Cyber insurance model is broken, consider banning ransomware payments, says think tank

UK.gov's carrots and sticks never came to pass, co-author tells us


Cyber insurance isn't exactly driving organisations to improve their infosec practices, a think-tank has warned – and some insurers are thinking of giving up thanks to the impact of ransomware.

"To date, the shortcomings of cyber insurance mean that its impact is ultimately more limited than policymakers and businesses might hope," concluded the Royal United Services Institute's (RUSI) latest report, Cyber Insurance and the Cyber Security Challenge.

The wide-ranging report looked in detail at what impact the cyber insurance industry has had on the online security practices of the wider world.

Unfortunately, RUSI's researchers found that insurers tend to sell cyber policies with minimal due diligence – and when the claims start rolling in, insurance company managers start looking at ways to escape an unprofitable line of business.

"I think, based on what we've found, cyber insurance is not that silver bullet that maybe people were hoping or thought it was," report co-author Jason Nurse, a senior Lecturer in cyber security at the University of Kent told The Register.

In a world beset by all-but-untouchable ransomware gangs, cyber insurance has two selling points as far as politicians and political policymakers are concerned: insurance could help limit the financial damage to organisations hit by ransomware, while due diligence by insurers and their brokers could help force relative slackers to adopt better security hygiene.

Nurse said cyber insurers vary quite widely in their pre-policy due diligence, with different firms asking for different proofs of security:

So one of them says all you have to have is Cyber Essentials and another one says we want ISO 27000. Another one says we want NIST. So there's clearly some, almost aggravation or confusion, when it comes to organisations engaging with insurers. Because there is this disparity and lack of standardisation that you don't get with, for example, professional indemnity insurance or property insurance.

The British government's view is that cyber insurance that pays ransoms to criminals is, as the National Cyber Security Centre put it last year, a matter for individual board members. Although The Register asked whether it would condemn the use of cyber insurance to pay ransoms, the GCHQ offshoot wouldn't be drawn.

RUSI's position on buying off criminals is unequivocal, with Nurse and co-authors Jamie MacColl and James Sullivan saying in their report that the UK's National Security Secretariat "should conduct an urgent policy review into the feasibility and suitability of banning ransom payments."

It also recommended that cyber insurance policies should include mandatory notification clauses that activate "before a ransom is paid."

Why isn't cyber insurance working as a lever for driving up security standards?

According to Nurse, it's the age-old problem of a skills shortage – but on the insurance side of the fence.

"When it comes to internal assessments, and there's a very dynamic understanding of what's happening inside the organisation – that's not where many insurers are currently placed," he said.

"And I think even based on our own work, we found that in situations where brokers are not as upskilled as they could be, they can actually damage the relationship between companies and cyber insurers. Because, you know, when a broker goes to an organisation and tries to sell them insurance, the organisation potentially knows more than the broker about cyber security."

This problem has existed for a while, with insurers at France's Forum internationale de cybersecurite moaning early last year that their industry hadn't taken cybersecurity insurance seriously enough.

During a discussion set in the context of squirmy insurance companies turning into their own stereotypes, trying to evade payouts at all cost, industry talking heads acknowledged that cyber insurers and brokers weren't fully equipped for the task of selling the product or assessing risk.

With an increasingly interventionist British government looking to pass laws tightly controlling cybersecurity behaviours, insurers and insured alike might want to smarten up their act – before the clunking fist of the state does it for them. ®

Similar topics

Broader topics

Narrower topics


Other stories you might like

  • North Korea pulled in $400m in cryptocurrency heists last year – report

    Plus: FIFA 22 players lose their identity and Texas gets phony QR codes

    In brief Thieves operating for the North Korean government made off with almost $400m in digicash last year in a concerted attack to steal and launder as much currency as they could.

    A report from blockchain biz Chainalysis found that attackers were going after investment houses and currency exchanges in a bid to purloin funds and send them back to the Glorious Leader's coffers. They then use mixing software to make masses of micropayments to new wallets, before consolidating them all again into a new account and moving the funds.

    Bitcoin used to be a top target but Ether is now the most stolen currency, say the researchers, accounting for 58 per cent of the funds filched. Bitcoin accounted for just 20 per cent, a fall of more than 50 per cent since 2019 - although part of the reason might be that they are now so valuable people are taking more care with them.

    Continue reading
  • Tesla Full Self-Driving videos prompt California's DMV to rethink policy on accidents

    Plus: AI systems can identify different chess players by their moves and more

    In brief California’s Department of Motor Vehicles said it’s “revisiting” its opinion of whether Tesla’s so-called Full Self-Driving feature needs more oversight after a series of videos demonstrate how the technology can be dangerous.

    “Recent software updates, videos showing dangerous use of that technology, open investigations by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the opinions of other experts in this space,” have made the DMV think twice about Tesla, according to a letter sent to California’s Senator Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach), chair of the Senate’s transportation committee, and first reported by the LA Times.

    Tesla isn’t required to report the number of crashes to California’s DMV unlike other self-driving car companies like Waymo or Cruise because it operates at lower levels of autonomy and requires human supervision. But that may change after videos like drivers having to take over to avoid accidentally swerving into pedestrians crossing the road or failing to detect a truck in the middle of the road continue circulating.

    Continue reading
  • Alien life on Super-Earth can survive longer than us due to long-lasting protection from cosmic rays

    Laser experiments show their magnetic fields shielding their surfaces from radiation last longer

    Life on Super-Earths may have more time to develop and evolve, thanks to their long-lasting magnetic fields protecting them against harmful cosmic rays, according to new research published in Science.

    Space is a hazardous environment. Streams of charged particles traveling at very close to the speed of light, ejected from stars and distant galaxies, bombard planets. The intense radiation can strip atmospheres and cause oceans on planetary surfaces to dry up over time, leaving them arid and incapable of supporting habitable life. Cosmic rays, however, are deflected away from Earth, however, since it’s shielded by its magnetic field.

    Now, a team of researchers led by the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) believe that Super-Earths - planets that are more massive than Earth but less than Neptune - may have magnetic fields too. Their defensive bubbles, in fact, are estimated to stay intact for longer than the one around Earth, meaning life on their surfaces will have more time to develop and survive.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022