Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 91 posts

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#41

Post by repiret »

krisrm wrote: post #7

This is messy. On one hand, how are insurers supposed to properly cost and be able to provide payouts for a "cyberattack", which might be anything from "our company website was DDoSed for 30 minutes and we lost 50 customers" to "our production lines were shut down and our company ground to a halt for two weeks"? On the other hand, if insurers know they can invoke a cyberwarfare clause and deny a claim, even if the at…

Auto insurers have no problem covering claims ranging from a chip in a windshield to eight car pileups with multiple fatal and life-altering injuries. The range of possible losses doesn't really make it harder for insurers. The fuzzy definition of an act of cyber war is what makes it hard for policyholders though.

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#42

Post by user5994461 »

nimbius wrote: post #32

its pretty spectacular what major insurance does not cover in the digital context. For example, I work as an automotive engine mechanic for a small chain of midwestern shops. Recently we had a Tesla owner drive in for servicing a recalled suspension control arm. We were approved to do the work by Tesla and had the parts shipped directly from California. once the work was completed, we informed the customer in the wai…

I'm not sure to understand, is there a thing to have your car drives itself home on the press of a button, from the internet?

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#43

Post by w8vY7ER »

user5994461 wrote: post #42
nimbius wrote: post #32

its pretty spectacular what major insurance does not cover in the digital context. For example, I work as an automotive engine mechanic for a small chain of midwestern shops. Recently we had a Tesla owner drive in for servicing a recalled suspension control arm. We were approved to do the work by Tesla and had the parts shipped directly from California. once the work was completed, we informed the customer in the wai…

I'm not sure to understand, is there a thing to have your car drives itself home on the press of a button, from the internet?

today, the public software allows you to move it backwards and forwards through the application if you're within range of the vehicle

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#44

Post by ozim »

arcticbull wrote: post #33
krisrm wrote: post #7

This is messy. On one hand, how are insurers supposed to properly cost and be able to provide payouts for a "cyberattack", which might be anything from "our company website was DDoSed for 30 minutes and we lost 50 customers" to "our production lines were shut down and our company ground to a halt for two weeks"? On the other hand, if insurers know they can invoke a cyberwarfare clause and deny a claim, even if the at…

IMO this feels like the whole point of insurance. You could restate this as "how are insurers supposed to cost and provide payouts for fires in the factory? It could be anything from a tiny, contained garbage can fire to the whole place going up in a blaze! [0]" Or chemicals in the case of TSMC [1]. Or blackouts at Samsung [2]. Any of this could have been industrial espionage on the same scale as a state-sponsored cy…

Where I live you pay premium, let's say $50 a month and then you get let's say $10000 of your damages covered. So that is what you get from insurance company $10000 and the rest is yours to pay. They just look at the probability like "hey this guy is storing fuel, fire insurance for someone who stores fuel is $100 a month and we can pay only up to $20k".

So it is easy to calculate for insurance companies, they don't go over the factory inventorying what you have in factory.

  It is your responsibility. (they only go after to see what was damaged, because that i what they care about)
Of course you can pay some insurance expert to assess your assets and tell you to buy more expensive or less expensive insurance but there are no magic super specific algorithms for "if 10 people die we pay $50k if 20 people die we pay $100k". All insurances pay up to some amount based on what is your monthly/yearly payment.

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#45

Post by DevX101 »

There's massive room in the market for a security-first company that offers insurance as a guarantee.

This company would essentially operate as the security team for clients and put in contractually enforced policies and follow through on implementation. If a client decides to not implement required security practices, then their policy immediately gets dropped.

This is the only scalable way I'd see to implement real insurance against cyber-attacks.

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#46

Post by throwaway2016a »

user5994461 wrote: post #42
nimbius wrote: post #32

its pretty spectacular what major insurance does not cover in the digital context. For example, I work as an automotive engine mechanic for a small chain of midwestern shops. Recently we had a Tesla owner drive in for servicing a recalled suspension control arm. We were approved to do the work by Tesla and had the parts shipped directly from California. once the work was completed, we informed the customer in the wai…

I'm not sure to understand, is there a thing to have your car drives itself home on the press of a button, from the internet?

It lets you go forward and back. Only works if you are within Bluetooth range and keep your finger on the button in the app. If you let go the car stops. It will actually make minor turns to avoid hitting stuff. Though apparently not going off cliffs.

Good for a party trick but in general I have yet to find a good real use case for it.

Using it without being able to see your car is pure idiocy.

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#47

Post by csours »

DontGiveTwoFlux wrote: post #18

Most insurers require customers to limit their risk in all kinds of ways. I’m curious if there are cyber mitigation’s that are out there, such as mandatory two factor authentication, requiring up to date software and OSes or other measures. It seems like any insurance company would Be highly Interested in forcing these best practices.

You can do 1,000 things right, but one thing wrong may still sink you.

With cybersecurity, there is an active adversary. I'm not sure insurance ever wants to take on that kind of risk. If they don't want that risk they shouldn't sell insurance.

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#48

Post by jon-wood »

krisrm wrote: post #7

This is messy. On one hand, how are insurers supposed to properly cost and be able to provide payouts for a "cyberattack", which might be anything from "our company website was DDoSed for 30 minutes and we lost 50 customers" to "our production lines were shut down and our company ground to a halt for two weeks"? On the other hand, if insurers know they can invoke a cyberwarfare clause and deny a claim, even if the at…

It wouldn’t surprise me if at first insurers throw their own internal security teams at this. They’re used to auditing third party systems, because insurers are constantly working with externally developed software and other companies.

You could go a long way just building out a team with both underwriters and security professionals to setup baseline standards and evaluate customers against those.

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#49

Post by dsfyu404ed »

throwaway2016a wrote: post #46
user5994461 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure to understand, is there a thing to have your car drives itself home on the press of a button, from the internet?

It lets you go forward and back. Only works if you are within Bluetooth range and keep your finger on the button in the app. If you let go the car stops. It will actually make minor turns to avoid hitting stuff. Though apparently not going off cliffs. Good for a party trick but in general I have yet to find a good real use case for it. Using it without being able to see your car is pure idiocy.

>Good for a party trick but in general I have yet to find a good real use case for it.

It's particularly hilarious when you and several buddies are watching the meter maid try to put a ticket on it. It's probably occasionally useful for adjusting a car in the driveway but yeah, it's 99% party trick.

It could theoretically be useful for attaching a trailer but most Tesla owners aren't doing that and the collision detection system will probably go crazy and prevent you from getting close enough to the trailer to actually couple it to the car.

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#50

Post by chris_mc »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #49
throwaway2016a wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It lets you go forward and back. Only works if you are within Bluetooth range and keep your finger on the button in the app. If you let go the car stops. It will actually make minor turns to avoid hitting stuff. Though apparently not going off cliffs. Good for a party trick but in general I have yet to find a good real use case for it. Using it without being able to see your car is pure idiocy.

>Good for a party trick but in general I have yet to find a good real use case for it. It's particularly hilarious when you and several buddies are watching the meter maid try to put a ticket on it. It's probably occasionally useful for adjusting a car in the driveway but yeah, it's 99% party trick. It could theoretically be useful for attaching a trailer but most Tesla owners aren't doing that and the collision dete…

Yes, humiliating other people is hilarious...
Post reply on HN