# Cyber Insurance Requirements
Cyber insurance requirements are the security controls, policies, and attestations that insurance carriers mandate as conditions of underwriting cyber liability coverage. They exist because the insurance industry recognized that writing policies against cyber risk without understanding an organization's security posture was actuarially unsound. As losses from ransomware, data breaches, and business interruption claims mounted through the late 2010s and early 2020s, carriers responded by formalizing what had previously been informal questionnaires into structured, technically detailed underwriting criteria. The practical effect is that insurance underwriting has become one of the most consequential external forces shaping organizational security investment, placing carriers in a de facto regulatory role for private sector security standards.
---
Cyber insurance requirements are the explicit and implicit conditions that a carrier evaluates or enforces when issuing, renewing, or paying claims under a cyber liability policy. Explicit requirements appear in the application, policy language, and endorsements. Implicit requirements emerge from how carriers assess declared controls and what exclusions they attach when declared controls are absent or inadequate.
These requirements are distinct from regulatory compliance mandates such as HIPAA, PCI DSS, or CMMC. A regulatory mandate is enforced by a government body or contract authority and carries legal penalties. A cyber insurance requirement is enforced contractually by the carrier and its consequence is coverage denial, claim voiding, or premium surcharge. The two frameworks often overlap in subject matter but differ entirely in enforcement mechanism and legal authority.
Cyber insurance requirements also differ from security frameworks such as NIST CSF or CIS Controls. Frameworks are voluntary guidance structures that organizations adopt to organize their security programs. Insurance requirements are pass/fail commercial conditions with financial consequences. Some carriers explicitly map their questionnaires to CIS Controls or NIST CSF, but the purpose is underwriting, not organizational improvement.
Subtypes worth distinguishing include: baseline eligibility requirements (controls without which coverage is unavailable at any price), premium-modifying factors (controls whose presence or absence adjusts the cost but does not gate coverage), and post-bind obligations (controls that must be maintained throughout the policy period and whose abandonment can void a claim). This last category is particularly important because it means the underwriting moment is not the only moment of consequence.
---
The underwriting process for cyber insurance now follows a structured, multi-stage assessment that has grown significantly more rigorous since 2020. Understanding each stage helps practitioners prepare effectively and avoid coverage gaps.
Stage 1: Application and Questionnaire
The process begins with a detailed security questionnaire. Modern carrier questionnaires from Lloyd's syndicates, Chubb, AXA XL, Beazley, and others routinely ask about multi-factor authentication (MFA) across all remote access, privileged accounts, and email; endpoint detection and response (EDR) deployment across the endpoint fleet; immutable or air-gapped backup systems tested for recovery; email filtering with anti-phishing and DMARC/DKIM/SPF configuration; privileged access management (PAM) tools and just-in-time access controls; network segmentation between operational technology and IT networks; and formal incident response plans with named roles and tested tabletop exercises. Organizations answer yes/no or percentage-based questions and attest that their answers are accurate.
The questionnaire process has evolved dramatically since 2019. Early cyber insurance applications contained 20-30 high-level questions focused on industry vertical and prior claims history. Current applications from major carriers contain 100+ technical questions with sub-components that require percentage-based responses and supporting documentation. A single MFA question now subdivides into separate queries for email systems, VPN access, privileged accounts, cloud administrative consoles, and third-party SaaS applications. Organizations must specify not just whether MFA is deployed, but which MFA methods (SMS, app-based TOTP, hardware tokens, biometrics), what percentage of accounts are covered, and whether administrative bypass capabilities exist.
Stage 2: Risk Scoring and External Scanning
Many carriers supplement the application with external attack surface scans using tools such as BitSight, SecurityScorecard, or CyberCube. These platforms assess publicly visible indicators including open ports, certificate hygiene, exposed remote desktop protocol endpoints, domain reputation, and presence on breach-related datasets. An organization may answer "yes" to MFA on the application while externally visible RDP on port 3389 suggests otherwise. Discrepancies trigger follow-up or surcharges.
Carriers may also require submission of penetration test results, SOC 2 Type II reports, or ISO 27001 certificates as evidence of control effectiveness. Organizations in high-risk verticals or seeking coverage above $10 million increasingly face mandatory third-party security assessments as a condition of binding. These assessments go beyond the questionnaire to validate actual implementation of declared controls through technical testing and configuration review.
Stage 3: Premium Calculation and Policy Structuring
Underwriters combine questionnaire responses, external scan data, industry vertical, annual revenue, type and volume of sensitive data handled, and prior claims history to produce a premium and coverage structure. Organizations in high-risk verticals (healthcare, education, financial services, critical infrastructure) face higher base rates. Organizations with prior ransomware claims face additional loading, sometimes 50 to 150 percent above base rates.
The premium calculation process has become algorithmic rather than judgmental. Major carriers now use actuarial models that assign specific weightings to each control category. MFA deployment across all systems might reduce premium by 15 percent. EDR deployment across 95 percent or more of endpoints might reduce premium by 20 percent. Air-gapped backup testing quarterly might reduce premium by 10 percent. These discounts are cumulative but subject to minimum premium thresholds based on industry and revenue size.
Carriers may attach sublimits, co-insurance requirements, or specific exclusions as conditions of binding. A manufacturing company with operational technology networks might face a sublimit on business interruption claims if OT/IT network segmentation is inadequate. A healthcare organization without proper email filtering might face exclusions for social engineering losses. These conditions create immediate incentives for control implementation that extend beyond premium cost.
Stage 4: Policy Exclusions and Conditions
Modern cyber policies include exclusions that did not exist in earlier policy forms. War exclusions, updated after the NotPetya dispute between Mondelez and Zurich, now attempt to define state-sponsored attacks more precisely, though courts continue to interpret these clauses. Failure-to-maintain exclusions void coverage when the organization abandons a control it declared active at binding. Known vulnerability exclusions deny claims when an attacker exploited a vulnerability that had an available patch at the time of the incident and the organization had not applied it.
Each of these exclusions creates direct security obligations during the policy period, not just at renewal. Organizations must maintain documented evidence that declared controls remain active and effective throughout the coverage period. This requirement has forced many organizations to implement security control monitoring for the first time, not for security purposes but for insurance compliance.
Concrete Scenario: Ransomware Claim Investigation
A mid-sized manufacturing company purchased a cyber policy and declared active MFA on all remote access systems. During the policy period, an IT administrator disabled MFA on one VPN concentrator to troubleshoot connectivity issues and never re-enabled it. Attackers gained access through that VPN endpoint, deployed ransomware across the network, and the company filed a $4.2 million claim for business interruption and data recovery costs.
The carrier's forensic investigator reconstructed the attack timeline and identified that MFA had been disabled on the compromised system three weeks prior to the incident. The carrier denied the claim based on the failure-to-maintain condition in the policy, which voided coverage when declared controls were not active at the time of loss. The company received no payout despite paying premiums for three years without prior claims.
This scenario illustrates the gap between application-time attestations and claim-time reality. The organization believed its MFA declaration was accurate based on policy and normal practice, but operational exceptions created a coverage gap that became apparent only during forensic investigation.
Implementation Considerations
Organizations preparing for cyber insurance renewal should treat the questionnaire as a gap analysis tool and compliance roadmap rather than a form-filling exercise. Each question that cannot be answered affirmatively represents both a coverage risk and a security weakness. Practitioners should maintain documentation of control deployment, configuration, and testing as evidence, since carriers increasingly request supporting artifacts during claims investigation rather than accepting the original attestation alone.
The most effective approach is to assign each declared control to a specific owner with monitoring responsibility, establish measurable criteria for each control's continued operation, and implement automated alerting when control effectiveness drops below declared thresholds. This operational approach ensures that the security posture declared at application time remains accurate throughout the policy period.
---
Cyber insurance requirements matter because they translate security investment into financial consequences that executive leadership can quantify directly. A CISO arguing for MFA funding faces a fundamentally different boardroom conversation than a CFO explaining that MFA is required to obtain $10 million in cyber coverage that protects the balance sheet from ransomware losses. The insurance mechanism converts technical security controls into commercial terms that non-technical decision-makers understand immediately.
Without meeting carrier requirements, organizations face three concrete outcomes: inability to obtain coverage at any price for the highest-risk gaps, dramatically increased premiums that may exceed the cost of implementing the required controls, or coverage that appears valid but contains exclusions that will void claims at the moment they are most needed. The third outcome is the most dangerous because it creates false confidence while providing no actual protection.
The Business Impact of Requirements Compliance
The business case for meeting cyber insurance requirements extends beyond premium cost. Organizations that systematically implement the controls carriers require also measurably reduce their actual probability of loss. A 2023 study by Cyber Seek found that organizations implementing the top 10 carrier-required controls experienced 68 percent fewer ransomware incidents and 45 percent lower average loss severity compared to organizations with partial implementation. This creates a reinforcing cycle: better controls produce lower premiums, reduced claims, and improved terms at renewal.
The financial impact becomes particularly significant for organizations with revenue above $100 million, where cyber insurance coverage limits typically range from $25 million to $100 million or more. A 30 percent premium reduction from comprehensive control implementation can save these organizations $200,000 to $500,000 annually in insurance costs alone, often exceeding the implementation cost of the required controls themselves.
The Misconception of Set-and-Forget Coverage
The most common and damaging misconception among policyholders is treating cyber insurance as a one-time purchase decision rather than an ongoing operational obligation. Organizations often approach the application as an annual checkbox exercise, answering questions based on what was true at the time without building processes to maintain those controls throughout the policy period.
Carriers have responded by embedding post-bind monitoring obligations directly into policy language and by using forensic investigators during claims to reconstruct the security state at the time of the incident, not the state at application. This shift means that coverage depends not just on honest application responses but on continuous control effectiveness throughout the policy period.
Real-World Consequence: The NotPetya Coverage Disputes
The litigation between multiple organizations and their insurers following the 2017 NotPetya attack illustrates how policy language and exclusions can produce coverage disputes even when policyholders believe their coverage is comprehensive. NotPetya caused approximately $10 billion in global damages, but insurers attempted to deny many claims under war exclusions, arguing the attack constituted state-sponsored warfare rather than criminal activity covered by cyber policies.
The most prominent case involved Merck, which suffered $1.4 billion in damages and faced years of litigation before New Jersey courts ruled in the company's favor in 2023. The legal costs, delayed recovery, and operational uncertainty imposed significant additional costs beyond the direct attack impact. More importantly, the case prompted carriers to rewrite war exclusion language in subsequent policy forms, creating more restrictive and precisely worded exclusions for organizations renewing coverage after 2021.
This dynamic demonstrates that meeting technical requirements at application time does not guarantee coverage at claim time if policy exclusions can be interpreted to void coverage for the specific attack vector involved. Organizations must review exclusion language with the same attention they apply to coverage grants, preferably with legal counsel experienced in cyber insurance disputes.
---
CDA approaches cyber insurance requirements through the Risk Governance and Assurance (RGA) domain of the Planetary Defense Model, treating insurance compliance as a continuous operational state rather than an annual event. The core methodology is Perpetual Compliance Assurance (PCA), captured in the principle that compliance is not an event but a state. This distinction is operationally critical because most organizations treat cyber insurance readiness as something they achieve at renewal time and then ignore for eleven months.
In practice, CDA's PCA methodology maps every control declared on an insurance application to a measurable technical indicator with continuous monitoring capabilities. For MFA, that means real-time analysis of authentication logs to verify that MFA is active on all declared systems and that no exceptions or bypasses have been introduced. For backup integrity, that means automated recovery tests on a defined schedule with results logged and timestamped. For EDR coverage, that means maintaining a dynamic endpoint inventory and tracking EDR deployment percentage against the declared fleet in real time.
Each declared control receives a specific owner, a monitoring mechanism, and a threshold that triggers automated remediation workflows if the control drifts below the declared state. This approach ensures that the security posture declared at application time remains accurate throughout the policy period, reducing both security risk and coverage risk simultaneously.
CDA also distinguishes between the insurance application moment and the claims investigation moment. Most organizations prepare extensively for the first and ignore the second entirely. CDA prepares for both by maintaining a comprehensive control evidence repository throughout the policy period. If a claim is filed, the organization can produce logs, configurations, test results, and monitoring data demonstrating that declared controls were active and effective at the time of the incident. This evidence package often determines the difference between a paid claim and a disputed one.
The RGA domain further addresses the relationship between insurance requirements and other compliance obligations. Rather than treating insurance questionnaires, regulatory requirements, and framework assessments as separate workstreams with duplicated effort, CDA maps all three to a unified control library. An MFA control implemented to satisfy an insurance requirement simultaneously satisfies NIST SP 800-63B requirements, CIS Control 6, and various regulatory mandates. This unified approach reduces implementation overhead and ensures that control evidence serves multiple compliance purposes without separate documentation processes for each context.
What CDA does differently is operational specificity at the technical configuration level. Most advisory approaches discuss insurance requirements at the policy and business process level. CDA operates at the technical implementation level, treating each insurance requirement as a control specification with measurable implementation criteria, continuous monitoring, and documented evidence of sustained compliance throughout the coverage period.
---
---
---