For many companies, cybersecurity policies exist in name only—buried in a shared drive, drafted years ago, and forgotten. But regulators, insurers, and legal teams now treat written policies as evidence of an organization’s intent, preparation, and governance. In short, you can no longer operate in confidence without a written security policy.

What Regulators Expect to See
A written policy doesn’t guarantee security, but it establishes expectations—and creates accountability. When businesses lack formal documentation, investigators often assume the controls don’t exist. During audits or after a breach, regulators typically request copies of core documents like an information security policy, acceptable use policy, data retention schedule, vendor risk protocol, and an incident response plan. Without them, businesses may be considered out of compliance even if protective measures are in place.

Policy Gaps Lead to Broader Risk
The most common issue is not the absence of security itself, but the inability to prove it. Many organizations have good technical defenses, but fail to document how decisions are made, how risks are evaluated, and how staff are expected to respond. These gaps weaken positions during legal reviews, complicate insurance claims, and increase the likelihood of regulatory penalties.

Good Policy Is Practical, Not Aspirational
Effective policies are realistic, concise, and enforced. They reflect how the business actually operates—not an idealized version of it. This includes identifying who is responsible for updates, setting review timelines, training staff on the contents, and aligning language with existing procedures and controls. A strong security posture isn’t just built on tools—it’s supported by policies that can be shown, explained, and defended.

Schedule Your Free Consultation Today
Want help evaluating your existing security policies? Schedule a free consultation with our Compliance+ team.

Carriers are no longer just asking about firewalls and backups. Today, they want proof of policies, enforcement, and governance– what’s more, cyber insurers now factor compliance into coverage decisions. Poor documentation can lead to higher premiums or denied claims.

The Shift from Technical Controls to Compliance Readiness
A few years ago, cyber insurance applications focused mostly on technical safeguards—do you have endpoint protection, MFA, offsite backups? Those questions still matter. But increasingly, insurers want to know how well you manage compliance.

Underwriters now review whether your business conducts risk assessments, trains employees, documents vendor relationships, and follows written policies. A strong cybersecurity program without formal compliance to back it up is often no longer enough.

Premiums, Coverage, and Denials Are Tied to Documentation
Insurers are tightening requirements and using compliance posture to set premiums, define coverage limits, or deny claims. Businesses with incomplete documentation or poor governance are seeing higher premiums, reduced payouts after an incident, claims denied for missing controls, and in some cases, mandatory remediation steps before a policy can be issued or renewed.

Insurers are trying to limit losses—and a company’s ability to demonstrate a managed risk environment is now seen as a critical factor.

Where Businesses Fall Short
Many organizations—especially mid-sized and smaller firms—lack the documentation to support what they say on insurance applications. Common weak spots include the absence of written incident response plans, vendor risk oversight, employee training records, and audit trails for user access or system changes. These are precisely the areas that come under scrutiny after a breach. If the policyholder can’t show what was in place and when, coverage disputes follow.

Compliance as an Insurance Strategy
The message from insurers is clear: compliance isn’t optional, and it’s not just a regulatory issue. It’s a business requirement tied to financial protection.

Treating compliance as part of your cyber risk strategy—not an afterthought—can improve insurability, reduce premiums, and strengthen your position in the event of a claim.

Schedule Your Free Consultation Today
Need to understand how your compliance posture affects insurance? Schedule a free consultation with our Compliance+ team to identify gaps and reduce risk.

Regulators are increasingly focused not just on what data companies collect—but how long they keep it.

Data Hoarding Carries Risk
Many organizations default to keeping everything: emails, customer records, internal files, and application logs. But retaining unnecessary or outdated data creates liability. It expands the scope of compliance obligations, increases the potential impact of a breach, and complicates legal discovery.

As cybersecurity threats evolve and regulations tighten, regulators are scrutinizing whether businesses have clear, defensible data retention policies in place—and whether they’re actually following them.

Growing Pressure Across Regulated Industries
Healthcare, finance, education, and legal services all face heightened expectations to enforce structured retention periods. HIPAA, GLBA, and state-level privacy laws increasingly require companies to dispose of personal information once it is no longer needed for the purpose it was collected.

Auditors and regulators are asking not just “What data do you have?” but “Why do you still have it?”

Elements of a Modern Data Retention Policy
An effective retention policy balances compliance, legal, and business needs. Core components typically include:

• Defined retention periods for each category of data

• Secure deletion protocols with audit trails

• Clear roles and responsibilities for enforcement

• Documentation of exceptions and review processes

These policies are not set-it-and-forget-it. They must evolve with changing laws, business operations, and technology platforms. Failure to maintain current policies—let alone follow them—can increase exposure during audits, investigations, or litigation.

A Compliance Priority, Not Just a Technical Task
Retention planning is often treated as an IT issue, but regulators view it as a compliance and governance obligation. The consequences of over-retention can be significant: higher discovery costs in legal disputes, larger breach notification lists, and more regulatory scrutiny.

Even small businesses are now expected to show that they are limiting data exposure through active retention management—not just good intentions.

Schedule Your Free Consultation Today
Want to make sure your retention policy stands up to regulatory expectations? Schedule a free consultation with our Compliance+ team.

In today’s regulatory environment, your business is only as secure as the vendors you trust.

Regulatory Pressure Is Increasing—And So Are Third-Party Expectations
For many companies, compliance used to be an internal concern. But that’s no longer the case. Regulators now expect businesses to evaluate the cybersecurity posture, privacy practices, and operational resilience of every third-party vendor they work with—especially those with access to sensitive data or business-critical systems.

Whether it’s a cloud provider, software vendor, payment processor, or outsourced IT support team, the risks are real. According to the Ponemon Institute, 51% of data breaches in the last year involved a third party.

Federal and state regulations—from HIPAA and GLBA to the FTC Safeguards Rule—have updated requirements that make vendor risk management a formal part of compliance. It’s not enough to have a signed contract or a SOC 2 report on file. Companies must demonstrate they’ve done due diligence, implemented appropriate controls, and continue to monitor third-party performance over time.

Key Elements of a Vendor Risk Management Program
A mature vendor risk management (VRM) program includes several core components:

• Initial Risk Assessments: Evaluating each vendor’s access, data handling practices, and security controls.

• Contractual Protections: Ensuring contracts contain security obligations, breach notification timelines, and audit rights.

• Ongoing Monitoring: Reviewing vendors annually, tracking compliance, and documenting any incidents.

• Offboarding Procedures: Ensuring secure data return or destruction when a relationship ends.

Too often, businesses rely on outdated spreadsheets or informal processes that can’t scale—or survive an audit. And without a clear framework, even well-meaning companies can miss warning signs that a vendor poses a growing risk.

Compliance+ Helps You Build a Defensible Program
At Cost+, our Compliance+ service is designed to help you implement and maintain a vendor risk management program that meets regulatory expectations and reduces business exposure.

We assist with vendor classification, policy creation, risk assessments, and documentation—ensuring your program aligns with today’s compliance standards.

For companies without internal compliance teams, or those needing to modernize outdated processes, we provide the tools and expertise to close the gap and protect your business from third-party fallout.

Schedule Your Free Consultation Today
Learn how Cost+ can help you build a stronger vendor risk program—book your free consultation with our Compliance+ team today.

A structured look at how to align IT recovery planning with compliance standards in healthcare, legal, financial, and other regulated industries.

Regulators expect more than backups

Many organizations assume that having a backup system is enough to satisfy compliance requirements. But most regulatory frameworks—including HIPAA, SOX, and GLBA—expect documented recovery strategies that account for more than just data preservation.

What regulators want to see is evidence that your organization can restore systems, continue operations, and minimize disruption. That means showing not only that you have backups, but that they’re tested, time-bound, and tied to business functions.

Key components of a compliant recovery plan

A recovery plan that satisfies regulatory scrutiny typically includes:

• Defined recovery time objectives (RTO) and recovery point objectives (RPO) for each major system

• A clear inventory of systems, data classifications, and dependencies

• Assigned roles and responsibilities for recovery procedures and decision-making

• Backup and restore testing schedules with documentation of successful outcomes

• Plans for communication, both internally and externally, during extended outages

• Procedures for reviewing and updating the plan on a regular basis

These elements show regulators that the plan is not theoretical. It’s operational, maintained, and connected to business impact.

Avoiding common pitfalls

Many plans fail under scrutiny because they exist only as documents—not as active strategies. Some are written once and never updated. Others omit testing or rely on assumptions that don’t reflect current systems or staffing.

A common issue is mismatched expectations. For example, a system might be labeled “critical,” but the backup cadence or RTO doesn’t reflect that designation. In a review, that inconsistency raises questions about how decisions were made—and whether recovery is truly viable.

Overreliance on cloud platforms is another concern. While cloud services often include built-in redundancy, they don’t eliminate the need for your organization to define recovery roles, test accessibility, or document processes. Compliance responsibility isn’t outsourced.

Make recovery planning part of operational discipline

Recovery planning isn’t just a compliance exercise—it’s a resilience strategy. Organizations that treat recovery as an operational discipline are better prepared for both audits and real-world disruption.

That preparation includes maintaining current documentation, testing procedures regularly, and integrating recovery considerations into IT purchasing and infrastructure decisions. When a disruption occurs, or when a regulator asks for evidence, the readiness is already built in.