Q&A
Jon Bateman, Andy Masley
{
"authors": [
"Jon Bateman"
],
"type": "legacyinthemedia",
"centerAffiliationAll": "dc",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "ctw",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "TIA",
"programs": [
"Technology and International Affairs"
],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"Iran"
],
"topics": [
"Technology"
]
}
Source: Getty
In The Media
Does Your Cyber Insurance Cover a State-Sponsored Attack?
Modern businesses face a level of cyber risk that vastly exceeds the protections they can rely on from either insurance or government relief. To address this shortfall, business leaders must work with insurers and policymakers to devise practical, long-term solutions.
By Jon Bateman
Published on Oct 30, 2020
Source: Harvard Business Review
In 2017, Merck lost an& eye-popping $1.3 billion when it got caught in the crossfire of a Russian cyberattack targeting Ukraine. The event, later dubbed NotPetya, was the largest cyberattack in history, costing $10 billion worldwide — economic damage akin to a medium-sized hurricane, or a small war. Western governments vowed to hold Russia accountable, yet none stepped forward to support the companies that were hit by the attack.
Insurance was more helpful — to a point. The insurance industry sells policies specifically designed for cyber incidents, but their scope and scale remain limited. Cyber insurance paid for just 3% of NotPetya’s global damage, leading some NotPetya victims to turn to other insurance policies with more ambiguous terms. For example, Merck invoked property and casualty policies that covered all manner of hazards without explicitly mentioning cyber incidents. These policies had so-called “war exclusions,” which barred coverage for damages due to “hostile or warlike actions” by governments or their agents. Many insurers cited these clauses to push back on the claims, triggering high-stakes legal battles that continue to this day.
This article was originally published in the Harvard Business Review.
About the Author
Jon Bateman
Senior Fellow and Co-Director, Technology and International Affairs Program
Jon Bateman is a senior fellow and co-director of the Technology and International Affairs Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
- Is AI as Bad for the Environment as Everyone Thinks?
- Are All Wars Now Drone Wars?Q&A
Jon Bateman, Steve Feldstein
Recent Work
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
More Work from Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center
- Kremlin Struggles to Solve a VPN Problem of Its Own MakingCommentary
With its scattershot approach to enforcing internet censorship, the Russian regime risks losing a battle against the many Russians who have learned to evade online restrictions.
Maria Kolomychenko
- Simmering U.S.-Iran Conflict Is Moscow’s Ideal OutcomeCommentary
Ongoing uncertainty in the Middle East allows Moscow to both increase its influence in Tehran and continue to enjoy the financial windfall of higher oil prices.
Nikita Smagin
- Russia’s Elite Conflict Over Internet Restrictions Does Not Herald Regime CollapseCommentary
A much-discussed disagreement over internet restrictions in Russia was never an existential threat for Putin: It was about elite groups protecting their interests.
Alexandra Prokopenko
- Why Is Belarus’s Approach to Online Censorship So Different From Russia’s?Commentary
For Lukashenko, abandoning Western internet services and embracing Russian equivalents would mean tying himself even closer to Moscow.
Artyom Shraibman
- Who Is Responsible for the Demise of the Russian Internet?Commentary
The Russian state has opted for complete ideological control of the internet and is prepared to bear the associated costs.
Maria Kolomychenko
