logoalt Hacker News

nullocator • yesterday at 10:03 PM • 3 replies • view on HN

Is it more expensive to keep your systems upgraded and maintained or to have all your product get destroyed one arbitrary day and then have to pay to do the upgrade anyways so that the arbitrary property destruction doesn't keep happening?

In before "but insurance"; yes insurance can in theory mitigate some of this, but I feel like people on HN have no understanding what it's like to deal with a multi-million dollar insurance claim that the insurance company 100% does not want to pay out. The legal battles over such things take years and are on their own incredibly expensive.


Replies

dwedge • yesterday at 10:11 PM

> Is it more expensive to keep your systems upgraded and maintained or to have all your product get destroyed one arbitrary day and then have to pay to do the upgrade anyways so that the arbitrary property destruction doesn't keep happening?

It happened once. Did you do the maths here? Can you tell us which one was Kore expensive and what percentage chance there was of this hack happening?

➕ show 1 reply
makeitdouble • yesterday at 10:10 PM

That class of risk was just theoretical for decades, so the price on it was basically 0.

Now that we see large scale incidents will there be an actual money value associated with upgrading systems and security for supermarket appliances.

➕ show 1 reply
SOLAR_FIELDS • yesterday at 10:28 PM

In my recent experience (last 3 months) with a cyber claim getting insurance to pay out was actually pretty straightforward. It was about a $250K USD loss on a phishing attempt (someone hijacked and rerouted payment details for a wire)