Abstract We introduce a game-theoretic model to investigate the strategic interaction between a cyber insurance policyholder whose premium depends on her self-reported security level and an insurer with the power to audit the security level upon receiving an indemnity claim. Audits can reveal fraudulent (or simply careless) policyholders not following reported security procedures, in which case the insurer can refuse to indemnify the policyholder. However, the insurer has to bear an audit cost even when the policyholders have followed the prescribed security procedures. As audits can be expensive, a key problem insurers face is to devise an auditing strategy to deter policyholders from misrepresenting their security levels to gain a premium discount. This decision-making problem was motivated by conducting interviews with underwriters and reviewing regulatory filings in the US; we discovered that premiums are determined by security posture, yet this is often self-reported and insurers are concerned by whether security procedures are practised as reported by the policyholders. To address this problem, we model this interaction as a Bayesian game of incomplete information and devise optimal auditing strategies for the insurers considering the possibility that the policyholder may misrepresent her security level. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first theoretical consideration of post-incident claims management in cyber security. Our model captures the trade-off between the incentive to exaggerate security posture during the application process and the possibility of punishment for non-compliance with reported security policies. Simulations demonstrate that common sense techniques are not as efficient at providing effective cyber insurance audit decisions as the ones computed using game theory.
This paper continues the trend towards rectifying the substantial discrepancy'' @cite_19 between early cyber insurance models and informal claims about the insurance market. Early research considered factors relevant to the viability of a market. Interdependent security occurs when the risk depends on the actions of others'' @cite_17 @cite_29 . Optimists argued that insurers could coordinate the resulting collective action problem @cite_1 @cite_23 , leading to a net social welfare gain and a viable market. Skeptics instead focused on the high correlation in failure of information systems'' @cite_18 @cite_25 @cite_5 , citing it as a major impediment to the supply of cyber insurance. Recent empirical work @cite_28 analyzing 180 cyber insurance filings shows that the cyber insurance market is viable.
@cite_18 @cite_28 @cite_29 @cite_1 @cite_19 @cite_23 @cite_5 @cite_25 @cite_17
2126949246 91264121 2144173251 1516366611
We propose a comprehensive formal framework to classify all market models of cyber-insurance we are aware of. The framework features a common terminology and deals with the specific properties of cyber-risk in a unified way: interdependent security, correlated risk, and information asymmetries. A survey of existing models, tabulated according to our framework, reveals a discrepancy between informal arguments in favor of cyber-insurance as a tool to align incentives for better network security, and analytical results questioning the viability of a market for cyber-insurance. Using our framework, we show which parameters should be considered and endogenized in future models to close this gap. Recent works on Internet risk management have proposed the idea of cyber-insurance to eliminate risks due to security threats, which cannot be tackled through traditional means such as by using antivirus and antivirus softwares. In reality, an Internet user faces risks due to security attacks as well as risks due to non-security related failures (e.g., reliability faults in the form of hardware crash, buffer overflow, etc.). These risk types are often indistinguishable by a naive user. However, a cyber-insurance agency would most likely insure risks only due to security attacks. In this case, it becomes a challenge for an Internet user to choose the right type of cyber-insurance contract as traditional optimal contracts, i.e., contracts for security attacks only, might prove to be sub-optimal for himself. In this paper, we address the problem of analyzing cyber-insurance solutions when a user faces risks due to both, security as well as non-security related failures. We propose Aegis, a simple and novel cyber-insurance model in which the user accepts a fraction (strictly positive) of loss recovery on himself and transfers rest of the loss recovery on the cyber-insurance agency. We mathematically show that only under conditions when buying cyber-insurance is mandatory, given an option, risk-averse Internet users would prefer Aegis contracts to traditional cyber-insurance contracts, under all premium types. This result firmly establishes the non-existence of traditional cyber-insurance markets when Aegis contracts are offered to users. We also derive an interesting counterintuitive result related to the Aegis framework: we show that an increase(decrease) in the premium of an Aegis contract may not always lead to decrease(increase) in its user demand. In the process, we also state the conditions under which the latter trend and its converse emerge. Our work proposes a new model of cyber-insurance for Internet security that extends all previous related models by accounting for the extra dimension of non-insurable risks. Aegis also incentivizes Internet users to take up more personal responsibility for protecting their systems. High correlation in failure of information systems due to worms and viruses has been cited as major impediment to cyber-insurance. However, of the many cyber-risk classes that influence failure of information systems, not all exhibit similar correlation properties. In this paper, we introduce a new classification of correlation properties of cyber-risks based on a twin-tier approach. At the first tier, is the correlation of cyber-risks within a firm i.e. correlated failure of multiple systems on its internal network. At second tier, is the correlation in risk at a global level i.e. correlation across independent firms in an insurer’s portfolio. Various classes of cyber-risks exhibit dierent level of correlation at two tiers, for instance, insider attacks exhibit high internal but low global correlation. While internal risk correlation within a firm influences its decision to seek insurance, the global correlation influences insurers’ decision in setting the premium. Citing real data we study the combined dynamics of the two-step risk arrival process to determine conditions conducive to the existence of cyber-insurance market. We address technical, managerial and policy choices influencing the correlation at both steps and the business implications thereof. This paper investigates how competitive cyber-insurers affect network security and welfare of the networked society. In our model, a user's probability to incur damage (from being attacked) depends on both his security and the network security, with the latter taken by individual users as given. First, we consider cyberinsurers who cannot observe (and thus, affect) individual user security. This asymmetric information causes moral hazard. Then, for most parameters, no equilibrium exists: the insurance market is missing. Even if an equilibrium exists, the insurance contract covers only a minor fraction of the damage; network security worsens relative to the no-insurance equilibrium. Second, we consider insurers with perfect information about their users' security. Here, user security is perfectly enforceable (zero cost); each insurance contract stipulates the required user security. The unique equilibrium contract covers the entire user damage. Still, for most parameters, network security worsens relative to the no-insurance equilibrium. Although cyber-insurance improves user welfare, in general, competitive cyber-insurers fail to improve network security.