Topic starter
02/08/2026 12:14 pm
TL;DR: Shadow APIs, BOLA, weak authorisation, and poor monitoring are pushing API security into cyber insurance reviews, according to Salt. API inventories and runtime checks now need evidence that underwriters can assess coverage, exclusions, and premium risk.
Editorial analysis by NHI Mgmt Group, based on content published by Salt: “Strengthen Your Cyber Insurance Position: Why Proactive API Security is Key”.
Key questions
Q: Why do weak API authorization controls increase insurance risk?
A: Weak authorization lets authenticated traffic reach objects or functions it should not touch, which can turn a normal-looking request into data loss or business disruption.
Q: How do security teams know whether API edge protection is actually working?
A: Teams should look for lower rates of malicious requests reaching core services, faster detection of automated attack patterns, and fewer successful abuse cases such as credential sharing, account takeover, and inventory hoarding.
Q: What breaks when API discovery is incomplete in a cyber insurance review?
A: Incomplete discovery means the organisation cannot credibly show which APIs exist, who owns them, or whether they are tested and monitored.
Practitioner guidance
- Inventory every exposed API and owner Create and maintain a complete inventory of internal, external, third-party, shadow, and zombie APIs, with business owner, data sensitivity, and authentication method recorded.
- Test object-level authorisation directly Use negative tests to confirm that authenticated users, service accounts, and partner integrations cannot retrieve records outside their permitted scope.
- Extend monitoring beyond the gateway Collect request sequences, object-access patterns, and unusual token behaviour so that runtime controls can detect abuse that looks valid at the endpoint.
Bottom line: API security is moving into the underwriting conversation because insurers want proof of discovery, testing, and runtime control, not just a list of tools.
Glossary terms: API Discovery, Broken Object-Level Authorization, Shadow API, Runtime API Protection
Explore further
View Full Forum → | NHI Foundation Course → | Our Services → | Read the full analysis →
This topic was modified 2 days ago by NHI Mgmt Group
02/08/2026 1:17 pm
API security has become an assurance problem, not just an engineering problem. The insurer is no longer only asking whether an API gateway exists, but whether the organisation can prove discovery, testing, and runtime control across the real attack surface. That shifts API security into the same governance class as IAM evidence, because the question is now what can be demonstrated, not what can be claimed. Practitioners should treat coverage conversations as a forcing function for control visibility.
A few things that frame the scale:
- Secrets management is a top five cybersecurity priority for only 33% of organisations, behind cloud security (45%), API security (42%), and endpoint security (36%), according to the 2024 State of Secrets Management Survey.
- 71% of organizations use third-party APIs, according to Gartner’s 2024 data.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who is accountable for API security evidence in a cyber insurance application?
A: Accountability usually sits across application owners, identity teams, and security governance, because API risk spans discovery, authorization, and monitoring. The key is to assign ownership for the API inventory, the access model, and the evidence package separately. If no one can attest to those three areas, the insurer will likely treat the control environment as immature.
👉 Read our full editorial: API security is becoming a cyber insurance governance issue