text: Abstract We introduce a game-theoretic model to investigate the strategic interaction between a cyber insurance policyholder whose premium depends on her self-reported security level and an insurer with the power to audit the security level upon receiving an indemnity claim. Audits can reveal fraudulent (or simply careless) policyholders not following reported security procedures, in which case the insurer can refuse to indemnify the policyholder. However, the insurer has to bear an audit cost even when the policyholders have followed the prescribed security procedures. As audits can be expensive, a key problem insurers face is to devise an auditing strategy to deter policyholders from misrepresenting their security levels to gain a premium discount. This decision-making problem was motivated by conducting interviews with underwriters and reviewing regulatory filings in the US; we discovered that premiums are determined by security posture, yet this is often self-reported and insurers are concerned by whether security procedures are practised as reported by the policyholders. To address this problem, we model this interaction as a Bayesian game of incomplete information and devise optimal auditing strategies for the insurers considering the possibility that the policyholder may misrepresent her security level. To the best of our knowledge, this work is the first theoretical consideration of post-incident claims management in cyber security. Our model captures the trade-off between the incentive to exaggerate security posture during the application process and the possibility of punishment for non-compliance with reported security policies. Simulations demonstrate that common sense techniques are not as efficient at providing effective cyber insurance audit decisions as the ones computed using game theory.
  @cite_10: We consider arbitrary risk-averse users, whose costs of improving security are given by an arbitrary convex function. In our model, user probability to incur damage (from an attack) depends on both his own security and network security: thus, security is interdependent. We introduce two user types (normal and malicious), and allow one user type (malicious users) to subvert insurer monitoring, even if insurers perfectly enforce (at zero cost) security levels of normal users. We prove that with malicious users present, equilibrium contract that specifies user security fails to exist. We demonstrate, in a general setting, a failure of cyber-insurers to underwrite contracts conditioning the premiums on security. We consider arbitrary risk-averse users, whose costs of improving security are given by an arbitrary convex function. In our model, user probability to incur damage (from an attack) depends on both his own security and network security: thus, security is interdependent. We introduce two user types (normal and malicious), and allow one user type (malicious users) to subvert insurer monitoring, even if insurers perfectly enforce (at zero cost) security levels of normal users. We prove that with malicious users present, equilibrium contract that specifies user security fails to exist. We demonstrate, in a general setting, a failure of cyber-insurers to underwrite contracts conditioning the premiums on security.
summary: Our contribution to the literature is the first theoretical consideration of post-incident claims management. Our model captures the trade-off between the incentive to exaggerate security posture to receive a premium discount and the possibility of punishment for non-compliance with the reported security policies. We consider misrepresenting security posture a strategic choice for the insured and allow the insurer to respond by auditing claims. Not allowing the insurer to do so leads to market collapse @cite_10 .