Digital Twins for Cyber Insurance
Main Article Content
Abstract
Cyberattacks have not only risen in number but also in their sophistication and financial impact, thereby putting traditional cyber insurance models under a lot of pressure to justify their value. The old-fashioned ways of assessing and underwriting cyber risks are still heavily dependent on static questionnaires, past loss data, and infrequent audits that can barely cope with the ever-evolving nature of cyber risks. It is in this situation that digital twin technology has come up as a breakthrough innovation that has the potential to completely transform the cyber insurance arena.
The authors put forward the concept of digital twins, which are essentially virtual and regularly updated copies of the firms’ digital environments, as the main instrument for evaluating risks in cyber insurance underwriting, claims processing, and even regulatory scrutiny. The study applies a conceptual and exploratory research design as well as secondary literature and industry standards to develop a digital twin-based framework for the cyber insurance ecosystem. The framework described in this article points out how real-time system simulation, predictive analytics, and continuous monitoring technologies can be mingled together to not merely provide improved risk visibility but also to increase the accuracy of underwriting process and to make easier management of claims and compliance with regulations in a proactive way.
According to the results obtained, the digital twins facilitate the process for the insurers to go beyond the traditional static approach of evaluating the risks after the events and thus to be able to adopt the more innovative dynamic simulation-driven risk governance method. Digital twins not only support the ongoing alignment of the cyber stance, insurance choices, and regulatory requirements but also create a huge potential for increasing the resilience, transparency, and trust in the whole cyber insurance market as a whole through the scalable paths they provide.
Article Details
Section
How to Cite
References
[1] Swiss Re Institute, Cyber Insurance: Market Trends and Emerging Risk Landscapes. Zurich, Switzerland: Swiss Re, 2024.
[2] J. Woods and R. Moore, “Does insurance have a future in governing cybersecurity?,” IEEE Security & Privacy, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 15–22, 2020.
[3] D. Böhme and G. Schwartz, “Modeling cyber-insurance: Towards risk-based premiums,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Forensics Security, vol. 15, pp. 2968–2983, 2020.
[4] R. Anderson and T. Moore, “The economics of information security,” Science, vol. 314, no. 5799, pp. 610–613, 2006.
[5] National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), Insurance Data Security Model Law. Washington, DC, USA, 2024.
[6] A. Charpentier, E. Denuit, and S. Trufin, “Machine learning in insurance: A critical survey,” IEEE Trans. Neural Netw. Learn. Syst., vol. 34, no. 9, pp. 4712–4726, 2023.
[7] J. Brockett and X. Xia, “Big data analytics in insurance risk management,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp. 154812–154826, 2021.
[8] F. Tao, Q. Qi, L. Wang, and A. Nee, “Digital twins and cyber–physical systems toward Industry 4.0,” IEEE Trans. Ind. Informat., vol. 15, no. 4, pp. 2405–2415, 2019.
[9] A. Fuller, Z. Fan, C. Day, and C. Barlow, “Digital twin: Enabling technologies, challenges and open research,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 108952–108971, 2020.
[10] K. Rieck and P. Laskov, “Machine learning for cyber risk quantification,” IEEE Computer, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 44–53, 2024.
[11] S. Barocas, M. Hardt, and A. Narayanan, “Fairness and accountability in algorithmic decision making,” Commun. ACM, vol. 64, no. 6, pp. 56–65, 2021.
[12] D. Gunning and D. Aha, “DARPA’s explainable artificial intelligence program,” IEEE Computer, vol. 52, no. 4, pp. 38–46, 2019.
[13] I. E. Livermore, J. Whittlestone, and S. Farquhar, “Operationalizing responsible AI in high-stakes decision systems,” IEEE Technol. Soc. Mag., vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 18–27, 2024.
[14] R. Guidotti et al., “A survey of methods for explaining black box models,” IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng., vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 1–21, 2023.
[15] T. Miller, “Explanation in artificial intelligence: Insights from the social sciences,” IEEE Intell. Syst., vol. 34, no. 6, pp. 6–12, 2019.
[16] National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Cybersecurity Framework 2.0. Gaithersburg, MD, USA, 2024.
[17] A. R. Hevner and S. Chatterjee, “Design science research in information systems,” IEEE Computer, vol. 56, no. 8, pp. 76–84, 2023.
[18] R. K. Yin, Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods, 6th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage Publications, 2022.
[19] D. Silverman, Interpreting Qualitative Data: Methods for Analyzing Talk, Text and Interaction, 5th ed. London, U.K.: Sage Publications, 2023.
[20] P. Pal et al., “Systemic cyber risk: Measurement, management, and regulation,” IEEE Security & Privacy, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 28–36, 2024.