[ad_1]
AXA’s frustration is the lack of sound quality due to the irrational approaches that many governments have taken in this regard. In the United States, government officials have been frustrated but have not completely banned the payment of ransom, although last October the Ministry of Finance released it. notice to warn that some of the redemption money may be illegal if it is given to institutions or legitimate persons. However, the instructions only added to the confusion in many ways, as it is often not clear who is behind the conspiracy or who will receive a ransom.
Globally, it is a “lawless place,” says Ciaran Martin, a professor of technology at Oxford University and former director of the UK National Cyber Security Center. “There is no evidence that countries are trying to tell insurers not to pay the ransom,” says Martin. “France has a tendency to publish informally to large corporations, and this seems to have been the case” in the case of AXA.
Supervisors are not the only ones who are concerned with insurance to pay the ransom. The carriers will also be concerned with the amount and magnitude of what they say about the ransom. The allegations have led to significant interest payments and deductions, says Matthew McCabe, chief adviser to international insurance company Marsh. This week, animal welfare company JBS confirmed it had it paid $ 11 million; some ransom applicants recently said they have up to $ 50 million.
McCabe and others in the insurance industry doubt that a reduction in redemption payments could result in an increase in redemption. They fear that, instead, a ban could mean that the insurer would have to pay more for the business damage and data recovery services.
“If you refuse to pay the ransom, what will it look like? Because if it seems like companies are paying 10% of what they paid to the redemption team, it doesn’t make it illegal, it just adds to the cost, “says Tarah Wheeler, a security associate at the Harvard Kennedy School of Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
Mr McCabe also points out that preventing insurers from paying premiums can make it harder to ask their clients for protection. He also said that insurance agents have a good place to encourage companies to protect their security, although there is little evidence that it has worked. Nor is it clear that insurers would not be willing to pay a ransom on behalf of their clients. “Companies tend to pay a few million dollars instead of tens of millions for losing data that insurance has taken,” He said Guillaume Poupard, director of the French cybersecurity agency ANSSI, at a press conference that promoted the idea of AXA. “We have to work harder to clear the stadium around the city.”
But while the question to be raised at the end will be for the supervisors, the governments did not want to do the work. “Unless governments decide to ban the payment of taxes, insurers are less likely to make government decisions,” Martin says, adding that while he may “accept the AXA decision carefully” it should not be offered to insurance to make public decisions. ”
Members of the Institute for Security and Technology The Rescue Team Martin, who served earlier this year, raised the question of whether compensation should be illegal, with a number of people participating in the idea that such a concept would “be a crime.”
McCabe doubts the notion that redemption is so great or unexpected that the threat carries carriers, even as it grows. “I don’t think the insurance company has given up on this, or that the risk is unlikely, but it has deteriorated over the last year and beyond,” McCabe said. It continues to pay directly to AXA, whose share of Asia Assistance was collision and redemption a few weeks after deciding to suspend the payment of ransom in France. It is unknown at this time what he will do after leaving the post.
Many Great Stories
[ad_2]
Source link
