Cyber Operational Risk: Cyber risk is routinely cited as one of the most important sources of operational risks facing organisations today, in various publications and surveys. Further, in recent years, cyber risk has entered the public conscience through highly publicised events involving affected UK organisations such as TalkTalk, Morrisons and the NHS. Regulators and legislators are increasing their focus on this topic, with General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”) a notable example of this. Risk actuaries and other risk management professionals at insurance companies therefore need to have a robust assessment of the potential losses stemming from cyber risk that their organisations may face. They should be able to do this as part of an overall risk management framework and be able to demonstrate this to stakeholders such as regulators and shareholders. Given that cyber risks are still very much new territory for insurers and there is no commonly accepted practice, this paper describes a proposed framework in which to perform such an assessment. As part of this, we leverage two existing frameworks – the Chief Risk Officer (“CRO”) Forum cyber incident taxonomy, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) framework – to describe the taxonomy of a cyber incident, and the relevant cyber security and risk mitigation items for the incident in question, respectively.Summary of Results: Three detailed scenarios have been investigated by the working party:∙Employee leaks data at a general (non-life) insurer: Internal attack through social engineering, causing large compensation costs and regulatory fines, driving a 1 in 200 loss of £210.5m (c. 2% of annual revenue).∙Cyber extortion at a life insurer: External attack through social engineering, causing large business interruption and reputational damage, driving a 1 in 200 loss of £179.5m (c. 6% of annual revenue).∙Motor insurer telematics device hack: External attack through software vulnerabilities, causing large remediation / device replacement costs, driving a 1 in 200 loss of £70.0m (c. 18% of annual revenue).Limitations: The following sets out key limitations of the work set out in this paper:∙While the presented scenarios are deemed material at this point in time, the threat landscape moves fast and could render specific narratives and calibrations obsolete within a short-time frame.∙There is a lack of historical data to base certain scenarios on and therefore a high level of subjectivity is used to calibrate them.∙No attempt has been made to make an allowance for seasonality of renewals (a cyber event coinciding with peak renewal season could exacerbate cost impacts)∙No consideration has been given to the impact of the event on the share price of the company.∙Correlation with other risk types has not been explicitly considered.Conclusions: Cyber risk is a very real threat and should not be ignored or treated lightly in operational risk frameworks, as it has the potential to threaten the ongoing viability of an organisation. Risk managers and capital actuaries should be aware of the various sources of cyber risk and the potential impacts to ensure that the business is sufficiently prepared for such an event. When it comes to quantifying the impact of cyber risk on the operations of an insurer there are significant challenges. Not least that the threat landscape is ever changing and there is a lack of historical experience to base assumptions off. Given this uncertainty, this paper sets out a framework upon which readers can bring consistency to the way scenarios are developed over time. It provides a common taxonomy to ensure that key aspects of cyber risk are considered and sets out examples of how to implement the framework. It is critical that insurers endeavour to understand cyber risk better and look to refine assumptions over time as new information is received. In addition to ensuring that sufficient capital is being held for key operational risks, the investment in understanding cyber risk now will help to educate senior management and could have benefits through influencing internal cyber security capabilities.

The (re)insurance industry is faced with a growing risk related to the development of information technology (IT). This growth is creating an increasingly digitally interconnected world with more and more dependence being placed on IT systems to manage processes. This is generating opportunities for new insurance products and coverages to directly address the risks that companies face. However, it is also changing the risk landscape of existing classes of business within non-life insurance where there is inherent risk of loss as a result of IT events that cannot be or have not been excluded in policy wordings or are changing the risk profile of traditional risks. This risk of losses to non-cyber classes of business resulting from cyber as a peril that has not been intentionally included (often by not clearly excluding it) is defined as non-affirmative cyber risk, and the level of understanding of this issue and the cyber peril exposure from non-cyber policies varies across the market. In contract wordings, the market has remained relatively "silent" across most lines of business about potential losses resulting from IT-related events, either by not addressing the potential issue or excluding via exclusions. Some classes of business recognise the exposure by use of write-backs. Depending on the line of business, the approach will vary as to how best to turn any "silent" exposure into a known quantity either by robust exclusionary language, pricing or exposure monitoring. This paper proposes a framework to help insurance companies address the issue of non-affirmative cyber risk across their portfolios. Whilst the framework is not intended to be an allencompassing solution to the issue, it has been developed to help those tasked with addressing the issue to be able to perform a structured analysis of the issue. Each company's analysis will need to tailor the basis of the framework to fit their structure and underwriting procedures. Ultimately, the framework should be used to help analysts engage with management on this issue so that the risk is understood, and any risk mitigation actions can be taken if required. In the appendix, we present a worked example to illustrate how companies could implement the framework. The example is entirely fictional, is focused on non-life specialty insurance, and is intended only to help demonstrate one possible way in which to apply the framework.