This is potentially big, if they include phishing based attacks in the future.

« Back to Previous Page
133
0

Please to read the entire article.

Marked as spam
Posted by Ira Winkler (Discussions: 2, Comments: 1)
Replied on November 8, 2017 12:00 am
Category: IT Security
4 views
0
Private comment
Ira, there was a case recently (US) that held regardless of the victim "doing so without duress and on their own accord" must now be covered. I will look it up. Just in last 60 days or so. Obviously jurisdiction issue US v. Canada but just fyi...
Marked as spam
Posted by Carter Schoenberg (Discussions: 0, Comments: 1)
Replied on November 7, 2017 7:00 pm
0
Private comment
This highlights the need for solid procedures including verification processes and regular training of employees. A recent seminar I attended cited the rise over the last several years of Social Engineering over technology based hacks.
Marked as spam
Posted by Karen Squires Foelsch (Discussions: 0, Comments: 1)
Replied on November 8, 2017 7:00 pm
0
Private comment
This is very interesting. All of these early cases are so important for the future of cyber insurance.
Marked as spam
Posted by Matt Sully (Discussions: 0, Comments: 1)
Replied on November 8, 2017 7:00 pm
0
Private comment
Ira,
I left the same comment on Wim’s post of the same article... I think it warrants the discussion...

...But Sadly, the Canadian Courts Judge making this ruling doesn’t get it... as one who does quite a bit of work on behalf of the insurers, the understanding SHOULD be that it is arguable that a great majority of the cyber attacks are preceded by some form of Social Engineering prior to the execution and escalation of the critical event itself... (pick your poison). It would be negligent, IMO, for the carriers to insert an exclusion statement into their policies regarding SE as a precursor... that, is part of the process in many instances...
Marked as spam
Posted by Antonio Rucci (Discussions: 0, Comments: 4)
Replied on November 8, 2017 7:00 pm
0
Private comment
Game changer
Marked as spam
Posted by Linda Montgomery (Discussions: 0, Comments: 1)
Replied on November 8, 2017 7:00 pm
0
Private comment
A security awareness training program could have mitigated this.
Marked as spam
Posted by Dan Lathigee (Discussions: 0, Comments: 1)
Replied on November 8, 2017 7:00 pm
0
Private comment
A Security Awarness training program only works if those who took the training implement it in their daily activities. Ultimately it's up to the user to be diligent in preventing these attacks.
Marked as spam
Posted by Steven Studt (Discussions: 0, Comments: 1)
Replied on November 8, 2017 7:00 pm
0
Private comment
Surprising. Awareness is good and people need to be reminders periodically.
Marked as spam
Posted by Taskeen Khan (Discussions: 0, Comments: 1)
Replied on November 8, 2017 7:00 pm
0
Private comment
Wow
Marked as spam
Posted by Chad Mills (Discussions: 0, Comments: 1)
Replied on November 8, 2017 7:00 pm
0
Private comment
Maybe this can get organizations to rethink their stances on training and social engineering simulation to make up for the gap here. If insurance won’t cover it in Canada (apparently it does in the US), they cannot transfer the liability and must act.
Marked as spam
Posted by Joe Gray, CISSP-ISSMP (Discussions: 0, Comments: 1)
Replied on November 8, 2017 7:00 pm
0
Private comment
Woah- Thanks for sharing. Definitely needs to be known by upper administration to help along the advancement of a required security awareness training policy and program
Marked as spam
Posted by Cheryl O'Dell (Discussions: 0, Comments: 1)
Replied on November 8, 2017 7:00 pm
0
Private comment
Awesome
Marked as spam
Posted by Gregory Hanis (Discussions: 0, Comments: 1)
Replied on November 8, 2017 7:00 pm
0
Private comment
Definitely Big and simple. Great example on how digital footprint controls can make a make a diference and how complex it is to prosecute these actions
Marked as spam
Posted by Pedro Fidalgo (Discussions: 0, Comments: 1)
Replied on November 9, 2017 7:00 pm
0
Private comment
Read your policies in detail ...
Marked as spam
Posted by Pascal Winkler (Discussions: 0, Comments: 2)
Replied on November 9, 2017 7:00 pm
0
Private comment
Interesting, thank you for sharing. This is a warning shot for all and a fundamental shift in cyber risk management landscape. Organisations managing risks through insurance policies must be more responsible.
Marked as spam
Posted by Dave Williams LCCP (Discussions: 0, Comments: 1)
Replied on November 9, 2017 7:00 pm
0
Private comment
With the Cyber insurance market still so immature and people as the weakest link, this is all too common.
Marked as spam
Posted by Tony Sweeney (Discussions: 0, Comments: 1)
Replied on November 9, 2017 7:00 pm
0
Private comment
Awesome
Marked as spam
Posted by Manoj patel (Discussions: 0, Comments: 1)
Replied on November 9, 2017 7:00 pm
« Back to Previous Page