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.

Risk

11/7/2019
10:00 AM
Chris Kennedy
Chris Kennedy
Commentary
Connect Directly
LinkedIn
RSS
E-Mail vvv
100%
0%

The Cold Truth about Cyber Insurance

There is no premium that will recover the millions of dollars your company spends on R&D if your intellectual property is hacked and stolen.

Cyber insurance policies are designed to cover the costs of security incidents and breaches such as system forensics, data recovery, and legal and customer reparations costs. Typical incident types that are covered include invoice fraud, cryptolocker recovery, and insider threats. While cyber insurance has its place in a holistic approach to security, its place is misunderstood.

To start, it is imperative that organizations understand their critical digital assets and risks since the planful adoption of a cyber insurance policy is vitally important for managing premium costs and ensuring appropriate coverage. But cyber insurance is a post-fail risk offset and it should never replace a proper security program. When businesses overinvest in cyber insurance and underinvest in security controls, they are showing that they expect to be breached and have their insurers solve the problem, even though they won't. Yes, it is true that the frequency at which data breaches are reported is astounding, and hefty fines under data privacy laws are being issued more frequently. But the better approach for organizations is to pursue a proactive security strategy that is properly balanced with cyber insurance.

Cyber insurance is a relatively new and rapidly growing industry that did not really start catching on until 2005. A recent report by Adroit Market Research claims that the cyber insurance market will exponentially increase from approximately $4 billion in premiums around the globe in 2019 to a value of over $23 billion by 2025. Fueling this prediction is companies' reaction to recently enacted data privacy regulations around the world, such as the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in May 2018.

Organizations legitimately fear the hefty fines and costs of reparations that suffering a breach can cause, such as the penalties levied upon British Airways and Marriott, and look to their insurers for plans that can help offset the costs associated with breach notifications and other recovery expenses. Yet, overreliance on cyber insurance without investing in proper controls shows that an organization is prepared to suffer a data breach and not effectively defend against it. While insurers can offset some costs, they cannot repair a company's reputation after a security incident or regain lost intellectual property (IP). The unfortunate truth is that if a company spends millions on research and development (R&D) and that IP is stolen, there is no premium that can recover the costs of that investment.

The Cloud
Another factor contributing to the popularity of cyber insurance is the rapid adoption of the cloud. But too often, businesses use cyber insurance as a security blanket to cover their cloud migration and configuration mistakes, as opposed to developing a proactive security program that benchmarks and continuously tests the efficacy of its controls.

Organizations must also understand that cyber insurance providers are for-profit businesses that do not want to pay premiums for breaches that could have been avoided with a proper security program. Similar to how the long-term care insurance industry will deny coverage to applicants that fail a health assessment, it would not be surprising if insurers become more restrictive about claims and even deny coverage to companies that lack the proper controls. For example, an insurer may choose to not pay or reduce the amount paid on a premium for a business that suffers an email compromise attack that could have been mitigated by multifactor authentication (MFA).

The FUD Factor
In today's constantly changing data privacy climate, there is no shortage of fear, uncertainty, and doubt surrounding insurers policies and claims classifications. 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.

At the end of the day, cyber insurance cannot and should not be seen as a replacement for a properly developed cybersecurity program. Cyber insurance can help offset post-fail costs, but it will not cover the costs of losing IP and it will give no comfort if a security program is not properly designed. Not only will an effective security strategy help a business obtain cyber insurance in the first place, but choosing to test the efficacy of the controls will help organizations identify flaws before an attacker can find them. This method will also allow companies to improve the return on investment of their cybersecurity budgets by identifying and getting rid of overlapping controls while demonstrating to all stakeholders that they actually take security seriously.

Related Content:

 

Check out The Edge, Dark Reading's new section for features, threat data, and in-depth perspectives. Today's top story: "What a Security Products Blacklist Means for End Users and Integrators."

Chris Kennedy is the chief information and security officer and vice president of customer success at AttackIQ. Kennedy joined AttackIQ from Bridgewater Associates where he was head of security for infrastructure technology and controls engineering. He brings more than 20 ... View Full Bio
Comment  | 
Print  | 
More Insights
Comments
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.
DevSecOps: The Answer to the Cloud Security Skills Gap
Lamont Orange, Chief Information Security Officer at Netskope,  11/15/2019
Attackers' Costs Increasing as Businesses Focus on Security
Robert Lemos, Contributing Writer,  11/15/2019
Register for Dark Reading Newsletters
White Papers
Video
Cartoon Contest
Write a Caption, Win a Starbucks Card! Click Here
Latest Comment: -when I told you that our cyber-defense was from another age
Current Issue
Navigating the Deluge of Security Data
In this Tech Digest, Dark Reading shares the experiences of some top security practitioners as they navigate volumes of security data. We examine some examples of how enterprises can cull this data to find the clues they need.
Flash Poll
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Rethinking Enterprise Data Defense
Frustrated with recurring intrusions and breaches, cybersecurity professionals are questioning some of the industrys conventional wisdom. Heres a look at what theyre thinking about.
Twitter Feed
Dark Reading - Bug Report
Bug Report
Enterprise Vulnerabilities
From DHS/US-CERT's National Vulnerability Database
CVE-2019-10766
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-19
Pixie versions 1.0.x before 1.0.3, and 2.0.x before 2.0.2 allow SQL Injection in the limit() function due to improper sanitization.
CVE-2019-11289
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-19
Cloud Foundry Routing, all versions before 0.193.0, does not properly validate nonce input. A remote unauthorized malicious user could forge a route service request using an invalid nonce that will cause the Gorouter to crash.
CVE-2011-2922
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-19
ktsuss versions 1.4 and prior spawns the GTK interface to run as root. This can allow a local attacker to escalate privileges to root and use the "GTK_MODULES" environment variable to possibly execute arbitrary code.
CVE-2019-18934
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-19
Unbound 1.6.4 through 1.9.4 contain a vulnerability in the ipsec module that can cause shell code execution after receiving a specially crafted answer. This issue can only be triggered if unbound was compiled with `--enable-ipsecmod` support, and ipsecmod is enabled and used in the configuration.
CVE-2012-6070
PUBLISHED: 2019-11-19
Falconpl before 0.9.6.9-git20120606 misuses the libcurl API which may allow remote attackers to interfere with security checks.