Ci2 cyber insurance presentation

5/19/2018 Institute of World Politics © Proprietary 2017
Santa Clara University May 3, 2018
Cyber Intelligence initiative
(Ci2)
Ethan S. Burger
Institute of World Politics,
Washington, D.C.

Institute of World Politics © Proprietary 2017
Can We Avert A Cyber-Insurance Market Crisis?
May 3, 2018

. . . . PROBABLY NOT
 The “immature” cyber insurance market fails to supply products that a majority of private organizations deem
to be worth buying. This situation is unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
 Even those organizations that procure cyber-insurance are likely to ‘discover’ that their policies provide
insufficient (e.g., face-values are too low) or inadequate cover (e.g., too many exclusions and reasons for
denying claims), forcing these ‘insureds’ to absorb the costs of cyber-attacks on their own.
 Many cyber insurance providers and their reinsurers seem to lack sufficient financial assets to cover multiple
extreme cyber events, the consequences of which will be felt throughout the insurance industry and the
national economy.
.˙. As a result, extreme harm from cyber-attack campaigns against the national infrastructure and particular
sectors (e.g., financial, energy), locales (e.g., city clusters), relationships (e.g., users of one cloud provider) will
have a cascading effect likely to damage supply chains and consumer confidence, ultimately
the magnitude of harm will create crises triggering governmental intervention.

Although Officially Agnostic,
the Department of Homeland
Seems To Promote Cyber-Insurance
Cybersecurity insurance is designed to mitigate losses from a variety of cyber incidents, including
data breaches, business interruption, and network damage. A robust cyber-insurance market
could reduce the number of successful cyber attacks by:
(i) promoting the adoption of preventative measures (good cyberhygiene in return for
more coverage; and
(ii) encouraging the implementation of best practices by basing premiums on an insured’s
level of self-protection.

Can Organizations Achieve Meaningful Cybersecurity’?
What metrics to use? Individual organizations? Systemic approach? Cyber Maginot Line?

Threat Maps Highlight the Constancy of Cyber Attacks
http://map.norsecorp.com/#
https://cybermap.kaspersky.com
https://community.blueliv.com/map
http://en.blitzortung.org/live_lightning_maps.php
https://www.fireeye.com/cuber-map.html
http://www.csoonline.com/article/2366962/microsoft-subnet/spellbound-by-
maps-tracking-hack-attacks-and-cyber-threats-in-real-time.html

One Cannot Control Collateral Damage (Systemic Risk) Due to Cyber Attacks
The Government seeks to protect '.gov' and '.mil' addresses, not 'com.’ (i.e. the rest
of us).
Former FBI Special Agent Clint Watts paraphrasing former National Security Advisor Tom Bossert; note that White House
Cybersecurity Coordinator Robert Joyce also “stepped down last month.
What are the implications for proponents of the Active Cyber Defense
Certainty Act?

Blackhat USA 2017 Survey:
Portrait of an Imminent Cyberthreat
 60% of respondents believe that a successful cyber attack on US critical infrastructure will occur in the
next 24 months.
 69% are very concerned about state-sponsored hacking from countries such as China, Iran, North Korea,
and Russia.
 31% think it is likely that their organization will have to respond to a major security breach in the next 12
months.
 59% fear they don’t have enough staff to meet the threat.
 58% believe they don’t have adequate budgets.
N = 580 Information Security Professionals

Are Cybersecurity Efforts Ultimately Futile?
Exhibit 1: Not Necessarily: Consider the [Not]Petya Wiper Attack:
“
“Cyberattack Hits Ukraine Then Spreads Internationally,” New York Times, June 27, 2017.

The Recent Wanna Cry & [Not]Petya Cyber-Attacks
 These viruses were propagated without human intervention, but they are not regarded as
very sophisticated. Estimated to have caused harm in the low billions of dollars, almost all
of which will not be covered by insurance.
 Whereas Wanna Cry ransomware was designed for financial gain, NotPetya seems to have
been politically driven (attributed by UK and US to Russia( – seeking to maximize harm.
Initial attacks against Ukrainian state bodies, it spread to DLA Piper (a U.S. firm), FedEx
(U.S. delivery service company), MAERSK (Danish-based shipping company), Merck (U.S,
pharmaceutical company), Rosneft (Russian oil company), and many others.
 Good cyber-hygiene practices could have prevented infection. Only a minority of the
victims carried stand-alone cyber insurance. But the common exclusions for failing to
install patches, nation-state attackers, or otherwise failing to follow good cybersecurity
practices are likely to prevent recoveries from insurers.

I
People Will Always be Susceptible to Social Engineering
The Insider Threat Cannot be Controlled Through Vetting & Monitoring
“Hacks Raise Fear Over N.S.A.’s Hold on Cyberweapons,” New York Times, June 27, 2017.

I
Social Engineering Will Defeat the Best Cybersecurity Systems
http://www.cnn.com/2017/07/31/politics/white-house-officials-tricked-by-email-prankster/index.html

Full Disclosure:
My Views Have Been Strongly Influenced by:
Lloyd’s/Cyence, Counting the cost: Cyber exposure decoded,” Emerging Risks Report 2017 Technology, July 2017 (the Lloyd’s
Study);
Martin Ering & Jan Hendrick Wirfs, Cyber Insurance: Too Big to Insure, Institute of Insurance Economics, University St. Gallen,
2016, (the ‘IIE Study’); and
Sasha Romanosky, et al., Content Analysis of Cyber Insurance Policies: How do carriers write policies and price cyber risk, Rand
White Paper (Draft), 2017 (the ‘Rand Study’).

Lloyd’s Study on Insurance Industry’s Cyber Risk
 Lloyd’s of London issued a study suggesting that a global cyber-attack could
cause harm greater than $53 billion (on average), and possibly as high as $121
billion.
 The larger of these sums exceeds the damage caused by any natural disaster in
the U.S. since 1980 – excluding Harvey ($125 Billion), Katrina ($105 billion),
Maria ($90 Billion), California Fires, and Sandy ($70 billion).
 According to Munich Re, in 2017, total insured losses from natural disasters
$135 Billion with total losses of $330 Billion (the highest ever was $354 Billion
in 2011).

IIE Study’s Key Findings
‘Cyber risks of daily life’ are usually insurable (e.g. data privacy risks). Nonetheless, organizations generally under-insure
in cybersecurity. ‘Questionnaire only’ applications are unlikely to result in suitable cyber-insurance policies. Both
organizations and the public benefit if the organizations go through the underwriting process. Completing an insurance
application is an educational exercise, forcing one to think about cybersecurity, develop written cybersecurity policies,
practices, and procedures), discuss cyber issues, inventory assets, preparing plans, etc. Sometimes insureds are afraid of
the consequences of making an insurance claim.
‘Extreme Scenarios’ (e.g., a breakdown of the critical infrastructure) are difficult to insure, given the lack of good
actuarial data, cumulative risk, and other problems of insurability. These scenarios are extremely likely to materialize in
the next ten years.
Hence, a two-tier approach might be appropriate:
(i) improve insurability for ‘cyber risks of daily life’’ and engage in industry-wide cooperation; and
(ii) address ‘extreme scenarios’ to the extent possible (e.g. look towards government programs and sector
initiatives).

CYBER INSURANCE MARKET WATCH SURVEY (May 2017)
Market Trends
32% of respondents’ clients purchased at least some form of cyber coverage.
27% of respondents’ clients purchased cyber insurance for the first time in the past six months.
44% of respondents’ clients increased their coverage in the past six months.
76% of those with cyber insurance have standalone policies.
Pricing Trends
$6 MILLION IS THE TYPICAL INSURANCE POLICY LIMIT, BUT POLICIES FOR $300-500 MILLION ARE AVAILABLE. ! ! !
31% of respondents said premium prices generally decreased over the last six months (SURPRISING Outcome).
Underwriting
42% of respondents have seen some tightening of carrier underwriting practices in the last six months.
75% of respondents believe there is adequate clarity as to what is included and excluded under a cyber policy (SURPRISING VIEW ! ! !).
98% of respondents noted that capacity in the market is either plentiful or increasing.
Cybersecurity/Cyber Risk
72% of respondents have a strategic approach to marketing and educating clients about cyber risks.
31% of respondents’ clients have an information security program in place, focused on prevention, detection, containment, and response.

Principal Properties of Cyber Risks
 Cyber-losses results in both short-tail and long-tail losses.
 There are 1st and 3rd Party (i.e., property and liability) losses.
 4Pas
 Cyber losses are not independent events (correlations between cyber risk).
 Cyber insurance market has a small number of providers (≈ 60) and as a percentage of
portfolio value .
 Human beings are the weakest link (victims of social engineering & negligence)
 Uncertainty about data (modeling approaches untested actuarial standards).
 Risk of change (historical data is not necessarily a good indicator of the future).
 Extreme events are difficult to estimate (low frequency, high severity occurrence).
 Insurance coverage limited (high deductibles are common).

Cyber-Insurance Market Place Reality Report for 2018
(Willis Towers Watson, December 2017)
1. “Total annual premiums collected will climb as more companies seek coverage.”
2. It is not clear that “capacity will keep up with rising demand, helping keep rates in check” in
light of NY Cybersecurity Requirements for Financial Services Companies & EU General Data
Protection Regulations (GDPA) – both will serve as models.
3. “Carriers will scrutinize risks, rewarding those with the most robust cybersecurity programs”
allowing them to be more particular about whom them will insure.
4. “Demand for coverage will shift” to Europe and East Asia.
5. Coverage will expand as carriers address gaps in property, general liability and special
crime coverage as cyber policies themselves (ransomware, social engineering, terrorism).

1ST PARTY INSURANCE COVERAGE
 Loss or Damage to Electronic Data -- cover losses caused by
damage, theft, disruption or corruption of data due to covered
peril (e.g., hack, virus, or denial of service, but seldom employee
error including social engineering such as costs to restore,
recover. and reconstruct data).
 Loss of Income and/or Extra Expenses -- covers income lost and
extra expenses incurred to avoid or minimize a shutdown of
business due to a covered peril.
 Loss of Property -- covers physical damage to buildings, fixtures,
land (e.g., clean-up), or personal property loss.
 Cyber Extortion Losses – covers expenses incurred (with the
insurers’ consent) due to extortion demand, (e.g., ransomware).
 Notification Costs – covers costs of notifying parties mandated
by government statutes or regulations (breaches and identity
theft), as well as for legal counsel, credit protection services, and
call centers).
 Other Insurance – damage to reputation (marketing and public
relations); crime (various); Fidelity Bonds, terrorism (Terrorism
Risk Insurance Act (TRIA)).
3RD PARTY INSURANCE COVERAGE
 Network Security Liability -- covers harm due to data
breaches or to the inability of others to access data on
insureds’ computer systems. There is also cover where
the insured’s personnel or IT systems (e.g. as a result of
botnets causing harm to another).
 Network Privacy Liability -- covers harm based on
allegations that insureds failed to properly protect
sensitive data stored on their computer systems. The data
may belong to customers, clients, employees, and other
parties (is “privity” a problem?).
 Electronic Media Liability -- covers harm for acts like
libel, slander, defamation, copyright infringement,
invasion of privacy or domain name infringement (is
“publication” an issue?).
 Costs Connected to Regulatory Proceedings -- covers
damages, defense costs, fines, etc.

Some Common Cyber-Insurance Policy Exclusions
 Data taken from paper and similar records.
 Employee privacy claims for released data.
 Fraud, intentional, and illegal misconduct committed by insured.
 Lack of cyber-hygiene (failure to encrypt data or install software updates and security patches).
 Mechanical/electronic failure and other acts of God.
 Mobile electronic devices (computers, cell phones, etc.).
 Nation-states, organized criminal groups, and terrorists (and persons acting on their behalf). Attribution issues will arise, but how
is the final coverage decision reached? It will be a costly, inexact process.
 Patent, software, copyright infringement.
 Prior notice (knowledge, suspicions).
 Secondary liability for personal injury & property damage.
 Vicarious liability for data breaches by third-party vendors.

Why is the Cyber-Insurance Market Not ‘Mature’?
 Insufficient actuarial data to support meaningful underwriting (unlike automobile, home-owner,
and maritime insurance). Lack of trust between insurance companies and potential insureds. Are
the applications complete and candid? If they are not, insureds will have difficulty collected on
claims.
 Insurance companies are eager to write cyber-insurance policies to cash in on a new market, albeit
with an insufficient understanding of their potential financial exposure due to cumulative risk. As a
consequence, there are incentives for insurance companies to find reasons for denying coverage.
 Cyber-insurance policies lack standard (and tested) language. Cyber-insurance is not a commodity since
it is crafted for the insureds, whose profiles vary considerably. Litigation outcomes are unpredictable.
 Key development: Allianz will provide discounted cyber security insurance coverage to customers that
use certain Apple devices and Cisco security products. Aon will perform security consulting.

Disquieting Questions About Cyber-Insurance
 If the global value of cyber-insurance premiums written is estimated at
$3.5bn, but the global cost of cyber-crime exceeds $450bn annually (see Aon
chief warns that insurance industry is losing its relevance, FT, 4/25/2018) can
the ‘cyber-insurance market’ be viable?
 When the cyber-insurance policy is in force, how can insurers be confident
that the insureds’ cybersecurity ‘baseline’ are being observed?
 Rather than a cyber 9/11 or Pearl Harbor, is the interconnected of the
economy and the Internet of Things likely to cause a collapse in consumer
and business confidence.

What’s a Government to Do?
Federal Government (alone or with National Association Insurance Commissioners) can:
1. Promote through incentives the use of standardized insurance policy provisions and language to promote
underwriting standards to strengthen the cyber-insurance market;
2. Create cyber-insurance policy pools; and
3. Establish either federal flood or terrorism-like programs (but Flood Insurance Program is insolvent).
Two Obstacles:
1. Lack of political consensus of relevant roles and responsibilities of government (note Flood Insurance Program
has a huge deficit).
2. Given problems with the Affordable Care Act, is it realistic to expect the government to take on role of
national cyber hygienist?

QUESTIONS CONTACT OUR SPEAKER
ETHAN S BURGER AT
ethansb@post.harvard.edu

Ci2 cyber insurance presentation

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Ci2 cyber insurance presentation

Similar to Ci2 cyber insurance presentation (20)

More from Ethan S. Burger

More from Ethan S. Burger (9)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ci2 cyber insurance presentation