Internet users such as individuals and organizations are subject to different types of epidemic risks such as worms, viruses, spams, and botnets. To reduce the probability of risk, an Internet user generally invests in traditional security mechanisms like anti-virus and anti-spam software, sometimes also known as mechanisms. However, according to security experts, such software (and their subsequent advancements) will not completely eliminate risk. Recent research efforts have considered the problem of residual risk elimination by proposing the idea of . In this regard, an important research problem is resolving information asymmetry issues associated with cyber-insurance contracts. In this paper we propose mechanisms to resolve information asymmetry in cyber-insurance. Our mechanisms are based on the (PA) model in microeconomic theory. We show that (1) optimal cyber-insurance contracts induced by our mechanisms only provide partial coverage to the insureds. This ensures greater self-defense efforts on the part of the latter to protect their computing systems, which in turn increases overall network security, (2) the level of deductible per network user contract increases in a concave manner with the topological degree of the user, and (3) a market for cyber-insurance can be made to exist in the presence of monopolistic insurers under effective mechanism design. Our methodology is applicable to any distributed network scenario in which a framework for cyber-insurance can be implemented.
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.