Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Stella Smiljkovic's avatar

„I’m not sure what the analysis's benefit is other than to tell cybersecurity people not to take themselves so seriously.“

I agree. I guess as the author has an insurance background, he has a very specific perspective on things. Aside from economic damage (and I do not have enough insights on how those are estimated and whether everything is included that I can think of) there is also personal damage to consider.

I believe that we haven‘t seen the big one yet, but I also believe that the real danger lies in hybrid attacks. So I am not sure how they will be counted.

Adrian Sanabria's avatar

The problem with the NotPetya insurance piece is that it comes across as a strawman argument. He could have ended the piece with the following statement.

“That may seem monumental—-and by cyberattack standards it is—-but as catastrophes go, that’s a pretty small price tag.”

Okay, fine, who is arguing that?

And that’s what’s missing. There ARE folks saying that cyber has the most damages ($10 Trillion by 2025 or some BS like that) and is the most important threat to businesses. That’s the setup and context missing from this article, in my opinion.

1 more comment...

No posts

Ready for more?