Re:Insurers run from ransomware cover as losses mount
by __s on Saturday November 20, 2021 @09:52AM
(#29288569)
Insurance coverage can be conditional on sufficient efforts being made. Insuring against ransomware should come along with a list of preconditions & random security auditing (sure, there'll be some stupid rules like "no having port 22 open" but if you want your own security rules you can do that without insurance). Comparing physical security with cyber security is facetious. Anyone in the world has to make a serious effort to break into my home, & they'll have to do it on Canadian soil. All for a pretty lousy pay off. These incentives are not the same in software security
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Insurers run from ransomware cover as losses mount
by Haegin on Saturday November 20, 2021 @10:21AM
(#29288833)
Some cyber insurers are already doing this. I know at least one that scans the company network when quoting and will decline applicants who have open RDP detected on their network for example.
Re:Insurers run from ransomware cover as losses mount
by staticautomatic on Saturday November 20, 2021 @10:14AM
(#29288773)
In the insurance world, sufficient efforts aren’t always sufficient to mitigate this kind of problem. In commercial wildfire risk and in municipal insurance (think police brutality cases), for example, precautionary prescriptions often aren’t enough to keep entities from becoming uninsurable due to things like litigation risk.