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

71–80 of 91 posts

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#71

Post by Doxterpepper »

justin66 wrote: post #40
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…

> The customer had to pay out of pocket for repairing his car, as well as our lift. Given the level of dangerous stupidity they displayed, that seems like a decent enough outcome.

> Given the level of dangerous stupidity they displayed

Wouldn't that apply to most car accidents on the road? Stupid decisions by at least one party leading to someone's insurance paying the bills?

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#72

Post by thfuran »

arcticbull wrote: post #38
krisrm wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, no argument there, but I wrote more words in that sentence that you cut off. My point is, that a "cyber attack" is poorly constrained, compared to something like a fire or a flood... a company only has so many assets, valued at $X that are liable to be burned to the ground or ruined by a flood, and these constraints can be modeled and adjusted for. Perhaps I am mistaken, I don't see a cyberattack as being anala…

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but aren't a fire and a cyberattack both capped at 100% of the value of the company? If the fire takes out the whole place, or a cyberattack empties out an equivalent amount from their bank accounts, the difference feels immaterial.

What if a fire spreads to other properties not owned by the insured or destroys things on company premises but not owned by the company?

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#73

Post by yub »

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 have a tough time believing this.

1. You're telling me you had a vehicle up on a lift, by its wheels, and there was no chuck or gates to stop the vehicle from rolling?

2. I'm assuming you're saying the customer used "Summon" to remotely move the car. a. Summon will immediately stop the car if it detects even the slightest bump. b. Summon will immediately stop the car if it detects the wheels are off the ground, which is relevant because: c. Summon moves the vehicle at like 3mph, so even if the vehicle was AWD, since most of the weight (which is distributed throughout the vehicle) is still over the lift, there is definately not enough momentum to push it off the lift. d. I am fairly doubtful the auto insurance would not cover this, especially if the guy had comprehensive insurance.

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#74

Post by yub »

0xDEFC0DE wrote: post #20
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…

This hinges on the US assigning attribution, and to be fair, the US probably has a better idea than an insurance company. If the FBI publicly arrests some teenager or former employee related to a company hack, and the insurance tries to use a cyberwarfare exception, then we can go grab the pitchforks. Both sides of this are going to get tested though: does the US actually have a definition for cyberwarfare and is tha…

But the definition of "cyberwarfare" is unclear.

If Russia declared war on the US, and attacked US companies, it's pretty clear this is cyberwarfare.

If Anonymous DDoS's your website of some vendetta, because they declared "war" on your company, is that cyberwarfare? Does a declaration of war by a non-nation-state count as cyberwarfare?

If North Korea compromised your servers to mine Bitcoin, is that cyberwarfare? Does any action by a nation-state count as cyberwarfare?

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#75

Post by arcticbull »

thfuran wrote: post #72
arcticbull wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding but aren't a fire and a cyberattack both capped at 100% of the value of the company? If the fire takes out the whole place, or a cyberattack empties out an equivalent amount from their bank accounts, the difference feels immaterial.

What if a fire spreads to other properties not owned by the insured or destroys things on company premises but not owned by the company?

Fair point, I was wrong to say 100% of the property value, though I imagine the upper bound of the damage is fairly comparable in both cyber attacks and physical attacks.

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#76

Post by OldHand2018 »

dontbenebby wrote: post #25

Sounds like a big "out" is claiming an attack was an act of war. But very few nations declare war nowadays. They have "police actions" or "peacekeeping missions. Maybe telling these companies "no war was declared, so you must pay out" would be a good thing. Insurance companies are powerful lobbyists both in the traditional K street sense, and the soft power sense. (For the soft power sense, picture a major insurance…

> Maybe telling these companies "no war was declared, so you must pay out" would be a good thing.

That goes against centuries of precedence. The only difference now is that it was "on the Internet".

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#77

Post by southern_cross »

dontbenebby wrote: post #25

Sounds like a big "out" is claiming an attack was an act of war. But very few nations declare war nowadays. They have "police actions" or "peacekeeping missions. Maybe telling these companies "no war was declared, so you must pay out" would be a good thing. Insurance companies are powerful lobbyists both in the traditional K street sense, and the soft power sense. (For the soft power sense, picture a major insurance…

Don't forget, though, that the U.S. and North Korea are officially still at war, since no peace treaty was ever signed. So pin a cyber attack against a U.S. entity on N.K. and there you are!

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#78

Post by lohszvu »

yub wrote: post #73
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 have a tough time believing this. 1. You're telling me you had a vehicle up on a lift, by its wheels, and there was no chuck or gates to stop the vehicle from rolling? 2. I'm assuming you're saying the customer used "Summon" to remotely move the car. a. Summon will immediately stop the car if it detects even the slightest bump. b. Summon will immediately stop the car if it detects the wheels are off the ground, whi…

Chucks are there to stop a vehicle from accidentally rolling or pushed away. They aren't designed to stop an electric vehicle (that has tons of low rpm torque) from being purposefully driven off.

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#79

Post by staticautomatic »

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…

Your comment seems to be attracting a lot of first-time posters taking defensive positions on Tesla's behalf...

Re: Big Companies Thought Insurance Covered a Cyberattack

#80

Post by Scoundreller »

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…

I could see it useful to have “Tesla” parking spots that are 10% narrower to improve space utilization.
Post reply on HN