous checking produces. Nothing was wrong at onboarding, and nothing was wrong at the last review.

5. Closed since last period

RefVendorResolutionDays open
F-228Halden CloudCurrent ISO 27001 certificate supplied, scope confirmed21
F-231Kelso PaymentsExpired TLS certificate replaced3
F-233Ryehill ConsultingRisk accepted by the CISO, review date 1 December 202644
F-236Brightlane HRSub-processor list updated and re-issued12

6. Coverage statement

Stated honestly, including what this report does not cover.

Vendors in register
34
Vendors verified
34 (100%)
With an attestation on file
27 (79%)
Attestation current
22 (65%)
Not covered
Anything not observable from public sources or from documents you have given us. We do not test vendor systems and we do not assert what happens inside them.

7. Method and limitations

Observations are drawn from passive, publicly available sources only: certificate transparency logs, public DNS, published HTTP response headers, published policy pages, and public breach corpora. No system belonging to a vendor was scanned, probed or accessed.

A clean result means no gap was visible from those sources during the period. It is not a statement that a vendor is secure, and this report does not make one.

Penthropic Security Ltd  ·  Sample document, not a client deliverable  ·  Every organisation named is fictitious.

Want this for your supplier register?

Bring your vendor list. The first report shows you the gap between what is on file and what is observable.

Book a 30 minute call