Insurers run from ransomware cover as losses mount

Re:Insurers run from ransomware cover as losses mount by darkwater on Saturday November 20, 2021 @09:45AM (#29288512)

> Meanwhile cybersecurity IT talent is underpaid, understaffed and hard to retain

If it's hard to retain means that there is someone else paying better, it cannot be underpaid at the same time.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Insurers run from ransomware cover as losses mount by purple_turtle on Saturday November 20, 2021 @11:23AM (#29289428)

1) they could be changing jobs away from being security researcher

2) they can be changing jobs to one that is just unpaid, but they are treated more seriously

3) they could be changing from severely underpaid to just underpaid

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Insurers run from ransomware cover as losses mount by miohtama on Saturday November 20, 2021 @09:57AM (#29288616)

It also might be hard to retain, because people involved in cybersecurity are not giving proper authority, respect or other organisational resources to do their job.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Insurers run from ransomware cover as losses mount by Mountain_Skies on Saturday November 20, 2021 @11:34AM (#29289505)

I left cybersecurity and went back to software development due to the difference in wages.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Insurers run from ransomware cover as losses mount by vsareto on Saturday November 20, 2021 @12:37PM (#29290104)

Ditto. Good pentesters have arguably more skills than myself since I just do business apps, but I made about $40k less as a pentester than what I do now. Plus the pentesting interviews are just as annoying as the development interviews.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Insurers run from ransomware cover as losses mount by darkwater on Saturday November 20, 2021 @12:12PM (#29289863)

Fair enough, I missed this possibility. I'm sorry for you, hope you can go back to do what you like the most.

[ Parent | on HN ]