Our Approach
How we make technology risk
measurable.
We continuously collect technical signals from across an organization's environment, correlate them against threat intelligence, and deliver structured underwriting reports that reflect actual posture - not self-reported answers to checkbox questions.
Our Underwriting Approach
Beyond the questionnaire.
Into the infrastructure.
Rather than asking whether a client has antivirus software, Barbon answers the questions that actually determine underwriting outcomes. How likely is this organization to experience a cyber incident over the next twelve months? Is their posture improving or deteriorating? Should premiums be adjusted?
Risk Intelligence Pipeline
- 01
Signal Collection
Continuous data ingestion from cloud, identity, email, endpoint, and threat intelligence sources
- 02
Environment Analysis
Full mapping of the insured's technology footprint - on-premise, cloud, and SaaS environments
- 03
Threat Correlation
Active threats correlated against the specific organization's exposed attack surface and technology stack
- 04
Posture Scoring
Proprietary risk model converts technical findings into an explainable Cyber Risk Score (0–100)
- 05
Vendor Assurance
Independent validation that existing security vendors are reducing risk - not just deployed on paper
- 06
Underwriting Report
Structured intelligence report delivered in the language of underwriting - with recommended actions
- 07
Continuous Monitoring
Ongoing surveillance flags posture changes, new threats, and material risk shifts throughout the policy term
Why Barbon
Built for the next decade
of technology risk.
Technology risk has outgrown traditional underwriting models. Cyber threats change every hour. AI systems evolve continuously. Barbon exists to close the gap between what technology actually does and what insurers can see.
Annual questionnaire completed at renewal. Posture changes throughout the year go undetected until the next cycle.
Continuous monitoring across the entire policy lifecycle. Material risk changes flagged in real time - not twelve months later.
Self-reported answers from insured organizations. No independent verification of the accuracy or completeness of responses.
Independent technical assessment of the actual environment. Validated against live infrastructure - not self-attestation.
Qualitative risk categories based on questionnaire scoring. Limited ability to quantify or compare risk across the portfolio.
Proprietary Cyber Risk Score (0–100) built from hundreds of technical signals. Quantified, explainable, and comparable.
No established framework for assessing autonomous AI systems. AI risk excluded or approximated using cyber questions.
Purpose-built AI Risk Assurance framework. Independent evaluation of AI agents before deployment and continuous monitoring once live.
Security vendors listed on questionnaires taken at face value. No verification of effective implementation or actual risk reduction.
Independent validation of every major security vendor - confirming effective deployment, correct configuration, and genuine risk reduction.
Underwriting decisions made on incomplete, unverified, and potentially outdated information about the insured's true posture.
Underwriting decisions supported by continuous, independently verified technical intelligence - reducing adverse selection and surprise losses.
Get Started
Ready to underwrite technology
risk with confidence?
Talk to our team. We'll walk you through our risk intelligence platform, discuss how continuous assessment differs from traditional approaches, and help you determine the right programme for your underwriting operation.
We respond to all briefing requests within one business day.