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.
The timing of the insurer's intervention plays is an important strategic aspect. Ex-ante interventions for the insurer include risk assessments and security investments before the policy term begins. @cite_6 investigated an insurer who could assess security levels perfectly or not at all, concluding that the latter cannot support a functioning market. @cite_7 showed that ex-ante assessments in combination with discounts for adopting security controls can lead to an increase in social welfare. A more recent model introduces stochastic uncertainty about the policyholder's security level @cite_16 .
@cite_16 @cite_7 @cite_6
2889445070 1516366611
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. Managing security risks in the Internet has so far mostly involved methods to reduce the risks and the severity of the damages. Those methods (such as firewalls, intrusion detection and prevention, etc) reduce but do not eliminate risk, and the question remains on how to handle the residual risk. In this paper, we take a new approach to the problem of Internet security and advocate managing this residual risk by buying insurance against it. Using insurance in the Internet raises several questions because entities in the Internet face correlated risks, which means that insurance claims will likely be correlated, making those entities less attractive to insurance companies. Furthermore, risks are interdependent, meaning that the decision by an entity to invest in security and self-protect affects the risk faced by others. We analyze the impact of these externalities on the security investments of users using a simple 2-agent model. Our key results are that there are sound economic reasons for agents to not invest much in self-protection, and that insurance is a desirable incentive mechanism which pushes agents over a threshold into a desirable state where they all invest in self-protection. In other words, insurance increases the level of self-protection, and therefore the level of security, in the Internet. Therefore, we believe that insurance should become an important component of risk management in the Internet. An insurer has to know the risks faced by a potential client to accurately determine an insurance premium offer. However, while the potential client might have a good understanding of its own security practices, it may also have an incentive not to disclose them honestly since the resulting information asymmetry could work in its favor. This information asymmetry engenders adverse selection, which can result in unfair premiums and reduced adoption of cyber-insurance. To overcome information asymmetry, insurers often require potential clients to self-report their risks. Still, clients do not have any incentive to perform thorough self-audits or to provide comprehensive reports. As a result, insurers have to complement self-reporting with external security audits to verify the clients’ reports. Since these audits can be very expensive, a key problem faced by insurers is to devise an auditing strategy that deters clients from dishonest reporting using a minimal number of audits. To solve this problem, we model the interactions between a potential client and an insurer as a two-player signaling game. One player represents the client, who knows its actual security-investment level, but may report any level to the insurer. The other player represents the insurer, who knows only the random distribution from which the security level was drawn, but may discover the actual level using an expensive audit. We study the players’ equilibrium strategies and provide numerical illustrations. We consider arbitrary risk-averse users, whose costs of improving security are given by an arbitrary convex function. In our model, user probability to incur damage (from an attack) depends on both his own security and network security: thus, security is interdependent. We introduce two user types (normal and malicious), and allow one user type (malicious users) to subvert insurer monitoring, even if insurers perfectly enforce (at zero cost) security levels of normal users. We prove that with malicious users present, equilibrium contract that specifies user security fails to exist. We demonstrate, in a general setting, a failure of cyber-insurers to underwrite contracts conditioning the premiums on security. We consider arbitrary risk-averse users, whose costs of improving security are given by an arbitrary convex function. In our model, user probability to incur damage (from an attack) depends on both his own security and network security: thus, security is interdependent. We introduce two user types (normal and malicious), and allow one user type (malicious users) to subvert insurer monitoring, even if insurers perfectly enforce (at zero cost) security levels of normal users. We prove that with malicious users present, equilibrium contract that specifies user security fails to exist. We demonstrate, in a general setting, a failure of cyber-insurers to underwrite contracts conditioning the premiums on security. 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. Abstract This paper characterizes the equilibrium of an insurance market where opportunist policyholders may file fraudulent claims. We assume that insurance policies are traded in a competitive market where insurers cannot distinguish honest policyholders from opportunists. The insurer-policyholder relationship is modelled as an incomplete information game, in which the insurer decides to audit or not. The market equilibrium depends on whether insurers can credibly commit or not to their audit strategies. We show that a no commitment equilibrium results in a welfare loss for honest individuals, which may even be so large that the insurance market completely shuts down. We also show that transferring monitoring costs to a budget-balanced common agency would mitigate the commitment problem. 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. Despite general awareness of the importance of keeping one's system secure, and widespread availability of consumer security technologies, actual investment in security remains highly variable across the Internet population, allowing attacks such as distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) and spam distribution to continue unabated. By modeling security investment decision-making in established (e.g., weakest-link, best-shot) and novel games (e.g., weakest-target), and allowing expenditures in self-protection versus self-insurance technologies, we can examine how incentives may shift between investment in a public good (protection) and a private good (insurance), subject to factors such as network size, type of attack, loss probability, loss magnitude, and cost of technology. We can also characterize Nash equilibria and social optima for different classes of attacks and defenses. In the weakest-target game, an interesting result is that, for almost all parameter settings, more effort is exerted at Nash equilibrium than at the social optimum. We may attribute this to the "strategic uncertainty" of players seeking to self-protect at just slightly above the lowest protection level. 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. Pay-As-You-Drive insurance schemes are establishing themselves as the future of car insurance. However, their current implementations, in which fine-grained location data are sent to insurers, entail a serious privacy risk. We present PriPAYD, a system where the premium calculations are performed locally in the vehicle, and only aggregated data are sent to the insurance company, without leaking location information. Our design is based on well-understood security techniques that ensure its correct functioning. We discuss the viability of PriPAYD in terms of cost, security, and ease of certification. We demonstrate that PriPAYD is possible through a proof-of-concept implementation that shows how privacy can be obtained at a very reasonable extra cost. We survey recent developments in the economic analysis of insurance fraud. The paper first sets out the two main approaches to insurance fraud that have been developped in the literature, namely the costly state verification and the costly state falsification. Under costly state verification, the insurer can verify claims at some cost. Claims' verification may be deterministic or random, and it can be conditioned on fraud signals perceived by insurers. Under costly state falsification, the policyholder expends resources for the building-up of his or her claim not to be detected. We also consider the effects of adverse selection, in a context where insurers cannot distinguish honest policyholders from potential defrauders, as well as the consequences of credibility constraints on anti-fraud policies. Finally, we focus attention on the risk of collusion between policyholders and insurance agents or service providers. Cyber insurance is a valuable approach to mitigate further the cyber risk and its loss in addition to the deployment of technological cyber defense solutions, such as intrusion detection systems and firewalls. An effective cyber insurance policy can reduce the number of successful cyber attacks by incentivizing the adoption of preventative measures and the implementation of best practices of the users. To study cyber insurance in a holistic manner, we first establish a bi-level game-theoretic model that nests a zero-sum game in a moral-hazard type of principal-agent game to capture complex interactions between a user, an attacker, and the insurer. The game framework provides an integrative view of the cyber insurance and enables a systematic design of incentive compatible and attack-aware insurance policy. The framework is further extended to study a network of users and their risk interdependencies. We completely characterize the equilibrium solutions of the bi-level game. Our analytical results provide a fundamental limit on insurability, predict the Peltzman effect, and reveal the principles of zero operating profit and the linear insurance policy of the insurer. We provide analytical results and numerical experiments to corroborate the analytical results and demonstrate the network effects as a result of the strategic interactions among the three types of players. The prevalence of misinformation within social media and online communities can undermine public security and distract attention from important issues. Fact-checking interventions, in which users cite fact-checking websites such as Snopes.com and FactCheck.org, are a strategy users can employ to refute false claims made by their peers. While laboratory research suggests such interventions are not effective in persuading people to abandon false ideas, little work considers how such interventions are actually deployed in real-world conversations. Using approximately 1,600 interventions observed on Twitter between 2012 and 2013, we examine the contexts and consequences of fact-checking interventions.W e focus in particular on the social relationship between the individual who issues the fact-check and the individual whose facts are challenged. Our results indicate that though fact-checking interventions are most commonly issued by strangers, they are more likely to draw user attention and responses when they come from friends. Finally, we discuss implications for designing more effective interventions against misinformation. We develop a two-sided multiplayer model of security in which attackers aim to deny service and defenders strategize to secure their assets. Attackers benefit from the successful compromise of target systems, however, may suffer penalties for increased attack activities. Defenders weigh the force of an attack against the cost of security. We consider security decision-making in tightly and loosely coupled networks and allow defense expenditures in protection and self-insurance technologies. We study the effect of user incentives on software security in a network of individual users under costly patching and negative network security externalities. For proprietary software or freeware, we compare four alternative policies to manage network security: (i) consumer self-patching (where no external incentives are provided for patching or purchasing); (ii) mandatory patching; (iii) patching rebate; and (iv) usage tax. We show that for proprietary software, when the software security risk and the patching costs are high, for both a welfare-maximizing social planner and a profit-maximizing vendor, a patching rebate dominates the other policies. However, when the patching cost or the security risk is low, self-patching is best. We also show that when a rebate is effective, the profit-maximizing rebate is decreasing in the security risk and increasing in patching costs. The welfare-maximizing rebates are also increasing in patching costs, but can be increasing in the effective security risk when patching costs are high. For freeware, a usage tax is the most effective policy except when both patching costs, and security risk are low, in which case a patching rebate prevails. Optimal patching rebates and taxes tend to increase with increased security risk and patching costs, but can decrease in the security risk for high-risk levels. Our results suggest that both the value generated from software and vendor profits can be significantly improved by mechanisms that target user incentives to maintain software security. Software systems inherently contain vulnerabilities that have been exploited in the past resulting in significant revenue losses. The study of vulnerability life cycles can help in the development, deployment, and maintenance of software systems. It can also help in designing future security policies and conducting audits of past incidents. Furthermore, such an analysis can help customers to assess the security risks associated with software products of different vendors. In this paper, we conduct an exploratory measurement study of a large software vulnerability data set containing 46310 vulnerabilities disclosed since 1988 till 2011. We investigate vulnerabilities along following seven dimensions: (1) phases in the life cycle of vulnerabilities, (2) evolution of vulnerabilities over the years, (3) functionality of vulnerabilities, (4) access requirement for exploitation of vulnerabilities, (5) risk level of vulnerabilities, (6) software vendors, and (7) software products. Our exploratory analysis uncovers several statistically significant findings that have important implications for software development and deployment. Internet security does not only depend on the security-related investments of individual users, but also on how these users affect each other. In a non-cooperative environment, each user chooses a level of investment to minimize its own security risk plus the cost of investment. Not surprisingly, this selfish behavior often results in undesirable security degradation of the overall system. In this paper, we first characterize the price of anarchy (POA) of network security under two models: an "Effective-investment" model, and a "Bad-traffic" model. We give insight on how the POA depends on the network topology, individual users' cost functions, and their mutual influence. We also introduce the concept of "weighted POA" to bound the region of all feasible payoffs. In a repeated game, on the other hand, users have more incentive to cooperate for their long term interests. We consider the socially best outcome that can be supported by the repeated game, and give a ratio between this outcome and the social optimum. Although the paper focuses on Internet security, many results are generally applicable to games with positive externalities. This paper proposes a local electricity trading market and provides a comprehensive security analysis of this market. It first presents a market for electricity trading among individual users, and describes the different entities and the interactions among them. Based on this market model and the interactions, the paper analyses security problems and potential privacy threats imposed on users, which leads to the specification of a set of security and privacy requirements. These requirements can be used to guide the future design of secure local electricity trading markets or to perform a risk assessment of such markets. Firms have been increasing their information technology (IT) security budgets significantly to deal with increased security threats. An examination of current practices reveals that managers view security investment as any other and use traditional decision-theoretic risk management techniques to determine security investments. We argue in this paper that this method is incomplete because of the problem's strategic nature-hackers alter their hacking strategies in response to a firm's investment strategies. We propose game theory for determining IT security investment levels and compare game theory and decision theory approaches on several dimensions such as the investment levels, vulnerability, and payoff from investments. We show that the sequential game results in the maximum payoff to the firm, but requires that the firm move first before the hacker. Even if a simultaneous game is played, the firm enjoys a higher payoff than that in the decision theory approach, except when the firm's estimate of the hacker effort in the decision theory approach is sufficiently close to the actual hacker effort. We also show that if the firm learns from prior observations of hacker effort and uses these to estimate future hacker effort in the decision theory approach, then the gap between the results of decision theory and game theory approaches diminishes over time. The rate of convergence and the extent of loss the firm suffers before convergence depend on the learning model employed by the firm to estimate hacker effort. This paper reviews the state of the art in cyber security risk assessment of Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems. We select and in-detail examine twenty-four risk assessment methods developed for or applied in the context of a SCADA system. We describe the essence of the methods and then analyse them in terms of aim; application domain; the stages of risk management addressed; key risk management concepts covered; impact measurement; sources of probabilistic data; evaluation and tool support. Based on the analysis, we suggest an intuitive scheme for the categorisation of cyber security risk assessment methods for SCADA systems. We also outline five research challenges facing the domain and point out the approaches that might be taken.