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
The Cold Truth about Cyber Insurance
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View
DouglasF354
50%
50%
DouglasF354,
User Rank: Author
11/12/2019 | 4:20:31 PM
The fuzzy line between security and insurance
Numerous strong points. In particular, the balance between 'applying security controls' and 'insurance for impact costs'. The key questions that come to my mind are:
  1. How do we draw the (fuzzy) line between 'we want to spend on security to control some breach impact' and 'we want to spend on insurance to cover the rest of breach impact'?
  2. How do we robustly demonstrate the above to insurers so we can negotiate better premiums and increase the likelihood of greater pay-out in the case of breach impact?

No easy answers, but an intriguing.
JeffreyS042
50%
50%
JeffreyS042,
User Rank: Apprentice
11/11/2019 | 5:24:39 PM
Reliance on Cyber Insurance
Some great stuff here......also some problematic comments.  Lots of similarities in the information security and cyber insurance worlds.  Most namely, early product versions of both weren't very good.  It is not the intent of cyber insurance to cover IP risk which is best covered by other insurance, namely Intellectual Property insurance This coverage is available and can cover both defense and enforcement expenses 

Anyone relying 100% upon cyber insurance for security is foolish.  

Unfortunately, we are seeing more infosec professionals mistakenly use misleading and inaccurate examples of claim denials such as Sony, Mondelez, Bank of Blacksburg etcetera which did not involve stand-alone cyber policies. Other citings involve very early versions of cyber policies.

Best practice is to consider cyber insurance as the last piece of the cyber risk management puzzle.  Use a broker with expertise, get multiple quotes and make sure to review the policy including conditions and exclusions.  If you want to use your own IR folks, try to negotiate that into the deal. 

Auto insurance is not a cure for reckless driving. The same is true for cyber insurance.
mcavanaugh1
50%
50%
mcavanaugh1,
User Rank: Strategist
11/8/2019 | 10:51:37 AM
Cyber Insurance far from perfect but getting better
"One of the most famous examples of this involved Sony cyber insurer (Zurich American Insurance Co.)'s refusal to compensate the multinational conglomerate for an estimated $2 billion in losses from a 2011 data breach of 77 million users' personally identifiable information. Even after Sony brought Zurich to court, Zurich let Sony know that its policy did not cover any third-party hacking incidents."

The first sentence of the Sony v Zurich article referenced states that the argument was over a Commercial General Liability (CGL) policy, not a Cyber policy.

The Cyber Liability industry is far from perfect but the quality of coverage, case law, and services being provided is consistently getting better. Cybersecurity is a risk that can only be managed not solved with insurance being one portion of a full risk management program.  There are many insurance companies that are trying to add value through the risk management services being provided to policyholders including tabletops, sample incident response plans, and general coaching provided by security firms.  An increasing number of Insurtech companies are creating policies with a package of proactive risk management, scanning, and notifications to insureds to help smaller companies become better risks.  One or two will even give the insured a reduced deductible if it is found that they have implemented Multifactor Authentication.

Just like a company would use quality 3rd party vendors for other business processes, it is important for firms to work with educated agents/brokers to understand their cyber liability insurance policy & requirements to ensure that coverage would apply as expected in the event of a loss.


Mobile Banking Malware Up 50% in First Half of 2019
Kelly Sheridan, Staff Editor, Dark Reading,  1/17/2020
Active Directory Needs an Update: Here's Why
Raz Rafaeli, CEO and Co-Founder at Secret Double Octopus,  1/16/2020
New Attack Campaigns Suggest Emotet Threat Is Far From Over
Jai Vijayan, Contributing Writer,  1/16/2020
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Current Issue
The Year in Security: 2019
This Tech Digest provides a wrap up and overview of the year's top cybersecurity news stories. It was a year of new twists on old threats, with fears of another WannaCry-type worm and of a possible botnet army of Wi-Fi routers. But 2019 also underscored the risk of firmware and trusted security tools harboring dangerous holes that cybercriminals and nation-state hackers could readily abuse. Read more.
Flash Poll
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
How Enterprises are Attacking the Cybersecurity Problem
Organizations have invested in a sweeping array of security technologies to address challenges associated with the growing number of cybersecurity attacks. However, the complexity involved in managing these technologies is emerging as a major problem. Read this report to find out what your peers biggest security challenges are and the technologies they are using to address them.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2020-5216
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
In Secure Headers (RubyGem secure_headers), a directive injection vulnerability is present in versions before 3.9.0, 5.2.0, and 6.3.0. If user-supplied input was passed into append/override_content_security_policy_directives, a newline could be injected leading to limited header injection. Upon seei...
CVE-2020-5217
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
In Secure Headers (RubyGem secure_headers), a directive injection vulnerability is present in versions before 3.8.0, 5.1.0, and 6.2.0. If user-supplied input was passed into append/override_content_security_policy_directives, a semicolon could be injected leading to directive injection. This could b...
CVE-2020-5223
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
In PrivateBin versions 1.2.0 before 1.2.2, and 1.3.0 before 1.3.2, a persistent XSS attack is possible. Under certain conditions, a user provided attachment file name can inject HTML leading to a persistent Cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability. The vulnerability has been fixed in PrivateBin v1.3...
CVE-2019-20399
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-23
A timing vulnerability in the Scalar::check_overflow function in Parity libsecp256k1-rs before 0.3.1 potentially allows an attacker to leak information via a side-channel attack.
CVE-2020-7915
PUBLISHED: 2020-01-22
An issue was discovered on Eaton 5P 850 devices. The Ubicacion SAI field allows XSS attacks by an administrator.