---
title: "Does the Applicant conduct regular vulnerability scans?"
url: https://insuranceposture.com/questions/network-and-logging/applicant-conduct-regular-vulnerability-scans
category: "Network, logging and monitoring"
canonical_key: q_aud_004
evidence_state: partial
updated: 2026-08-24
---

# Does the Applicant conduct regular vulnerability scans?

URL: https://insuranceposture.com/questions/network-and-logging/applicant-conduct-regular-vulnerability-scans
Section: Network, logging and monitoring
Evidence state: Partly verifiable from your tenant

Scanning is the input to patching. Without it, the patch window answer elsewhere on the form has nothing driving it.

## What the carrier is actually asking

The carrier is asking whether you scan for vulnerabilities on a regular basis, across which assets, and what happens to the results. Coverage and cadence matter as much as the existence of a scanner.

## Why it is underwritten

Exploitation of known vulnerabilities remains a leading initial access vector. Scanning is how you know what you have before someone else finds it, and it is the mechanism that makes a critical patch window meaningful.

## Where the answer lives in Microsoft 365, Entra ID, and Azure

Cloud-native vulnerability assessment is measurable. External scanning and on-premises coverage are attested.

| Platform | Where the setting lives | What has to be true |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Azure | Vulnerability assessment solution on virtual machines | Deployed across the machine estate rather than a subset, and reporting |
| Azure | Database vulnerability assessment and its scan reports | Enabled with recurring scans and results routed somewhere |
| Azure | Defender for Cloud recommendations and their ageing | Findings closing rather than accumulating, which is the practical measure of the programme |
| External | External scanning of internet-facing assets | Regular external scanning with dated results. Attested |
| Coverage | Assets not covered by any scanner | Known gaps, since unscanned assets are where findings hide |

**Authenticated scanning sees far more**

Unauthenticated scanning sees what an outsider sees. Authenticated scanning sees installed software versions and missing patches, which is where most of the real findings are. If your programme is unauthenticated, it is measuring a small fraction of your exposure.

## What a defensible yes requires

- Scanning runs on a defined cadence, at least monthly internally and more often externally.
- Coverage includes servers, endpoints, cloud workloads, and internet-facing assets.
- Internal scanning is authenticated.
- Findings feed a remediation process with owners and deadlines.
- Coverage gaps are known and shrinking.

## How this answer goes wrong

A scanner runs weekly against a range that was defined three years ago and no longer includes the cloud estate. Reports are generated and filed, and nothing drives remediation. The organisation answers yes to both this question and the patch window question with no connection between them.

## If this answer turns out to be wrong

Remote access exposure and log retention are what a forensic report describes first, which makes them the answers most often revisited after a loss. Whether anything follows from an inaccuracy depends on materiality, on the policy wording, and on the law of the governing state: [how an application answer ends in a denied claim](https://insuranceposture.com/glossary/claim-denial). The other consequence terms are collected in the [glossary](https://insuranceposture.com/glossary).

## Frequently asked

### How often should we scan?

Internally monthly at minimum, externally weekly or continuously. Cloud estates change constantly, which makes infrequent scanning close to meaningless.

### Do we need a commercial scanner?

Cloud-native assessment covers cloud workloads well. A dedicated product usually adds coverage for on-premises and for authenticated endpoint scanning.

### What about web applications?

They need application-specific scanning, which infrastructure scanners do poorly. If you publish applications, this is a separate line of work.

### What evidence works?

Trend data showing findings opened and closed over time. It demonstrates a programme rather than an activity.

## Related questions

- [How frequently is software updated, vulnerabilities patched, unnecessary services disabled?](https://insuranceposture.com/questions/endpoint-and-patching/frequently-software-updated-vulnerabilities-patched-unnecessary-services-disabled)
- [What is the critical patching target (24h / 72h / 7d / >7d)?](https://insuranceposture.com/questions/endpoint-and-patching/critical-patching-target)
- [Does the Applicant conduct regular penetration testing? In-house or outsourced?](https://insuranceposture.com/questions/network-and-logging/applicant-conduct-regular-penetration-testing-house-outsourced)
- [What percentage of hardware/software connected to network is inventoried?](https://insuranceposture.com/questions/network-and-logging/percentage-hardware-software-connected-network-inventoried)

---

Insurance Posture by SecValley. https://insuranceposture.com
The question library is written in our own wording to reflect the control topics that recur across US cyber application and ransomware supplemental forms. No carrier form is republished.
SecValley is not a law firm, an insurance broker, an agent, or a carrier, and holds no producer licence. Nothing here is insurance advice, legal advice, or a coverage determination, and no attorney-client relationship arises from reading it. Statements about what a party to a cited case did, knew, or intended are allegations drawn from court filings and contemporaneous reporting, not findings of fact.
Your organization's authorized signer remains responsible for the accuracy of any application. Consult a licensed broker and qualified counsel before binding.