Risk

8/3/2016
10:35 PM
Connect Directly
Twitter
RSS
E-Mail
50%
50%

Do Security Companies Need to Issue Warranties?

Jeremiah Grossman outlines how IT security firms are starting to offer guarantees with the backing of insurance companies.

BLACK HAT USA – Las Vegas – On a day when keynote speaker Dan Kaminsky told the security industry that it must do better, industry veteran Jeremiah Grossman offered a path to some meaningful change.

In a one-hour session on cyber  insurance, Grossman underscored why with all the high-profile hacks there’s good reason for companies to feel vulnerable today and that security companies need to start thinking about offering guarantees.

Citing a Dark Reading survey, Grossman said that 15 percent of security managers have no doubt that their company will have to respond to a major security incident in the next 12 months.

“Our industry must change,” said Grossman, who now works as chief of security strategy at SentinalOne. “Not many people believe us anymore, so the best way for us to move forward is to share our knowledge. Think about it, the security industry is one of the only businesses that doesn’t offer any guarantees or returns policies.” 

Grossman talked about recently-introduced guarantees at SentinalOne, WhiteHat Security and Trusona. At SentinalOne, for example, the company now insures up to $1,000 per endpoint with a maximum cap of $1 million if a customer experiences a ransomware attack. The insurance costs about $15,000 to $30,000 a year and is tied into a company’s general liability insurance.

Parallax reported that one-third of U.S. companies buy cyber insurance, a market that PwC estimated will grow to $7.5 billion by 2020. 

Grossman crunched some numbers and found that companies spend $3.8 billion annually on traditional security equipment like AV, firewalls and intrusion detection, but they also spend $3.2 billion on cyber insurance. 

“So a lot of the companies out there just opt to spend money on insurance when they get hit with an incident,” he said. But the numbers from some of the leading incidents also show that companies are not buying enough cyber insuranace.  The Target breach cost the retailer $248 million, but the insurance company only paid out $90 million. And Home Depot lost $43 million on its breach, with a payout of about $15 million.

“So what this tells us is that big companies are buying insurance, breaches happen and the insurance companies pay,” he added. 

And companies finally understand that they need more insurance.

Anthem, which experienced a major breach in February 2015, now has a policy in excess of $150 million, Grossman said. And companies are now stacking insurance policies. For example, one carrier may cover up to the first $50 million, while another company may cover the next $100 million. 

Grossman predicted that the cyber insurance market will explode in the next few years. Companies will need to work with brokers who can piece together coverage from different sources. He also said there’s a market forming for security ratings services that use analytics to issue a rating similar to a FICO score for home buyers. 

Related Content:

 

 

 

Steve Zurier has more than 30 years of journalism and publishing experience, most of the last 24 of which were spent covering networking and security technology. Steve is based in Columbia, Md. View Full Bio

Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
JulietteRizkallah
100%
0%
JulietteRizkallah,
User Rank: Ninja
8/5/2016 | 10:07:59 AM
Be Secured but be insured
The cyber security insurance industry is now well established and growing fast due to the ever increasing breaches.  Now SentinelOne makes a first mover bet by being the first security company to guarantee its cybersecuriy solution with a warranty.  Bold and smart.  Competitors will watch before they decide to follow as this can become a lucrative revenue stream for the company - reselling cybersecurity insurance as warranty - or a demonstration that their solutions are less than bullet proof if a large number of customers activate that warranty.  In any case it is a clear claim from security companies that security, not matter which one you chose, is not bullet proof and breaches will happen.  It is not a matter of if but when.
Whoopty
50%
50%
Whoopty,
User Rank: Ninja
8/4/2016 | 7:54:33 AM
Protection
This is a great idea, as it means there are safeguards in place for companies that hire on dodgy security companies. It should make weeding out the poor security companies from the strong ones too and will mean it's more lucrative to be effective at your job, which is a great way to encourage people to work harder. 
6 Ways Greed Has a Negative Effect on Cybersecurity
Joshua Goldfarb, Co-founder & Chief Product Officer, IDRRA ,  6/11/2018
Weaponizing IPv6 to Bypass IPv4 Security
John Anderson, Principal Security Consultant, Trustwave Spiderlabs,  6/12/2018
'Shift Left' & the Connected Car
Rohit Sethi, COO of Security Compass,  6/12/2018
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon
Current Issue
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2018-12026
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-17
During the spawning of a malicious Passenger-managed application, SpawningKit in Phusion Passenger 5.3.x before 5.3.2 allows such applications to replace key files or directories in the spawning communication directory with symlinks. This then could result in arbitrary reads and writes, which in tur...
CVE-2018-12027
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-17
An Insecure Permissions vulnerability in SpawningKit in Phusion Passenger 5.3.x before 5.3.2 causes information disclosure in the following situation: given a Passenger-spawned application process that reports that it listens on a certain Unix domain socket, if any of the parent directories of said ...
CVE-2018-12028
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-17
An Incorrect Access Control vulnerability in SpawningKit in Phusion Passenger 5.3.x before 5.3.2 allows a Passenger-managed malicious application, upon spawning a child process, to report an arbitrary different PID back to Passenger's process manager. If the malicious application then generates an e...
CVE-2018-12029
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-17
A race condition in the nginx module in Phusion Passenger 3.x through 5.x before 5.3.2 allows local escalation of privileges when a non-standard passenger_instance_registry_dir with insufficiently strict permissions is configured. Replacing a file with a symlink after the file was created, but befor...
CVE-2018-12071
PUBLISHED: 2018-06-17
A Session Fixation issue exists in CodeIgniter before 3.1.9 because session.use_strict_mode in the Session Library was mishandled.