Attacks/Breaches

1/11/2019
02:15 PM
50%
50%

NotPetya Victim Mondelez Sues Zurich Insurance for $100 Million

Mondelez files lawsuit after Zurich rejects claim for damages from massive ransomware attack.

Mondelez, US food distributor and owner of major brands Ritz and Nabisco, has filed a lawsuit against Zurich Insurance Group after its claim seeking $100 million for NotPetya damage was denied.

NotPetya struck global companies with a massive ransomware attack back in 2017. Instead of encrypting data and demanding money for its return, as most ransomware attacks do, it aimed to wreak havoc by permanently damaging files. A new Financial Times report states 1,700 Mondelez servers and 24,000 laptops were permanently damaged in the global attack.

Mondelez's insurance policy covered "physical loss or damage to electronic data, programs, or software" with "the malicious introduction of a machine code or instruction," ZDNet points out. Zurich rejected the $100 million claim, saying the NotPetya attack was "hostile or warlike action in time of peace or war." This voided the claim; now Mondelez is suing Zurich in response.

The case prompts a question of how "war exclusion" factors into cyberattacks evolving in size and strength. In February 2018, the UK government officially declared Russia's military was responsible for the NotPetya campaign, which was aimed at destabilizing Ukraine and spread around the world.

Read more details here.

Dark Reading's Quick Hits delivers a brief synopsis and summary of the significance of breaking news events. For more information from the original source of the news item, please follow the link provided in this article. View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
MarkSindone
50%
50%
MarkSindone,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/27/2019 | 7:58:34 PM
Do a better job!
Seriously this seems like it's all very scandalous. Honestly speaking, all attacks of a technological nature on data in storage of these companies  are going to be seen as a declaration of "war" in a certain sense isn't it! If the company isn't willing to compensate, they shouldn't be offering such policies to begin with! 
PaulChau
50%
50%
PaulChau,
User Rank: Apprentice
1/26/2019 | 5:11:38 AM
Empty promises
It really isn't surprising how countless insurance companies have by far rejected various claims from their clients. Before getting us to sign a policy from them, they are the ones to sing praises of their coverage. However, upon submitting our claims, they are also the ones to reject every single one of them.
wait 10
REISEN1955
50%
50%
REISEN1955,
User Rank: Ninja
1/18/2019 | 8:23:40 AM
Re: "physical loss or damage to electronic data"
I worked for Aon which was closely associated with Zurich and in 2004 Aon outsourced IT to Computer Sciences Corp.  It was a bad deal and a year later 140 staff and techs were dismissed, replaced by kids whose last job was delivering pizza.  True - saw their resumes and i was part of the 140.  Sometime later I performed a side taskfor Zurich in NJ and, sure enough, there was CSC again ..... so you think Zurich has troubles in IT??????  CSC staff did not even know what a backup was.  Plenty of procedures of course that slowed everything down.  Aon staff hated it and so did Zurich. (I later worked for Continuum Health partners and they outsourced to First Consulting Group which was later bought by .... CSC.  HORRIBLE experience - hospitals with virus, porn, malware rampant on 11,000 systems, no firewalls.  It was a horror).   So you think CSC would give good protection???
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
1/16/2019 | 2:56:38 PM
Re: "physical loss or damage to electronic data"
Thanks, much appreciated!
mcavanaugh1
50%
50%
mcavanaugh1,
User Rank: Strategist
1/16/2019 | 10:39:35 AM
Re: "physical loss or damage to electronic data"
I have had conversations with some of my underwriters at Zurich and a couple others to confirm. I am not sure why they have not confirmed either way in writing except that they truly may not be commenting on open matters. Also, the description of coverages quoted in the article line up with your typical coverage/wording in the GL & Property policies inclusive of a minor extension of the EDP.

If I find more I will share
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
1/16/2019 | 9:31:12 AM
Re: "physical loss or damage to electronic data"
Do you have the source stating that the policy is currently a GL/Property Policy? Looking through the article and the read more link it doesn't seem that this is stated. Would like to read more on the logistics if this is the case.
christcpd@yahoo.com
50%
50%
[email protected],
User Rank: Apprentice
1/15/2019 | 9:12:33 PM
Re: "physical loss or damage to electronic data"
Directly from the article: "Mondelez's insurance policy covered "physical loss or damage to electronic data, programs, or software" with "the malicious introduction of a machine code or instruction,""

So, Mondelez is correct in the claim.  Zurich will lose in court is my prediction.
mcavanaugh1
50%
50%
mcavanaugh1,
User Rank: Strategist
1/15/2019 | 3:06:14 PM
Re: "physical loss or damage to electronic data"
The policy that is currently written through Zurich is a General Liability & Property Policy, not a Cyber Liability policy which is one of the big reasons that this policy is not responding.  A typical cyber liability policy incorporates language to extend coverage in events of Cyber Terrorism (Zurich included).  Mondelez is most likely trying to force a cyber claim under a GL/Property policy to get access to higher limits.  Similar cases are either ongoing or recently settled between Travelers and Chubb regarding the filing of claims under a General Liability and Crime policy respectively.
RyanSepe
50%
50%
RyanSepe,
User Rank: Ninja
1/14/2019 | 2:42:54 PM
"physical loss or damage to electronic data"
Typically, policies that act in the interest of the insurance provider are extremely vague in terms of verbiage. In this way, if an incident is to occur it can be close to impossible to collect. That is why its imperative to ensure the verbiage is concise and acts in the company's who takes out the policys self-interest.

However, it sounds like "physical loss or damage to electronic data" should cover company damage based on this policy's verbiage. If this policy does not deliver, then it begs the question does it even pay to get any cyber policy but minimum coverage to satisfy compliance requirements. 
Crowdsourced vs. Traditional Pen Testing
Alex Haynes, Chief Information Security Officer, CDL,  3/19/2019
BEC Scammer Pleads Guilty
Dark Reading Staff 3/20/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Well, at least it isn't Mobby Dick!
Current Issue
5 Emerging Cyber Threats to Watch for in 2019
Online attackers are constantly developing new, innovative ways to break into the enterprise. This Dark Reading Tech Digest gives an in-depth look at five emerging attack trends and exploits your security team should look out for, along with helpful recommendations on how you can prevent your organization from falling victim.
Flash Poll
The State of Cyber Security Incident Response
The State of Cyber Security Incident Response
Organizations are responding to new threats with new processes for detecting and mitigating them. Here's a look at how the discipline of incident response is evolving.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-9923
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-22
pax_decode_header in sparse.c in GNU Tar before 1.32 had a NULL pointer dereference when parsing certain archives that have malformed extended headers.
CVE-2019-9924
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-22
rbash in Bash before 4.4-beta2 did not prevent the shell user from modifying BASH_CMDS, thus allowing the user to execute any command with the permissions of the shell.
CVE-2019-9925
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-22
S-CMS PHP v1.0 has XSS in 4.edu.php via the S_id parameter.
CVE-2019-9927
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-22
Caret before 2019-02-22 allows Remote Code Execution.
CVE-2019-9936
PUBLISHED: 2019-03-22
In SQLite 3.27.2, running fts5 prefix queries inside a transaction could trigger a heap-based buffer over-read in fts5HashEntrySort in sqlite3.c, which may lead to an information leak. This is related to ext/fts5/fts5_hash.c.