„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.
Thanks for the comment Stella! I'm not sure if I agree with the author either. You make a great point on the real impact of catastrophic events. I guess "damage" is always relative and can be biased based on the color of the viewers glasses. Thanks for being a reader!
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.
„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.
Thanks for the comment Stella! I'm not sure if I agree with the author either. You make a great point on the real impact of catastrophic events. I guess "damage" is always relative and can be biased based on the color of the viewers glasses. Thanks for being a reader!
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.