Abstract
For cyber hazard transfer, cyber coverage is a ability option. However, it's been proven that it can or might not boom community protection relying at the traits of the underlying surroundings. We're particularly inquisitive about factors of cybersecurity and the way they have an effect on settlement layout. The first is cybersecurity's interconnected individual, wherein one entity's degree of protection is decided now no longer simply through its personal funding and efforts, however additionally through the ones of others withinside the equal eco-machine (i.e., externalities). The 2d is that current breakthroughs in Internet size, paired with gadget gaining knowledge of approaches, now permit us to make specific quantitative tests of protection posture at a enterprise degree. This can be used to behavior a primary protection evaluation, or pre-screening, of a potential client with a purpose to enhance top rate discrimination and coverage formulation. We display that protection interdependency creates a "earnings possibility" for insurers, that is fueled through inefficient attempt tiers exerted through interdependent people that fail to account for hazard externalities. Security pre-screening then allows the insurer to take manipulate of this extra earnings possibility through designing the perfect contracts which incentivize marketers to make bigger their attempt tiers, permitting the insurer to “promote dedication” to interdependent marketers, except insuring their risks. We apprehend situations beneathneath which this sort of contracts results in now no longer simplest upward thrust in earnings for the major, however additionally an upgraded nation of community protection. For cyber hazard transfer, cyber coverage is a ability option. However, it's been proven that it can or might not boom community protection relying at the traits of the underlying surroundings. We're particularly inquisitive about factors of cybersecurity and the way they have an effect on settlement layout. The first is cybersecurity's interconnected individual, wherein one entity's degree of protection is decided now no longer simply through its personal funding and efforts, however additionally through the ones of others withinside the equal eco-machine (i.e., externalities). The 2d is that current breakthroughs in Internet size, paired with gadget gaining knowledge of approaches, now permit us to make specific quantitative tests of protection posture at a enterprise degree. This can be used to behavior a primary protection evaluation, or pre-screening, of a potential client with a purpose to enhance top rate discrimination and coverage formulation. We display that protection interdependency creates a "earnings possibility" for insurers, that is fueled through inefficient attempt tiers exerted through interdependent people that fail to account for hazard externalities. Security pre-screening then allows the insurer to take manipulate of this extra earnings possibility through designing the perfect contracts which incentivize marketers to make bigger their attempt tiers, permitting the insurer to “promote dedication” to interdependent marketers, except insuring their risks. We apprehend situations beneathneath which this sort of contracts results in now no longer simplest upward thrust in earnings for the major, however additionally an upgraded nation of community protection.
References
1. Insurance Information Institute, “U.S. cyber insurance market demonstrates growth, innovation in wake of high-profile data breaches,”www.iii.org/pressrelease/us-cyber-insurance-marketdemonstrates- growth innovation-in-wake-of-high-profile- databreaches-102015, 2015.
2. B. Johnson, J. Grossklags, N. Christin, and J. Chuang, “Are security experts useful? bayesian nash equilibria for network security games with limited information,” in The 15th European Symposium on Research in Computer Security, (ESORICS), 2010.
3. J. Grossklags, N. Christin, and J. Chuang. Security and insurance management in networks with heterogenous agents. In ACM EC, 2008.
A. Hofmann, “Internalizing externalities of loss prevention through insurance monopoly: an analysis of interdependent risks,” The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, 2007.
4. M. M. Khalili, P. Naghizadeh, and M. Liu, “Designing cyber insurance policies: Mitigating moral hazard through security prescreening,” in The 7th International EAI Conference on Game Theory fo Networks (Gamenets), 2017.
5. Y. Liu, A. Sarabi, J. Zhang, P. Naghizadeh, M. Karir, M. Bailey, and M. Liu, “Cloudy with a chance of breach: Forecasting cyber security incidents,” in USENIX Security Symposium, 2015.
6. C. Hemenwa, “ABI Research: Cyber insurance market to reach $10B by 2020,” www.advisenltd.com/2015/07/30/abi- research-cyber-insurance-market-to-reach- 10b-by-2020/, 2015.
7. R. A. Miura-Ko, B. Yolken, N. Bambos, and J. Mitchell, “Security investment games of interdependent organizations,” in The 46th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing, 2008.
8. R. Bohme and G. Schwartz. Modeling cyber-insurance: Towards a unifying framework. In WEIS, 2010.
9.https://www.javatpoint.com/reinforcement-learning#:~:text=Reinforcement%20Learnin g%20is%20a%20feedback,gets%20negative %20feedback%20or%20penalty.
10. N. Shetty, G. Schwartz, and J. Walrand, “Can competitive insurers improve network security?,” in The Third International Conference on Trust and Trustworthy Computing (TRUST), 2010.
11. N. Shetty, G. Schwartz, M. Felegyhazi, and J. Walrand, “Competitive cyber- insurance and internet security,” Economics of Information Security and Privacy, pp. 229–247, 2010.
12. G. Schwartz, N. Shetty, and J. Walrand, “Cyber-insurance: Missing market driven by user heterogeneity,” 2010.
13. G. A. Schwartz and S. S. Sastry, “Cyber- insurance framework for large scale interdependent networks,” in The Third International Conference on High Confidence Networked Systems, 2014.
14. H. Ogut, N. Menon, and S. Raghunathan, “Cyber insurance and it security investment: Impact of interdependence risk,” in The Workshop on the Economics of Information Security, 2005.
15. Z. Yang and J. C. S. Lui, “Security adoption and influence of cyber-insurance markets in heterogeneous networks,” Performance Evaluation, vol. 74, pp. 1–17, Apr. 2014.
16. J. Kesan, R. Majuca, and W. Yurcik, “The economic case for cyberinsurance,” University of Illinois Legal Working Paper Series uiuclwps-1001, University of Illinois College of Law, 2004.
A. Hofmann, “Internalizing externalities of loss prevention through insurance monopoly: an analysis of interdependent risks,” The Geneva Risk and Insurance Review, 2007.