There's an uncomfortable conversation happening across the industry. Independent agents are spending real time helping clients understand cyber liability exposure – walking them through what underwriters want to see, what gaps create problems at renewal, and what a breach actually costs. And many of those same agents are running their own operations on shared passwords, informal access arrangements, and a working assumption that nothing bad will happen to them.
That assumption is getting harder to justify. Cyber underwriters are applying the same scrutiny to agencies that agencies apply to their clients. The questions at renewal are getting more specific. And agents who can't demonstrate basic credential discipline may find themselves in an awkward position, struggling to answer questions they've been asking their clients for years.
The access problem nobody sits down to create
Credential sprawl doesn't happen because anyone made a bad decision. It happens because agencies grow.
A new carrier portal gets added. A staff member needs access to a client management system, so someone shares their login to get things moving. Another person leaves, but their credentials aren't fully revoked. They just stop being used, as far as anyone knows. Over time, no single person has a complete picture of who can reach what.
This is the normal pattern in small agencies, and the problem isn't negligence; it's the absence of governance. When the priority is always the client in front of you, internal operations fill in around the edges however they can. Spreadsheets become the credential store. Memory becomes the access policy.
That works until it doesn't.
The bar has moved – and MFA alone won't clear it
A few years ago, having multi-factor authentication (MFA) in place was enough to satisfy most cyber underwriters. That's no longer true.
MFA is now a baseline requirement. What underwriters are looking for beyond that is privileged access controls, documented audit trails, zero-trust principles, and evidence that offboarding is immediate and verifiable when someone leaves. The reason for this tighter scrutiny is that social engineering and credential compromise now account for the majority of breach incidents. Underwriters have adjusted their models accordingly.
The harder issue is proof. Saying the right things on an application isn't the same as being able to demonstrate that controls are in place and actively used. Cyber underwriters increasingly want to see evidence of continuing compliance. A clean snapshot taken at the moment of the audit won't meet the bar.
The risk isn't only higher premiums. An agency that suffers a breach and can't demonstrate it was operating as it claimed may find its coverage denied. That's a different kind of problem entirely.
What a practical audit actually looks like
Agencies don't need a dedicated IT team to close the most important gaps. They need a clear-eyed look at what they actually have.
Start by mapping access: every carrier portal, every client management system, every shared tool, and who currently holds credentials for each. Most agencies find this exercise surfaces access that should have been revoked months ago.
From there, apply a simple principle: access should match role and need. Not everyone requires access to everything, and treating it as though they do creates exposure for no good reason. This is what's meant by least-privilege access, and it's one of the controls underwriters are now specifically looking for.
Build an offboarding checklist and use it without exception. When someone leaves, credential revocation should be immediate and documented. The audit trail matters.
Finally, move credential storage out of spreadsheets and shared documents and into a structured system that logs activity. Who accessed what, when, and what changed. That record is what turns good intentions into demonstrable practice.
The credibility case
The agencies that get this right aren't just better protected. They're better positioned.
When a client asks hard questions about cyber risk, the advisor who manages their own exposure rigorously is speaking from experience, not theory. That's a different kind of credibility, and clients can tell the difference.
The underwriting environment will keep tightening. The agencies that build these habits now – before the renewal conversation forces the issue – will find they've solved two problems at once: their own security posture, and their standing as a trusted voice on everyone else's.
The requirement to demonstrate what you preach isn't new to this industry. It's just arrived in cyber.
