Dark Reading is part of the Informa Tech Division of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them.Informa PLC's registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

Comments
NotPetya Victim Mondelez Sues Zurich Insurance for $100 Million
Threaded  |  Newest First  |  Oldest First
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. 
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.
christcpd@yahoo.com
50%
50%
[email protected],
User Rank: Strategist
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.
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.
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 | 2:56:38 PM
Re: "physical loss or damage to electronic data"
Thanks, much appreciated!
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???
PaulChau
100%
0%
PaulChau,
User Rank: Strategist
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
MarkSindone
100%
0%
MarkSindone,
User Rank: Moderator
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! 


COVID-19: Latest Security News & Commentary
Dark Reading Staff 5/28/2020
Stay-at-Home Orders Coincide With Massive DNS Surge
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  5/27/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: Can you smell me now?
Current Issue
How Cybersecurity Incident Response Programs Work (and Why Some Don't)
This Tech Digest takes a look at the vital role cybersecurity incident response (IR) plays in managing cyber-risk within organizations. Download the Tech Digest today to find out how well-planned IR programs can detect intrusions, contain breaches, and help an organization restore normal operations.
Flash Poll
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-11844
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
There is an Incorrect Authorization vulnerability in Micro Focus Service Management Automation (SMA) product affecting version 2018.05 to 2020.02. The vulnerability could be exploited to provide unauthorized access to the Container Deployment Foundation.
CVE-2020-6937
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
A Denial of Service vulnerability in MuleSoft Mule CE/EE 3.8.x, 3.9.x, and 4.x released before April 7, 2020, could allow remote attackers to submit data which can lead to resource exhaustion.
CVE-2020-7648
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
All versions of snyk-broker before 4.72.2 are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Read. It allows arbitrary file reads for users who have access to Snyk's internal network by appending the URL with a fragment identifier and a whitelisted path e.g. `#package.json`
CVE-2020-7650
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
All versions of snyk-broker after 4.72.0 including and before 4.73.1 are vulnerable to Arbitrary File Read. It allows arbitrary file reads to users with access to Snyk's internal network of any files ending in the following extensions: yaml, yml or json.
CVE-2020-7654
PUBLISHED: 2020-05-29
All versions of snyk-broker before 4.73.1 are vulnerable to Information Exposure. It logs private keys if logging level is set to DEBUG.