Cybersecurity Insurance- A Catalyst for Security
CIOREVIEW >> Security >> NEWS

Cybersecurity Insurance- A Catalyst for Security

CIO Review

22 March 2016 witnessed the deadliest act of terrorism in Belgium’s history. Few hours after the bombing, the U.S. House Homeland Security Cybersecurity Subcommittee conducted a discussion session to explore the market-based incentives that cyber insurance can potentially bring to managing online risks and promoting wider adoption of cyber security industry best practices. After observing a few moments of condolence for the victims of the terrorist attacks, Subcommittee Chair Rep. John Ratcliffe broke the silence saying, “Attacks like these really cement the need for this committee to move forward with urgency on all fronts to try and prevent and protect Americans from attacks like these here in the United States.”

With the rise of the cost and frequency of cyber-related security threats, enterprises are openly accepting the buzzing cyber security insurance trend. However, the million-dollar question is how suitable it is within an enterprise security program to reduce the risk?

Stay ahead of the industry with exclusive feature stories on the top companies, expert insights and the latest news delivered straight to your inbox. Subscribe today.

A Step towards Enhanced Security

Industry leaders like Symantec, McAfee, Fire Eye, and Verizon have reported whopping increases in the attack frequency over the last 8 quarters. Observing the rising security threats, numerous businesses are reassessing their security practices and strategies for amplified risk management. Hacks, breaches and network outrages not only import technological issues but also introduce financial repercussions, potential loss of customers and negative reputation in the marketplace. Forward thinking business owners are striving to adopt more-holistic approaches to security involving preventive measures as well as responsive plans. An efficient cyber security program embraces both these sides of the coin.

However, in the real world where program is defined and managed by humans—and humans make mistakes, the inevitable question that most CIOs face is how to be able to detect every attack before the damage is done or successfully mitigate every incident without negatively impacting the business. The most relevant answer to this question lies in cyber security insurance coverage.

An insurance agent named Steve Hasses through the American International Group (AIG) wrote the first cyber insurance policy in 1997. It was a third-party internet liability policy focused on the losses caused by viruses and hackers. Thereafter, the Dotcom bust in the early 2000s created a big opportunity for insurers to offer cyber insurance products to tech companies. Insurers took the opportunity to offer cyber policies that included property and liability cover, commonly called commercial general liability (CGL). Unfortunately, cyber risk insurance was unable to make it to mainstream insurance as a means of risk transfer, because the policies offered were extremely expensive with a restrictive insurance cover of cyber incidents.

Void in Progress

Though Cybersecurity insurance has been under the radar while discussing the economics of cyber attacks, it has grabbed immense spotlight recently. TechTarget.com reports that the cyber insurance market generated $2.5 billion to $3 billion in revenue in 2015. PricewaterhouseCoopers estimates that these numbers will rise up to $7 billion to $8 billion by 2020. Another report by PwC reveals that the global cyber insurance market will reach $5 billion in annual premiums by 2018, and $7.5 billion in annual sales by 2020, from $2.5 billion this year. With the mounting high profile cyber attacks over the past years, cyber insurance premiums have skyrocketed. These figures explain the tremendously increasing sophisticated cyber attacks, indicating a rapid change in the underlying risk. In such a scenario, it is highly difficult to keep up risk analysis for underwriters and businesses alike.

The point that is noteworthy here is, “only two percent of companies in the U.S. have cyber insurance,” says Julian Waits, President and CEO of PivotPoint Risk Analytics. “The biggest problem is quantifying the risk—it’s not linear, actuarial information is immature, and therefore insurance companies are grappling with ‘how do we price this risk?’ And what and how much they need to buy, and what they’re actually getting in return.”

While planning to purchase cyber security insurance, companies find it challenging to display a picture of their risk, which is relevant to underwriters. This lack of capability to understand the exposure at all levels and the uncertainty is making risk pricing a challenge, pushing premiums to an all time high. Essentially, insurers hunt for a strong security culture within the company as a first step in risk triage. Apart from this, elements like industry, revenue size, geographical location, and actual assets at risk add to decision of pricing risk.

In the decades to come, initiative from the government along with industry efforts by insurance underwriters to better measure cyber-risk, can grab a reaction in meaningful ways regarding cyber insurance.

Ground for Cybersecurity Insurance

2011 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) guidance highlights that regulators observe cyber security insurance as an imperative component of a strong enterprise risk management strategy. It is capable of transferring financial risks of a security breach to the insurer. Like any other insurance program, cyber security insurance covers first and third party damages. First-party insurance plan envelops damage to digital assets, business interruptions and, sometimes, reputational harm. Whereas, Third-party insurance covers liability and the costs of forensic investigations, customer notification, credit monitoring, public relations, legal defense, compensation and regulatory fines. However, since the spectrum of cyber security threat is very broad, Daljitt Barn, director of cyber security at PricewaterhouseCoopers explains that the best approach to maintain the a secured environment, without excessive cost would be to first identify and secure the company's digital crown jewels, then quantify and insure the remaining risk.

More reason for CIOs purchase to cyber security insurance:

• Incentives- The support for market-based incentives such as insurance is increasing. That rewards strong cyber security programs with discounted premiums and broader coverage. The shortfall of powerful actuarial data to present risk and the alteration of underwriting process that validates the dynamic threat environment is a growing priority for the cyber security insurance industry.

• Insider Threats- As it is almost impossible to completely prevent attacks from inside, cyber security insurance typically provides coverage when the employee is the perpetrator, just like in the case of an external attack.

• Treating Security and Compliance Equally- Dealing with security as a compliance issue deviates the company from achieving real security, resulting in attaining a false sense of security. In spite of complying with the required standards, many companies still fall in the trap of data breaches.

• Monetizing the Cost of Security- CISOs find it challenging to quantify cyber security risks to the executive teams in terms of dollars. The premium charged by an insurance company can help them assess the exact amounts for risks.     

Future of Cybersecurity Insurance

In January 2016 the Morris, Ill., City Council bought a $2 million cyber security policy at an annual cost of $7,183. Now, there is a contrasting opinion regarding this decision. Could the city have used that money to better protect its data from cyber attacks or to train its staff to avoid a data breach in the first place?

Keeping aside the differences in view for and against the cyber security insurance, the current picture depicts its growing trend in the private sector and with more local and state governments. In addition, the majority of new technology contracts in government require vendors to carry cyber security insurance policies. Cyber insurance has improved and will continue to grow, becoming an important component of cyber security strategies in the public and private sectors.

Check Out: The Cyber Security Review

 

More in News

A software engineering and AI analytics purchase can fail long before model accuracy becomes a concern. The bigger challenge is often the handoff between existing infrastructure and new analytics, especially when camera networks and edge devices were never designed to share context. Replacing everything may simplify architecture on paper, but it can strain capital requirements and stretch deployment timelines. Buyers need to know whether a platform can work across existing technology boundaries without turning modernization into a wholesale infrastructure project.  Integration depth is therefore more revealing than the number of AI features on a product sheet. A useful platform should accept heterogeneous inputs and expose their data through a common control layer without forcing every piece of existing hardware to conform to one technical standard. It should also preserve the usefulness of legacy assets while making their information accessible to newer analytics. That matters in distributed environments where hardware replacement may be slow or economically unjustified. The real question is whether modernization can proceed around installed infrastructure rather than requiring a clean slate.  Real-time analytics creates an attention problem of its own. Video feeds and sensor events can overwhelm staff when every detection is treated as equally important. Buyers should examine how a platform separates routine activity from events that merit human review, and then look at how quickly those events reach the people responsible for validation. The difference between raw monitoring and useful analytics lies in this filtering step. A system that produces more alerts without improving prioritization merely transfers workload from observation to triage.  Architecture becomes more consequential as data volumes rise. Sending every high-definition stream to a centralized cloud environment can create avoidable bandwidth costs and response delays. Edge processing can reduce that burden when analytics are performed close to the source and only selected information moves upstream. Yet edge deployment introduces management demands. Devices and application services still need a coherent way to exchange information and support later investigation. Buyers should also examine how much infrastructure complexity is added when analytics move closer to the source.  “ CFBD ’s hybrid architecture connects legacy environments to newer computing infrastructure through hyperconvergence and virtualization.” Searchability deserves equal importance. Once video or sensor data has been transformed into structured metadata, teams should be able to move from live detection to later investigation without manually reviewing hours of footage. Useful systems retain descriptive attributes and behavioral context in forms that can be queried quickly. The buying question is whether that context survives across live monitoring and retrospective analysis rather than being trapped in separate workflows. Fast retrieval matters because delayed investigation can erase much of the advantage gained from real-time detection.  CFBD merits consideration for buyers facing this mix of integration pressure and analytics workload. Its AZOR Ecosystem, a real-time data orchestration platform, centralizes video and sensor information. AZOR Panel, a centralized monitoring interface, receives AI-filtered events for human validation. AZOR Analytics, a video analytics component, supports real-time and forensic analysis, while edge gateways can process video near the source and pass lighter event data upstream. Its hybrid architecture connects legacy environments to newer computing infrastructure through hyperconvergence and virtualization. The fit is strongest where replacement costs and operator overload are material constraints. For organizations that need AI analytics without discarding usable infrastructure, CFBD is a practical choice.  ...Read more
Customer outreach is moving faster than many compliance programs were designed to govern. A campaign assembled in hours can pass through several applications before a call, text, email or prerecorded message reaches a customer, while autonomous agents compress that cycle further. The exposure is no longer limited to whether a record appeared on a suppression list. Consent status, channel permissions, time-of-day rules and state or federal restrictions can change the answer at the moment of contact. A platform that checks too late leaves legal teams reconstructing decisions after the communication has already occurred. Static controls also create a quieter commercial problem. Large enterprises often carry separate customer records across business units, and a broad opt-out can be applied far beyond the product or channel the customer intended. Conservative suppression may reduce legal exposure, yet it can also remove legitimate audiences from campaigns and weaken the return on CRM or marketing technology investments. Effective governance needs enough context to distinguish a prohibited contact from an allowable one without forcing every business unit to maintain its own interpretation of the rules. The harder test is whether those distinctions survive as consent records move between systems and outreach programs change. “Gryphon’s deterministic rules-based decisioning evaluates contact permissions in real time, while automated evidence capture gives legal and compliance teams a defensible record of why each decision was made.” Speed matters at the decision point, not merely during campaign preparation. List scrubbing and periodic audits remain useful for certain tasks, but neither is designed to govern communications that originate across contact centers, individual employees, enterprise applications and autonomous agents. Decisioning should sit inside the existing workflow and evaluate the applicable permissions before outreach proceeds. The answer also needs to return quickly enough that compliance does not become a queue. Enterprise scale is equally important. A control layer that works only for one channel or one application recreates the same fragmentation it was purchased to remove. Policy changes also need to propagate without campaign teams waiting for separate rule updates in each downstream application, especially when restrictions take effect quickly. Defensibility separates governance from simple blocking. Executives should expect a clear record of the rule applied, the evidence used, the policy version and the reason a communication was allowed or stopped. Those records need to remain searchable as regulations and internal policies change. Deterministic decisioning has particular value where an organization must later explain exactly why a contact was permitted. The same discipline helps compliance teams identify oversuppression rather than treating every uncertain record as unusable. Buyers should also examine how readily the platform connects to existing CRM, contact-center, marketing automation and governance systems, since a long replacement project can undermine the speed advantage that real-time controls are meant to provide. Gryphon  is the premier choice for enterprises that need contact governance embedded directly into customer engagement rather than added as a later review. Its platform applies real-time controls across voice, SMS, email and interactions generated by AI agents while integrating with existing enterprise applications. Gryphon’s deterministic rules-based decisioning evaluates contact permissions in real time, while automated evidence capture gives legal and compliance teams a defensible record of why each decision was made. Compliance Hub extends that visibility into audit research and reporting. The platform also identifies contacts suppressed too broadly, helping organizations preserve legitimate reach without relaxing policy enforcement. For buyers balancing regulatory exposure against legitimate customer contact, point-of-contact enforcement paired with documented decision logic makes Gryphon a practical recommendation. ...Read more
Disconnected data work rarely begins at the pipeline itself. The delay often appears earlier, when a proposed data product moves from a business idea into requirements, architecture decisions, access controls and a development environment. Each handoff can introduce another tool or approval path, while product context becomes harder to preserve. By the time engineering begins, teams may already be reconciling mismatched project names, duplicated documentation, fragmented ownership and inconsistent setup across systems. Portfolio-level visibility also matters before engineering starts. A platform that preserves business cases alongside product definitions can help leadership compare proposed work, assign teams and select technology stacks without separating prioritization from the delivery path that eventually executes those decisions. That fragmentation becomes expensive when orchestration is purchased as another isolated layer. Data teams commonly work across cloud infrastructure, code repositories, ticketing systems and specialist data platforms, while product managers and architects need continuity across the same work. Replacing that estate is rarely the practical objective. A stronger platform coordinates existing environments while preserving product identity and approved technology choices throughout delivery. Integration depth matters less as a feature count than as a way to remove repeated setup and cross-tool reconciliation. “Calibo can establish access to selected technology stacks and generate CI/CD pathways for controlled movement between development and production environments.” Self-service also needs boundaries. Provisioning development environments, granting access, creating repositories and triggering infrastructure changes can remove substantial waiting time, but only when those actions follow established controls. The useful distinction is whether routine requests can execute from approved templates and policies rather than pass through manual service tickets. That changes the role of platform and architecture teams. Instead of completing repetitive setup on demand, they can establish guardrails that engineering teams use independently. Traceability becomes harder once a project leaves experimentation and enters controlled delivery. Changes to requirements can alter pipeline work, while release movement creates dependencies across development, test, staging and production. Executives need a clear line from the original business case to the technical work that follows, particularly when multiple data products compete for budget or shared engineering capacity. Visibility into status, resource use, dependencies and release progress helps management identify where work is waiting without rebuilding the picture from separate tools. It can also expose queueing between teams before delayed approvals become late-stage release problems. Release control should be treated as part of orchestration rather than an adjacent DevOps concern. Creating a pipeline is only part of the purchase decision. The harder question is whether code and data products can move through governed environments without custom coordination each time. Automated CI/CD setup, reusable templates, policy-based promotion and dependency visibility can make that movement repeatable. This becomes more important for AI-related data work, where experiments can appear quickly but production use depends on controlled access, governed data movement, documented lineage and consistent release practices. Calibo merits recommendation for enterprises that want data orchestration tied directly to the broader delivery lifecycle. Its Data Fabric Studio supports reusable data pipelines. The wider platform carries product context into the development toolchain while automating environment setup. Calibo can establish access to selected technology stacks and generate CI/CD pathways for controlled movement between development and production environments. Its Release Orchestration capability extends that model into deployment governance and dependency management. This gives data teams a self-service framework that reduces manual handoffs while keeping technical work connected to the product context and enterprise controls that initiated it. ...Read more
As software development becomes more reliant on AI, companies have started to focus more on the process of coding, changing, and attributing. Code attribution systems for AI are becoming common for helping engineering professionals know the source of code, differentiate human contributions from that done by AI, and remain visible in the development environment. Their importance goes beyond that of mere tracking since attribution can affect intellectual property management, security assessments, compliance procedures, and engineering performance. However, the implementation of these platforms poses some problems that organizations need to solve before they can effectively use attribution. How Can Organizations Maintain Accurate Code Attribution? An important issue here is the question of establishing accurate attribution in a complicated process of software development. Nowadays, software development includes many repositories, development environments, libraries, automated systems, and cooperation models. The suggestions generated by the artificial intelligence can be accepted, modified, mixed with the existing code, or completely rewritten by the developer. As a result, it becomes difficult to distinguish what part was done with the help of AI and what was developed independently by humans. Data quality also poses a challenge. Attributing authorship requires the availability of development history, history of code changes, prompts, suggestions, and modification patterns. Poor data quality can lead to erroneous findings, especially where organizations employ different methods for software development or use a different set of tools for development. It is imperative for businesses to come up with data standards for the consistency of findings. Issues related to privacy and intellectual property rights make the scenario even more complicated. The source code may include business logic, proprietary processes, and customer data. Companies that choose to implement the attribution platforms need to pay special attention to the way the development data will be gathered, analyzed, stored, and made available. What Makes AI Attribution Difficult Across Enterprise Development? The other challenge is that of incorporating the attribution process into the current engineering process. Companies typically have heterogeneous technology stacks and development processes. This implies that any attribution solution has to be compatible with the source code repositories, issue tracking platforms, code reviews, security mechanisms and so forth. If not, fragmentation and extra manual processes arise. Interpretation is just as crucial. Metrics related to attribution should not be automatically assumed to reflect developer productivity or the quality of code written. While AI can alter how engineers spend their time, more generated code does not imply a better result. Business context regarding maintainability, reliability, reviews, security, and business needs should also be factored in, along with attribution. Attributing AI code is going to be contingent upon transparency, interoperability, and good governance. Enterprises are going to require established processes for attributing contributions made by AI and also explaining how the information is to be utilized. Software systems capable of creating traceable evidence, easy integration, and clear reporting can enable enterprises to create more trust when it comes to AI-enabled development efforts. Taking a good approach towards these considerations will enable enterprises to get visibility regarding the use of AI in coding without having to risk their intellectual property rights and engineering accountability. ...Read more