Notifications
Clear all
Topic starter
25/06/2026 10:45 pm
TL;DR: Cyber insurance premiums have doubled or tripled for some organisations, while procurement now demands detailed evidence of incident response, training, compliance, and control maturity, according to Imprivata. The underwriting trend shows that identity, access, and recovery controls are now part of insurability, not just cyber hygiene.
NHIMG editorial — based on content published by Imprivata: cyber insurance costs, coverage gaps, and procurement complexity
Questions worth separating out
Q: How should security teams lower cyber insurance costs through identity controls?
A: Focus on evidence, not slogans.
Q: Why do weak IAM controls affect cyber insurance underwriting?
A: Weak IAM signals broader control fragility.
Q: What do organisations get wrong about cyber insurance coverage gaps?
A: They assume a policy is broader than it really is.
Practitioner guidance
- Build an underwriting evidence pack Assemble current proof of MFA coverage, access review cadence, incident response testing, training completion, and regulatory mappings before renewal discussions.
- Trace policy exclusions against real incident scenarios Compare nation-state, ransomware, and regulatory exclusions with the losses your organisation would actually expect in a severe breach.
- Strengthen identity controls that underwriters can verify Prioritise proof around privileged access, authentication assurance, and machine identity lifecycle management so the insurer can see how exposure is reduced.
What's in the full article
Imprivata's full article covers the operational detail this post intentionally leaves for the source:
- A closer breakdown of the specific insurance requirements organisations are being asked to evidence
- Examples of the security controls insurers tend to evaluate when pricing cyber risk
- The article's discussion of how integrated security tooling can support a lower risk profile
- More detail on the coverage categories and exclusions that create uncertainty for buyers
👉 Read Imprivata's analysis of cyber insurance costs, gaps, and procurement pressure →
Cyber insurance premiums and gaps: what IAM teams need to know?
Explore further
25/06/2026 11:27 pm
Cyber insurance has become an identity governance test, not just a finance procurement exercise. Insurers are asking for evidence of authentication strength, access control, incident readiness, and regulatory discipline because those controls shape expected loss. That means IAM, PAM, and identity lifecycle teams are now part of insurability decisions. The practitioner conclusion is simple: if you cannot evidence control maturity, you will pay for that uncertainty somewhere.
A few things that frame the scale:
- 1.5 out of 10 organisations are highly confident in their ability to secure NHIs, compared to nearly 1 in 4 for securing human identities, according to The State of Non-Human Identity Security.
- Lack of credential rotation is cited as the top cause of NHI-related attacks by 45% of organisations, which is why lifecycle evidence matters as much as policy language.
A question worth separating out:
Q: Who should own cyber insurance readiness across security and identity teams?
A: Ownership should sit across security, IAM, legal, risk, and procurement, because the insurer is evaluating all of them indirectly. Security supplies the technical evidence, IAM supplies identity control maturity, and risk and legal translate that into acceptable terms. No single team can prove insurability on its own.
👉 Read our full editorial: Cyber insurance costs expose identity and control gaps for enterprises
