[cabfpub] Breach Insurance

[Ryan Sleevi]

Isn't the skin in the game from insurers to ensure that they can find as
many ways as possible to disqualify the policy, rather than actually secure
the insured?

After all, the article shows that the Cyberbreach insurance Target had was
"useless", in as much as the claims were disqualified because of actions of
the insured. This is exactly what we saw of DigiNotar as well - the
insurance claim was denied because of actions of DigiNotar.

Indeed, in the history of events that have done the most to undermine the
faith in the CA ecosystem, they have been systemic issues that any
insurance agency - especially when looking at large scale liability as
proposed by 141 - would seek to use to disqualify the policy and reject the
claim.
On Dec 18, 2014 3:36 PM, "Phillip Hallam-Baker" <philliph at comodo.com> wrote:

> I don’t particularly mind what type of insurance it is, provided that it
> means that the activities of the CA are going to be overseen by some party
> who would have skin in the game in the case of a breach.
>
> Audits are fine but the auditors don’t have skin in the game.
>
>
> On Dec 18, 2014, at 6:24 PM, Dean Coclin <Dean_Coclin at symantec.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks Ben. I’m assuming you are posting this with regards to the recent
> insurance debate. Although I was initially opposed to dropping the EV
> Insurance requirement, my thinking has changed as others have posted facts
> about the type of insurance that the EVGL require and appropriateness to
> its intended use. Symantec’s current position would be in favor of ballot
> 142 (Gerv’s elimination ballot). The article you linked to below seems to
> favor a different type of insurance than what we currently require. Are you
> thinking of proposing a change to the insurance type (i.e.
> Cyberbreach/cyberliability insurance)?
>
> Dean
>
> *From:* public-bounces at cabforum.org [mailto:public-bounces at cabforum.org
> <public-bounces at cabforum.org>] *On Behalf Of *Ben Wilson
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 18, 2014 10:42 AM
> *To:* CABFPub
> *Subject:* [cabfpub] Breach Insurance
>
> Received this in my email today:
>
>
> http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/12/09/security-data-breach-insurance-target/20011477/
>
> Cheers,
>
> Ben
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Public mailing list
> Public at cabforum.org
> https://cabforum.org/mailman/listinfo/public
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.cabforum.org/pipermail/public/attachments/20141218/8910fa9e/attachment-0003.html>