--- title: "Are independent security audits or assessments performed?" url: https://insuranceposture.com/questions/network-and-logging/independent-security-audits-assessments-performed category: "Network, logging and monitoring" canonical_key: q_aud_005 evidence_state: attested updated: 2026-08-24 --- # Are independent security audits or assessments performed? URL: https://insuranceposture.com/questions/network-and-logging/independent-security-audits-assessments-performed Section: Network, logging and monitoring Evidence state: Attested, not tenant-verifiable Independence is what the question is buying. An internal review by the team that built the controls answers a different question. ## What the carrier is actually asking The carrier is asking whether an external party assesses your security, whether through a certification audit, a framework assessment, or an independent review. It is asking for validation that does not come from the people responsible for the controls. ## Why it is underwritten Self-assessment is subject to the same blind spots that produced the gaps. Independent assessment finds what the organisation has stopped seeing, and a current certification tells an underwriter that someone examined the controls against a defined standard. It is a strong signal precisely because it is expensive to obtain dishonestly. ## Where the answer lives in Microsoft 365, Entra ID, and Azure Assessment reports and certificates are attested. What they cover is the part worth stating precisely. | Platform | Where the setting lives | What has to be true | | --- | --- | --- | | Certification | Current certificate or attestation report, with scope and date | In force, with a scope that covers the systems relevant to your operations. Attested | | Assessment reports | Framework assessments and their findings | A recent assessment against a recognised framework, with findings tracked | | Remediation | Findings closed since the last assessment | Evidence that assessment produces change rather than a report | | Scope | What the certification actually covers | Scope stated honestly, since certifications frequently cover one product or one location rather than the organisation | | Cadence | When the next assessment is due | A continuing programme rather than a one-off exercise | **Scope is the part that gets misread** A certification covering one product line reads on an application as covering the organisation. Stating the scope plainly avoids a mismatch that would otherwise surface during a claim, and it costs nothing at the time of answering. ## What a defensible yes requires - An independent assessment has occurred within the last year or two. - Its scope is stated accurately. - Findings were tracked to closure. - The programme continues rather than having happened once. - Reports are available if the underwriter asks. ## How this answer goes wrong A certification is named on the application and its scope covers a single hosted product, not the corporate environment where the incident will occur. That is not a false answer and it is an incomplete one, and the gap between the two becomes visible at exactly the wrong time. ## 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 ### Does a certification affect pricing? Often positively, and it varies by market. Type II attestations and information security certifications are recognised by most underwriters. ### Is an internal audit enough? It is better than nothing and does not satisfy the independence the question is asking about. Say which one you have. ### What if we are mid-certification? Say so with the expected date. Carriers view an in-progress programme favourably compared with no programme. ### Which framework matters most? Whichever your customers require. From an underwriting perspective, that an independent party assessed you matters more than which standard was used. ## Related questions - [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) - [Is the InfoSec policy aligned with NIST CSF, ISO 27001, or other framework?](https://insuranceposture.com/questions/governance-and-workforce/infosec-policy-aligned-nist-csf-iso-27001-other-framework) - [Does the Applicant have written information security policy reviewed and updated annually?](https://insuranceposture.com/questions/data-handling/applicant-written-information-security-policy-reviewed-updated-annually) - [Does the Applicant review and audit information security/privacy controls of IT, cloud, and non-IT service providers?](https://insuranceposture.com/questions/third-parties/applicant-review-audit-information-security-privacy-controls-cloud-non) --- 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.