Cloud failure and cyber insurance: calibration of stress scenarios and diversification

Daniel Nkameni (CREST); Olivier Lopez (CREST)

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 167 references

Cloud failure and cyber insurance: calibration of stress scenarios and diversification

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Cloud-outage risk can be managed by optimizing an insurer's exposure to each cloud provider, balancing everyday mutualization against accumulation losses.

desk verdict A genuinely useful two-regime portfolio framework for cloud-outage cyber risk, though the numerical calibration is scenario-driven and the λ rule in Eq. (3.5) needs more care before the underwriting numbers can be taken literally. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.18815 v1 pith:7CD4MGSU submitted 2026-07-21 q-fin.RM

Olivier Lopez (CREST) , Daniel Nkameni (CREST) This is my paper · ORCID

classification q-fin.RM MSC 91G1062P05

keywords cyberinsurancecloudoutageaccumulationriskstresstestingportfoliodiversificationunderwritingguidelinesValue-at-RiskConditionalTailExpectation

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that a cyber insurance portfolio can be made resilient to cloud failures by choosing, for each provider, the share of total customer turnover it may underwrite, rather than by dictating individual policy choices. It models a cloud outage as a business-interruption timeline—initial unavailability, backup activation, and recovery—so that the portfolio loss depends on the aggregate exposure to each provider. From there it constructs two risk measures: the variance of losses in ordinary conditions, and a stressed-regime measure (mean, Value-at-Risk, or Conditional Tail Expectation) of the loss if a provider fails for everyone at once. Combining the two in a quadratic program yields target exposures that balance profitability and mutualization with protection against accumulation. If the framework works, insurers can translate stress-testing assumptions directly into underwriting limits.

What carries the argument

The carrying object is the aggregate exposure vector w̄, whose entry w̄_j is the total turnover of the portfolio relying on provider j. The stressed-regime measure is built from a weighted central-limit approximation: for a large portfolio, the conditional loss distribution given an outage duration t is approximately Gaussian with mean m_t and variance s_w²σ_t², so an upper quantile or Conditional Tail Expectation becomes μ(w̄_j)=w̄_j f⁻¹(s,1−α_j), i.e., linear in w̄_j. This linearity is what makes the two-regime quadratic program min_{w̄} ½w̄′Σw̄ + λ m′w̄ tractable, where Σ encodes standard-regime correlations across providers and m encodes stressed-regime severity.

What would settle it

Choose η=0.01 and η=0.10 in Eq. (3.5) with c=25,000 euros and the paper's own five-provider data; if the resulting optimal weights from the Section 3.2 program differ by more than a few percentage points, the underwriting guidelines are not determined by the model. A second check: simulate the stressed portfolio loss for n=5,000 under the paper's Weibull assumptions and compare the 95% quantile to the Gaussian approximation; material divergence would invalidate the linear risk-measure form.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the collective loss from a systemic cloud outage can be approximated, for a large portfolio, by a distribution that depends only on the aggregate turnover exposed to the provider and on a small concentration index, so its risk measures are essentially linear in the aggregate exposure vector. This lets the insurer solve a single convex program: minimize half the standard-regime loss variance plus a penalty on the stressed-regime risk measure, subject to a target expected loss and a fixed total exposure. The solution is a set of per-provider exposure caps that define underwriting guidelines. The authors show on a synthetic five-provider portfolio that the optimal weig

Load-bearing premise

The calibration rule for λ assumes the optimal portfolio hits both the standard-regime variance bound and the stressed-regime capital limit at the same time, which requires the insurer to specify the reserve c and the tail probability η; the paper sets c=25,000 euros but never gives η, and it treats the concentration bound s as sufficiently large without a value, so the optimized weights are not actually pinned down.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Insurers can set concrete per-provider exposure limits as underwriting rules, avoiding concentration without targeting individual policyholders.
The same framework serves as a sensitivity tool: changing outage duration, confidence level, or daily loss volatility shows which providers become dangerous.
Providers that are attractive in ordinary conditions because they generate higher premiums may be exactly the ones that need exposure caps in stressed regimes.
A moderate confidence level for the tail measure is enough to detect accumulation sensitivity, because the stress scenario's probability is not being estimated.
The model's linear structure makes it easy to add constraints, such as requiring every major provider to remain represented in the portfolio.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The calibration rule for λ requires fixing both the reserve c and the ruin probability η; since the paper fixes c but never states η, the exact numerical weights in the illustration are not fully determined by the model as written.
Because the stressed-regime measure is linear in the aggregate exposure, the approach extends naturally to other common dependencies, such as power grids, payment networks, or software supply chains, where a single failure hits many policyholders simultaneously.
The model could be turned into a dynamic monitoring tool: re-run the optimization as provider outage probabilities and costs change, and use the resulting exposure caps as early-warning triggers in portfolio management.
For heavy-tailed individual losses, the Gaussian approximation would fail; an extreme-value version would preserve the stress-testing idea but lose the linear-in-exposure structure that makes the optimization so simple.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague,

Quick take: this paper is worth engaging with. It does something the cyber-insurance literature hasn't quite done—it sets up a two-regime portfolio problem where you minimize variance in the standard regime plus a linear penalty on aggregate cloud-provider exposure in a stressed regime. That combination is a legitimate new twist on Markowitz, and it gives regulators and insurers a concrete way to think about concentration in cloud dependencies. The math is solid: the weighted CLT derivation in Section 6.1 is coherent, the quadratic program is convex, and the sensitivity analyses (across ρ, α, λ, Weibull shape, and interruption duration) are informative rather than decorative.

The main soft spot is exactly what the stress-test note flags. The λ-calibration rule in Eq. (3.5) is derived by assuming both the variance bound and the systemic bound bind at the optimum. In a convex program with two constraints, there's no guarantee both are active; if one is slack, the "equal importance" justification collapses. And the rule itself contains two unstated inputs—η (the tail probability behind the capital reserve) and s (the upper bound on the micro-level concentration measure). Without those, the reported optimal weights in Figures 3–8 are not reproducible. Section 4 fixes c = 25,000 euros but never states η, and s is just "sufficiently large." That's a real gap, and it undermines the numerical underwriting guidelines as operational guidance.

That said, the paper's own conclusion concedes that the numerical inputs are scenario assumptions rather than estimates. So this isn't a hidden flaw; it's a transparency issue in the illustration. The framework stands on its own, and the missing parameters could be pinned down with a few lines of clarification. I don't think the calibration claim in the title overstates the framework—the model is the contribution, not the specific numbers.

The citation pattern looks fine: it draws on Lloyd's, EIOPA, cyber-insurance correlation literature, and cloud-outage studies, with appropriate caution about data scarcity. No invented entities, no circular reasoning.

Who is this for? Actuaries and supervisors working on cyber accumulation, especially anyone needing a starting point for cloud-outage stress testing. The paper deserves a serious referee; a careful review should ask for the missing parameter values and a discussion of when Eq. (3.5) is justified. I'd accept it for peer review, but I'd push for revision before publication.

Net: real methodological contribution, honest about its limitations, one fixable soft spot that currently keeps the numerical results from being fully reproducible.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a two-regime framework for cyber insurance portfolios exposed to cloud-outage risk: a standard regime with isolated claims, where portfolio variance is the risk measure, and a stressed regime where a common cloud-provider failure affects all policyholders sharing that provider, represented by a provider-level systemic risk measure μ(w̄_j)=m_j w̄_j. The authors define a quadratic optimization problem over aggregate turnover exposures w̄ that balances standard-regime variance and stressed-regime loss, and propose a practical rule for the weight λ based on an insurer's capital reserve. A synthetic numerical illustration with five cloud providers and 5,000 policyholders is used to derive underwriting guidelines, with sensitivity analyses over the Weibull shape, the confidence level α, the volatility of daily losses, λ, and outage duration.

Significance. If fully specified, the framework would be a useful addition to cyber-risk stress testing: it translates provider-level concentration into an aggregate portfolio constraint and is consistent with EIOPA's interest in cloud-outage scenarios. The convex quadratic program is well posed, the distinction between standard and stressed regimes is sensible, and the sensitivity analyses give a clear operational picture. The paper is also honest in Section 5 that the numerical inputs are scenario assumptions rather than estimates. However, the numerical underwriting guidelines are not currently determined because several load-bearing inputs—η and s, and the correct covariance-matrix specification—are missing or inconsistent. The weighted CLT justification also needs correction. These issues are local and repairable, but they currently affect the central quantitative claims.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.3, Eq. (3.5)] The λ-calibration rule is not fully specified. Section 4.3 fixes c=25,000 but never states η, the allowed probability that standard-regime losses exhaust the reserve. Since λ ∝ 1/Φ̄^{-1}(η)², choosing η=0.05 versus η=0.005 changes λ by a factor of about 2.45, and Figure 6 shows the optimal allocation is sensitive to λ. Moreover, Eq. (3.5) is derived by assuming the variance bound (3.4) and the systemic bound m′w̄=dc are simultaneously active at the optimum; the convex program of Section 3.2 does not enforce these equalities, and the paper reports no check that the computed solutions sit on both bounds. Without a specified η and an active-constraint check, the reported underwriting weights are not determined.
[Section 3.1 and Section 4.3] The VaR and CTE versions of the systemic vector m are built from an upper bound s on s_w, but s is never assigned a value. The text says s is 'sufficiently large' and relaxes the constraint s_w≤s. Since s_w²=Σ_i(w_{i,j}τ_i/w̄_j)²≤1, a natural worst-case choice is s=1, but the paper does not make it. For s>1 the quantile f^{-1}(s,1−α) and CTE g(s,α) increase, so m and the optimal weights in the VaR/CTE panels of Figures 3, 4, 7, and 8 change. The numerical results in those panels are therefore not reproducible until s is fixed and its influence is reported.
[Appendix 6.1, Eq. (6.1)] The weighted CLT is invoked under the condition Σ_i(w_{i,j}τ_i/w̄_j)^4<∞. This condition is not sufficient: if a single policyholder carries all exposure (a_1=1, a_i=0 for i>1), the sum of fourth powers is 1, yet no Gaussian limit holds. A Lindeberg-type condition such as max_i a_i²/s_w²→0, or equivalently Σ_i a_i^4/(Σ_i a_i²)²→0, together with moment assumptions on φ_t(Z_i), is needed. As written, Eq. (3.1) is not justified for the VaR and CTE measures, so the corresponding optimization criteria rest on an unsupported approximation.
[Section 4.2.2] The covariance matrix is specified as s_{j,k}=l_jl_k(Δ_{j,k}−p_jp_k). For j=k this gives p_j(1−p_j)E[L]², whereas Eq. (2.3) defines σ_j²=p_j(E[L²]−p_jE[L]²)=p_jVar(L)+p_j(1−p_j)E[L]². The diagonal of Σ therefore omits the idiosyncratic variance p_jVar(L), which is nonzero because L_i^{(j)} depends on random T, U, V, a, and b. The optimization uses this Σ, so the reported variance component and the optimal weights are not those of the model in Section 2. The authors should either replace the diagonal with the correct variance or explicitly state that the numerical exercise uses a different covariance model.

minor comments (4)

[Equation (2.1)] The display of Eq. (2.1) is hard to parse because of the notation ϵ_i^{(j)} and the braces. Splitting the expression into cases with and without an activated backup plan would improve readability.
[Section 3.1 vs. Section 4.2.2] The notation s_{j,k} is used for covariance entries in Section 4.2.2, while s_w denotes the policyholder-weight concentration and s denotes its upper bound. This collision is confusing; rename one of them.
[Abstract and Section 5] The abstract and title say 'calibrate' stress scenarios, but Section 5 correctly states that the probabilities, dependence structure, interruption durations, and daily loss intensities are scenario assumptions rather than estimates. Aligning the terminology would avoid overclaiming.
[Section 4.3.1] The statement that 'Provider 5 receives the largest weight in most configurations' should be checked against all panels of Figure 3; in some CTE or high-ρ configurations the ordering may be different. A supplementary table of the baseline weights would help.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the framework is a self-contained modeling exercise; the noted gaps (unstated η and s, heuristic λ calibration) are calibration limitations, not reductions of outputs to inputs.

full rationale

The paper's claimed derivation chain is not circular. The loss model (Eq. 2.1), aggregate standard-regime variance (Eq. 2.4), stressed-regime approximation (Eq. 3.1), and the resulting quadratic program in Section 3.2 are all built from explicit modeling assumptions and external references; none of them defines its output in terms of a quantity it is supposed to predict. The λ-calibration rule in Eq. (3.5) is presented as a heuristic condition equating two capital-bounds, not as a theorem forcing the optimizer to attain both bounds; the paper explicitly says 'If we expect the optimal portfolio to have a variance close to the bound...' and 'any other rule that makes sense from a business perspective could be used.' Thus the optimal weights are not obtained by imposing the conclusion. The systemic risk vector m is derived from a conservative upper bound with s taken 'sufficiently large'; this is a scenario assumption, not a fitted parameter disguised as a prediction. The numerical illustration is likewise transparent: the probabilities, dependence matrix, and duration distributions are described as 'plausible dependence matrix' and 'scenario assumptions rather than as estimates' in the conclusion. There are no load-bearing self-citations and no uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' own prior work; all cited sources (Lloyd's, Flexera, EIOPA, Weber, etc.) are external or mathematical. The genuine issues—η is never specified and s is not assigned a numerical value, so λ and the reported weights are not fully pinned down—are calibration/reproducibility gaps, not circularity. An under-specified input is not a statement that equates a conclusion to its premise, so the paper does not meet the threshold for a circularity finding.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model is deliberately synthetic: every distributional input is either taken from an industry report or chosen by the authors. The only mathematical input with independent support is the weighted CLT of Weber (2006). The most consequential free parameters are p_j, Δ, and the unstated s and η.

free parameters (8)

Provider failure probabilities p_j = 0.36, 0.22, 0.70, 0.49, 0.81
Chosen to represent moderately risky, risky, and very risky providers; not estimated from outage data.
Dependence matrix Δ = Table 5
A 'plausible dependence matrix' designed by the authors, not empirically estimated; drives the covariance matrix Σ.
Mean daily loss E[a_{i,j}] = 2.7, 3.1, 2.4, 2.6, 2.3 (×10³ euros)
Hand-set to reflect different provider criticality levels.
Weibull shape a and scale γ = a ∈ {0.5, 1, 1.5}; γ set to mean durations 2 or 5 days
Scenario assumptions used to vary outage-duration shape while fixing the mean.
Backup parameters P(U=∞), E[U|U<∞], b_i, V_i = 0.2; 2.1 days; Uniform[0.3,0.5]; same distribution as T
Taken from Lloyd's 2018 report and treated as fixed assumptions for the synthetic portfolio.
Standard deviation of a_{i,j} = 0.1, 0.75, 1.4
Sensitivity values chosen to represent underwriting uncertainty.
Penalty parameter λ = Baseline via Eq. (3.5) with c = 25,000 euros
Chosen to make the quadratic and systemic objectives comparable at the assumed capital bound; depends on unstated η.
Upper bound s on s_w = Not specified
Used to define μ(w̄_j)=w̄_j f⁻¹(s,1−α_j); the paper says s is 'sufficiently large' but never states a value.

assumptions (6)

standard math Weighted central limit theorem (Weber 2006) applies to the weighted sum in Eq. (3.1), conditional on T(j)=t, under the fourth-moment condition (6.1).
Used in Section 6.1 to justify the Gaussian approximation of the stressed portfolio loss.
domain assumption The vectors (U_i, V_i, a_{i,j}, b_i) are i.i.d., mutually independent, and independent of T_i^{(j)}.
Invoked in Section 2.1.2 to compute m_t and σ_t and to apply the CLT; acknowledged as a simplification.
domain assumption Cov(δ_{i1,j}L_{i1}^{(j)}, δ_{i2,k}L_{i2}^{(k)}) = σ_j σ_k r_{j,k}, i.e., policyholder correlation is driven only by cloud providers.
Equation (2.3) is the basis for writing the standard-regime variance as w̄′Σw̄.
domain assumption Insured losses are light-tailed and the portfolio is large, so the standard-regime total loss is approximately Gaussian.
Used in Section 3.3 to derive the reserve-ruin probability and the λ calibration formula.
ad hoc to paper The upper bound s on s_w can be relaxed by assuming s is sufficiently large.
Section 3.1 uses this to make VaR and CTE linear in w̄_j, but no numerical value of s is supplied.
domain assumption Premiums are proportional to expected standard-regime loss with a common loading θ.
Section 2.2 uses this to equate expected loss with expected profitability and motivate the constraint π′w̄=ρ.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cloud failure and cyber insurance: calibration of stress scenarios and diversification." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7CD4MGSU

@misc{pith2026260718815,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cloud failure and cyber insurance: calibration of stress scenarios and diversification},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7CD4MGSU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.18815}
}

read the original abstract

The expansion of the cyber insurance market remains exposed to the threat of accumulation events that could simultaneously affect a large number of policyholders. Although few such catastrophes have been observed so far, apart from worldwide cyberattacks such as WannaCry and NotPetya in 2017, the nature of cyber risk makes their occurrence plausible. Stress-testing tools are therefore needed to assess whether an insurance portfolio can withstand such crises. In this perspective, the European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA) has identified cloud outage as one of the key scenarios to consider in cyber insurance stress-testing frameworks. In this paper, we propose a framework to model and calibrate cloud-outage scenarios and to measure the diversification of a cyber insurance portfolio. We also show how this diversification can protect against accumulation risk and provide underwriting guidelines to reduce the vulnerability of a portfolio to cloud-outage scenarios.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.18815 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Overview of the relationship between financial losses due to cloud interruptions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Evolution of the weights of the optimal portfolio as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (6 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Evolution of the weights of the optimal portfolio as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p032_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Evolution of the weights of the optimal portfolio as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p033_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Evolution of the weight w4 using CTE as the risk measure with α = 0.95. directly linked to the duration of business interruption. A longer average outage increases the probability that the interruption lasts beyond the backup activation time and also increases the cont…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Evolution of the weights of the optimal portfolio as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Evolution of the weights of the optimal portfolio as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_8.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Densities of financial losses due to cloud interruptions (Panels a, c, and e) and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p041_9.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

167 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

[1]

A. Z. Abualkishik, A. A. Alwan, and Y. Gulzar. Disaster recovery in cloud computing systems: An overview. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 11 0 (9), 2020

2020
[2]

J. C. Aerts, W. Botzen, A. van der Veen, J. Krywkow, and S. Werners. Dealing with uncertainty in flood management through diversification. Ecology and Society, 13 0 (1), 2008

2008
[3]

Cyber risk accumulation, 2022

American Academy of Actuaries . Cyber risk accumulation, 2022. URL https://actuary.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/5Accumulation.pdf

2022
[4]

Light upon cyber insurance, 2024

AMRAE. Light upon cyber insurance, 2024. URL https://www.amrae.fr/bibliotheque-de-amrae/lucy-light-upon-cyber-insurance-2024-edition

2024
[5]

Angelelli, R

E. Angelelli, R. Mansini, and M. G. Speranza. A comparison of mad and cvar models with real features. Journal of Banking & Finance, 32 0 (7): 0 1188--1197, 2008

2008
[6]

Global 2025 cyber risk report, 2025

AON. Global 2025 cyber risk report, 2025. URL https://www.aon.com/cyber-risk-report

2025
[7]

Asensio, A

C. Asensio, A. Bouveret, and A. Harris. Financial stability risks from cloud outsourcing. European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), Risk Analysis and Economics, 2022

2022
[8]

Awiszus, T

K. Awiszus, T. Knispel, I. Penner, G. Svindland, A. Vo , and S. Weber. Modeling and pricing cyber insurance: Idiosyncratic, systematic, and systemic risks. European Actuarial Journal, 13 0 (1): 0 1--53, 2023

2023

Show all 167 references

[9]

u rr, K. Rothermel, B. Ottenw \

O. Bibartiu, F. D \"u rr, K. Rothermel, B. Ottenw \"a lder, and A. Grau. Availability analysis of redundant and replicated cloud services with bayesian networks. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 40 0 (1): 0 561--584, 2024

2024
[10]

Biener, M

C. Biener, M. Eling, and J. H. Wirfs. Insurability of cyber risk: An empirical analysis. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance-Issues and Practice, 40 0 (1): 0 131--158, 2015

2015
[12]

B \"o hme and G

R. B \"o hme and G. Kataria. Models and measures for correlation in cyber-insurance. In Weis, volume 2, page 3, 2006

2006
[14]

Caccioli, P

F. Caccioli, P. Barucca, and T. Kobayashi. Network models of financial systemic risk: a review. Journal of Computational Social Science, 1 0 (1): 0 81--114, 2018

2018
[16]

Denaro, A

S. Denaro, A. Castelletti, M. Giuliani, and G. Characklis. Insurance portfolio diversification through bundling for competing agents exposed to uncorrelated drought and flood risks. Water Resources Research, 56 0 (5): 0 e2019WR026443, 2020

2020
[17]

Methodological principles of insurance stress testing - cyber component, 2023

EIOPA. Methodological principles of insurance stress testing - cyber component, 2023. URL https://www.eiopa.europa.eu/publications/methodological-principles-insurance-stress-testing-cyber-component_en

2023
[18]

Eling and K

M. Eling and K. Jung. Copula approaches for modeling cross-sectional dependence of data breach losses. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 82: 0 167--180, 2018

2018
[20]

State of the cloud report, 2023

Flexera. State of the cloud report, 2023. URL https://info.flexera.com/CM-REPORT-State-of-the-Cloud

2023
[21]

State of the cloud report, 2024

Flexera. State of the cloud report, 2024. URL https://info.flexera.com/CM-REPORT-State-of-the-Cloud-2024-Thanks?revisit

2024
[22]

C. A. Floudas and V. Visweswaran. Quadratic optimization. Handbook of global optimization, pages 217--269, 1995

1995
[23]

Cyber risk accumulation: Fully tackling the insurability challenge, 2023

Geneva Association . Cyber risk accumulation: Fully tackling the insurability challenge, 2023. URL https://www.genevaassociation.org/sites/default/files/2023-11/cyber_accumulation_report_91123.pdf

2023
[24]

Gozman, T

D. Gozman, T. Machaiah, and L. Willcocks. Cloud sourcing and mitigating concentration risk in financial services. In Information Systems Outsourcing: The Era of Digital Transformation, pages 335--358. Springer, 2020

2020
[25]

Gulliver, H

J. Gulliver, H. Nadler, and H. S. Scott. Cloud adoption in the financial sector and concentration risk. Wayne State University Law School Research Paper, 0 (2023), 2023

2023
[26]

Gunjan and S

A. Gunjan and S. Bhattacharyya. A brief review of portfolio optimization techniques. Artificial Intelligence Review, 56 0 (5): 0 3847--3886, 2023

2023
[27]

H. S. Herath and T. C. Herath. Cyber-insurance: Copula pricing framework and implication for risk management. In WEIS, 2007

2007
[28]

P.-F. Hsu. A deeper look at cloud adoption trajectory and dilemma. Information Systems Frontiers, 24 0 (1): 0 177--194, 2022

2022
[29]

Cyber risk underwriting, 2020

IAIS. Cyber risk underwriting, 2020. URL https://www.iais.org/uploads/2022/01/201229-Cyber-Risk-Underwriting_-Identified-Challenges-and-Supervisory-Considerations-for-Sustainable-Market-Development.pdf

2020
[30]

M. O. Jackson and A. Pernoud. Systemic risk in financial networks: A survey. Annual Review of Economics, 13: 0 171--202, 2021

2021
[31]

Jammal, A

M. Jammal, A. Kanso, P. Heidari, and A. Shami. Availability analysis of cloud deployed applications. In 2016 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering (IC2E), pages 234--235. IEEE, 2016

2016
[33]

Cloud down impacts on the us economy

Lloyd's. Cloud down impacts on the us economy. air worldwide., 2018. URL https://assets.lloyds.com/assets/pdf-air-cyber-lloyds-public-2018-final/1/pdf-air-cyber-lloyds-public-2018-final.pdf

2018
[34]

Mainik, G

G. Mainik, G. Mitov, and L. R \"u schendorf. Portfolio optimization for heavy-tailed assets: Extreme risk index vs. markowitz. Journal of Empirical Finance, 32: 0 115--134, 2015

2015
[35]

Malavasi, G

M. Malavasi, G. W. Peters, P. V. Shevchenko, S. Tr \"u ck, J. Jang, and G. Sofronov. Cyber risk frequency, severity and insurance viability. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 106: 0 90--114, 2022

2022
[36]

H. M. Markowitz. Foundations of portfolio theory. The journal of finance, 46 0 (2): 0 469--477, 1991

1991
[37]

Mastroeni and M

L. Mastroeni and M. Naldi. Insurance pricing and refund sustainability for cloud outages. In Economics of Grids, Clouds, Systems, and Services: 14th International Conference, GECON 2017, Biarritz, France, September 19-21, 2017, Proceedings 14, pages 3--17. Springer, 2017

2017
[38]

Mastroeni, A

L. Mastroeni, A. Mazzoccoli, and M. Naldi. Pricing cat bonds for cloud service failures. Journal of Risk and Financial Management, 15 0 (10): 0 463, 2022

2022
[39]

Mastroeni, A

L. Mastroeni, A. Mazzoccoli, and M. Naldi. Cyber insurance premium setting for multi-site companies under risk correlation. Risks, 11 0 (10): 0 167, 2023

2023
[40]

Mikosch and A

T. Mikosch and A. V. Nagaev. Large deviations of heavy-tailed sums with applications in insurance. Extremes, 1: 0 81--110, 1998

1998
[41]

M. Naldi. Evaluation of customer's losses and value-at-risk under cloud outages. In 2017 40th International Conference on Telecommunications and Signal Processing (TSP), pages 12--15. IEEE, 2017

2017
[42]

Naldi and L

M. Naldi and L. Mastroeni. Economic decision criteria for the migration to cloud storage. European Journal of Information Systems, 25: 0 16--28, 2016

2016
[43]

T. A. Nguyen, D. Min, E. Choi, and T. D. Tran. Reliability and availability evaluation for cloud data center networks using hierarchical models. IEEe Access, 7: 0 9273--9313, 2019

2019
[44]

Ray and S

J. Ray and S. Bhattacharyya. Particle swarm optimization technique for optimizing conditional value-at-risk based portfolio. International Journal of Computer Sciences and Engineering, 5 0 (2), 2017

2017
[45]

K. Tam, B. Chang, R. Hopcraft, K. Moara-Nkwe, and K. Jones. Quantifying the econometric loss of a cyber-physical attack on a seaport. Frontiers in Computer Science, 4: 0 1057507, 2023

2023
[46]

Ovh must pay more than 400\,000 € after a fire destroyed its data centers

The Transatlantic Lawyer . Ovh must pay more than 400\,000 € after a fire destroyed its data centers. https://www.transatlantic-lawyer.com/ovh-must-pay-more-than-400000-e-after-a-fire-destroyed-its-data-centers-why-this-decision-is-important-for-hosting-providers-hosting-eu-pe...

2021
[47]

Y. K. Ting and P. Jermy. Managing cloud risk – some considerations for the oversight of critical cloud service providers in the financial sector. FSI Insights, 2023

2023
[48]

What was the possible cause of the ovhcloud data centre fire in 2021? https://w.media/what-was-the-possible-cause-of-ovhcloud-data-centre-fire-in-2021/, 2021

W Media . What was the possible cause of the ovhcloud data centre fire in 2021? https://w.media/what-was-the-possible-cause-of-ovhcloud-data-centre-fire-in-2021/, 2021. Accessed: 2026-06-11

2021
[49]

Y. Wang, G. Li, Z. Wang, Y. Kang, Y. Zhou, H. Zhang, F. Gao, J. Sun, L. Yang, P. Lee, et al. Fast outage analysis of large-scale production clouds with service correlation mining. In 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE), pages 885--896. IEEE, 2021

2021
[51]

2012 , publisher=

Mathematical models in population biology and epidemiology , author=. 2012 , publisher=

2012
[52]

The journal of finance , volume=

Foundations of portfolio theory , author=. The journal of finance , volume=. 1991 , publisher=

1991
[53]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01862 , year=

Systemic Risk and Vulnerability Analysis of Multi-cloud Environments , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.01862 , year=

arXiv
[54]

NotPetya, Not Warfare: Rethinking the Insurance War Exclusion in the Context of International Cyberattacks , author=. Wash. L. Rev. , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

2020
[55]

International Cybersecurity Law Review , pages=

Ransomware attacks in the context of generative artificial intelligence—an experimental study , author=. International Cybersecurity Law Review , pages=. 2023 , publisher=

2023
[56]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13033 , year=

Impacts and Risk of Generative AI Technology on Cyber Defense , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2306.13033 , year=

arXiv
[57]

The 12th International Conference on Advances in Information Technology , pages=

Human factors in cybersecurity: a scoping review , author=. The 12th International Conference on Advances in Information Technology , pages=
[58]

2023 , url=

EIOPA , title=. 2023 , url=

2023
[59]

2023 , url=

Flexera , title=. 2023 , url=

2023
[60]

2022 , url=

Hiscox , title =. 2022 , url=

2022
[61]

Workshop on Measurements, Attacks, and Defenses for the Web (MADWeb) 2022 , year=

Log4shell: Redefining the web attack surface , author=. Workshop on Measurements, Attacks, and Defenses for the Web (MADWeb) 2022 , year=

2022
[62]

Computers & security , volume=

Cyber security in the age of COVID-19: A timeline and analysis of cyber-crime and cyber-attacks during the pandemic , author=. Computers & security , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

2021
[63]

A weighted central limit theorem , journal =

Michel Weber , keywords =. A weighted central limit theorem , journal =. 2006 , issn =. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spl.2006.03.007 , url =

2006 doi
[64]

Handbook of global optimization , pages=

Quadratic optimization , author=. Handbook of global optimization , pages=. 1995 , publisher=

1995
[65]

Risks , volume=

Cyber Insurance Premium Setting for Multi-Site Companies under Risk Correlation , author=. Risks , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

2023
[66]

Cyberwar by Almost Any Definition

" Cyberwar by Almost Any Definition": NotPetya, the Evolution of Insurance War Exclusions, and Their Application to Cyberattacks , author=. Conn. Ins. LJ , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

2021
[67]

Economics of Grids, Clouds, Systems, and Services: 14th International Conference, GECON 2017, Biarritz, France, September 19-21, 2017, Proceedings 14 , pages=

Insurance pricing and refund sustainability for cloud outages , author=. Economics of Grids, Clouds, Systems, and Services: 14th International Conference, GECON 2017, Biarritz, France, September 19-21, 2017, Proceedings 14 , pages=. 2017 , organization=

2017
[68]

AIR Worldwide

Cloud Down Impacts on the US economy. AIR Worldwide. , author=. 2018 , url=

2018
[69]

Ecology and Society , volume=

Dealing with uncertainty in flood management through diversification , author=. Ecology and Society , volume=. 2008 , publisher=

2008
[70]

Water Resources Research , volume=

Insurance portfolio diversification through bundling for competing agents exposed to uncorrelated drought and flood risks , author=. Water Resources Research , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

2020
[71]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1101.5613 , year=

An overview of the security concerns in enterprise cloud computing , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1101.5613 , year=

arXiv
[72]

International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications , volume=

Disaster recovery in cloud computing systems: An overview , author=. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

2020
[73]

Journal of Risk and Financial Management , volume=

Pricing cat bonds for cloud service failures , author=. Journal of Risk and Financial Management , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

2022
[74]

European Journal of Information Systems , volume=

Economic decision criteria for the migration to cloud storage , author=. European Journal of Information Systems , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

2016
[75]

Information Systems Frontiers , volume=

A deeper look at cloud adoption trajectory and dilemma , author=. Information Systems Frontiers , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

2022
[76]

The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance-Issues and Practice , volume=

Insurance definitions of cyber war , author=. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance-Issues and Practice , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

2020
[77]

2012 IEEE Network Operations and Management Symposium , pages=

Efficient verification of IT change operations or: How we could have prevented Amazon's cloud outage , author=. 2012 IEEE Network Operations and Management Symposium , pages=. 2012 , organization=

2012
[78]

North American Actuarial Journal , volume =

Eling, Martin and Elvedi, Mauro and Falco, Greg , title =. North American Actuarial Journal , volume =. 2023 , publisher =. doi:10.1080/10920277.2022.2034507 , URL =

2023
[79]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1105.3594 , year=

Portfolio selection problems in practice: a comparison between linear and quadratic optimization models , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1105.3594 , year=

arXiv
[80]

Journal of Banking & Finance , volume=

A comparison of MAD and CVaR models with real features , author=. Journal of Banking & Finance , volume=. 2008 , publisher=

2008
[81]

International Journal of Computer Sciences and Engineering , volume=

Particle swarm optimization technique for optimizing conditional value-at-risk based portfolio , author=. International Journal of Computer Sciences and Engineering , volume=
[82]

Extremes , volume=

Large deviations of heavy-tailed sums with applications in insurance , author=. Extremes , volume=. 1998 , publisher=

1998
[83]

2001 , publisher=

An introduction to statistical modeling of extreme values , author=. 2001 , publisher=

2001
[84]

Cyber security in the age of

Lallie, Harjinder Singh and Shepherd, Lynsay A and Nurse, Jason RC and Erola, Arnau and Epiphaniou, Gregory and Maple, Carsten and Bellekens, Xavier , journal=. Cyber security in the age of. 2021 , publisher=

2021
[85]

Final size of a multi-group

Magal, Pierre and Seydi, Ousmane and Webb, Glenn , journal=. Final size of a multi-group. 2018 , publisher=

2018
[86]

ASTIN Bulletin: The Journal of the IAA , volume=

Pricing of cyber insurance contracts in a network model , author=. ASTIN Bulletin: The Journal of the IAA , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

2018
[87]

Cyber-Losses

Insurance Coverage for" Cyber-Losses" , author=. Tort & Insurance Law Journal , pages=. 2000 , publisher=

2000
[88]

Fayi, Sharifah Yaqoub A , booktitle=. What. 2018 , publisher=

2018
[89]

Scandinavian Actuarial Journal , pages=

Propagation of cyber incidents in an insurance portfolio: counting processes combined with compartmental epidemiological models , author=. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal , pages=. 2021 , publisher=

2021
[90]

Tourny,. Cyber s. Paix et s
[91]

Risk Analysis , year=

Systemic cyber risk and aggregate impacts , author=. Risk Analysis , year=
[92]

A brief study of

Mohurle, Savita and Patil, Manisha , journal=. A brief study of
[93]

Markowitz , author=

Portfolio optimization for heavy-tailed assets: Extreme Risk Index vs. Markowitz , author=. Journal of Empirical Finance , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

2015
[94]

Artificial Intelligence Review , volume=

A brief review of portfolio optimization techniques , author=. Artificial Intelligence Review , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

2023
[95]

The Guardian , volume=

Yahoo hack: 1bn accounts compromised by biggest data breach in history , author=. The Guardian , volume=
[96]

Light Upon Cyber Insurance , institution =
[97]

Insurance: Mathematics and Economics , volume=

Cyber claim analysis using Generalized Pareto regression trees with applications to insurance , author=. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

2021
[98]

McKendrick, A. G. , year=. Applications of Mathematics to Medical Problems , volume=. doi:10.1017/S0013091500034428 , journal=

doi
[99]

Kermack, W.O and McKendrick, A.G. , year=. A contribution to the mathematical theory of epidemics , volume=
[100]

Insurance: mathematics and economics , volume=

Data breaches: Goodness of fit, pricing, and risk measurement , author=. Insurance: mathematics and economics , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

2017
[101]

Hobbs, Allegra , year=. The
[102]

Cyber insurance offering and performance: an analysis of the

Xie, Xiaoying and Lee, Charles and Eling, Martin , journal=. Cyber insurance offering and performance: an analysis of the. 2020 , publisher=

2020
[103]

Automated behavioral analysis of malware: A case study of

Chen, Qian and Bridges, Robert A , booktitle=. Automated behavioral analysis of malware: A case study of. 2017 , organization=

2017
[104]

, author=

Modeling Cyber-Insurance: Towards a Unifying Framework. , author=. WEIS , year=
[105]

2014 , publisher=

Data analysis for network cyber-security , author=. 2014 , publisher=

2014
[106]

Telecommunications Policy , volume=

The evolution of cyber-insurance industry and market: An institutional analysis , author=. Telecommunications Policy , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

2020
[107]

, title =

Bean, Michael A. , title =
[108]

Journal of Cybersecurity , volume=

Hype and heavy tails: A closer look at data breaches , author=. Journal of Cybersecurity , volume=. 2016 , publisher=

2016
[109]

Journal of Cybersecurity , volume =

Romanosky, Sasha and Ablon, Lillian and Kuehn, Andreas and Jones, Therese , title = ". Journal of Cybersecurity , volume =. 2019 , month =. doi:10.1093/cybsec/tyz002 , url =

2019 doi
[110]

Computers & Security , volume=

Ransomware threat success factors, taxonomy, and countermeasures: A survey and research directions , author=. Computers & Security , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

2018
[111]

Impact of lockdown on

Di Domenico, Laura and Pullano, Giulia and Sabbatini, Chiara E and Bo. Impact of lockdown on. BMC medicine , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

2020
[112]

Computer Fraud & Security , volume=

Insuring against cyber-attacks , author=. Computer Fraud & Security , volume=. 2017 , publisher=

2017
[113]

Congressional research service documents, CRS RL32331 (Washington DC) , volume=

The economic impact of cyber-attacks , author=. Congressional research service documents, CRS RL32331 (Washington DC) , volume=
[114]

Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , year=

Managing cyber risk in supply chains: A review and research agenda , author=. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal , year=
[115]

Technology Innovation Management Review , volume=

Cybersecurity and cyber-resilient supply chains , author=. Technology Innovation Management Review , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

2015
[116]

2018 , Note =

OECD , title =. 2018 , Note =

2018
[117]

2015 , Note =

OECD , title =. 2015 , Note =

2015
[118]

The dynamic analysis of

Kao, Da-Yu and Hsiao, Shou-Ching , booktitle=. The dynamic analysis of. 2018 , organization=

2018
[119]

Global stability results for a multigroup

Beretta, Edoardo and Capasso, Vincenzo , year=. Global stability results for a multigroup. Mathematical Ecology, eds. T.G. Hallam, L.J. Gross and S.A. Levin , pages=
[120]

Global stability of the endemic equilibrium of multigroup

Guo, Hongbin and Li, Michael Y and Shuai, Zhisheng , journal=. Global stability of the endemic equilibrium of multigroup
[121]

The Annals of Applied Statistics , number =

Julien Chiquet and Mahendra Mariadassou and Stéphane Robin , title =. The Annals of Applied Statistics , number =. 2018 , doi =

2018
[122]

Biometrika , volume=

The multivariate Poisson-log normal distribution , author=. Biometrika , volume=. 1989 , publisher=

1989
[123]

Epidemic risk and insurance coverage , volume=

Lefèvre, Claude and Picard, Philippe and Simon, Matthieu , year=. Epidemic risk and insurance coverage , volume=. Journal of Applied Probability , publisher=. doi:10.1017/jpr.2016.100 , number=

2016 doi
[124]

Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution , VOLUME=

Chiquet, Julien and Mariadassou, Mahendra and Robin, Stéphane , TITLE=. Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution , VOLUME=. 2021 , URL=. doi:10.3389/fevo.2021.588292 , ISSN=

2021
[125]

Carbon & Climate Law Review , volume=

Parametric insurance as an alternative to liability for compensating climate harms , author=. Carbon & Climate Law Review , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

2018
[126]

Geoforum , volume=

Paying ex gratia: Parametric insurance after calculative devices fail , author=. Geoforum , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

2021
[127]

Environmental Claims Journal , volume=

Parametric insurance: using objective measures to address the impacts of natural disasters and climate change , author=. Environmental Claims Journal , volume=. 2011 , publisher=

2011
[128]

AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics , volume=

Parametric Insurance as Innovative Development Factor of the Agricultural Sector of Economy , author=. AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics , volume=
[129]

Risk Analysis , volume=

A probabilistic paradigm for the parametric insurance of natural hazards , author=. Risk Analysis , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

2018
[130]

Risk Management and Insurance Review , volume=

Application of parametric insurance in principle-compliant and innovative ways , author=. Risk Management and Insurance Review , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

2020
[131]

Risks , volume=

Towards an economic cyber loss index for parametric cover based on IT security indicator: a preliminary analysis , author=. Risks , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

2020
[132]

Climate Risk Management , pages=

A Portfolio of Weather Risk Transfer Contracts Efficiently Reduces Risk , author=. Climate Risk Management , pages=. 2021 , publisher=

2021
[133]

Climate Policy , volume=

Parametric loss and damage insurance schemes as a means to enhance climate change resilience in developing countries , author=. Climate Policy , volume=. 2020 , publisher=

2020
[134]

Enhancing the Role of Insurance in Cyber Risk Management

OCDE. Enhancing the Role of Insurance in Cyber Risk Management. 2017. doi:https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264282148-en

2017 doi
[135]

, Journal =

Sklar, M. , Journal =. Fonctions de r\'epartition à
[136]

2007 , publisher=

An introduction to copulas , author=. 2007 , publisher=

2007
[137]

Insurance: Mathematics and Economics , volume=

Decision theoretic foundations of credibility theory , author=. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics , volume=. 1989 , publisher=

1989
[138]

2005 , publisher=

A course in credibility theory and its applications , author=. 2005 , publisher=

2005
[139]

2004 , publisher=

Statistics of extremes: theory and applications , author=. 2004 , publisher=

2004
[140]

Mathematical proceedings of the Cambridge philosophical society , volume=

Limiting forms of the frequency distribution of the largest or smallest member of a sample , author=. Mathematical proceedings of the Cambridge philosophical society , volume=. 1928 , organization=

1928
[141]

Annals of mathematics , pages=

Sur la distribution limite du terme maximum d'une serie aleatoire , author=. Annals of mathematics , pages=. 1943 , publisher=

1943
[142]

Analyzing

Jacobs, Jay , url=. Analyzing
[143]

Benchmark research sponsored by IBM Security independently conducted by Ponemon Institute LLC , year=

Cost of a data breach study: global overview , author=. Benchmark research sponsored by IBM Security independently conducted by Ponemon Institute LLC , year=
[144]

Insurance: Mathematics and Economics , volume=

Cyber-contagion model with network structure applied to insurance , author=. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

2022
[145]

and Sornette, D

Maillart, T. and Sornette, D. , Journal =. Heavy-tailed distribution of cyber-risks , Volume =
[146]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6485 , year=

The cloud's cloudy moment: A systematic survey of public cloud service outage , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6485 , year=

arXiv
[147]

2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) , pages=

Fast outage analysis of large-scale production clouds with service correlation mining , author=. 2021 IEEE/ACM 43rd International Conference on Software Engineering (ICSE) , pages=. 2021 , organization=

2021
[148]

, author=

Models and measures for correlation in cyber-insurance. , author=. Weis , volume=
[149]

European Actuarial Journal , volume=

Modeling and pricing cyber insurance: Idiosyncratic, systematic, and systemic risks , author=. European Actuarial Journal , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

2023
[150]

2022 , url =

Cyber Risk Accumulation , institution =. 2022 , url =

2022
[151]

2023 , url =

Cyber Risk Accumulation: Fully Tackling the Insurability Challenge , institution =. 2023 , url =

2023
[152]

2022 , publisher=

Financial stability risks from cloud outsourcing , author=. 2022 , publisher=

2022
[153]

Wayne State University Law School Research Paper , number=

Cloud adoption in the financial sector and concentration risk , author=. Wayne State University Law School Research Paper , number=
[154]

FSI Insights , year=

Managing cloud risk – some considerations for the oversight of critical cloud service providers in the financial sector , author=. FSI Insights , year=
[155]

Information Systems Outsourcing: The Era of Digital Transformation , pages=

Cloud sourcing and mitigating concentration risk in financial services , author=. Information Systems Outsourcing: The Era of Digital Transformation , pages=. 2020 , publisher=

2020
[156]

2016 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering (IC2E) , pages=

Availability analysis of cloud deployed applications , author=. 2016 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering (IC2E) , pages=. 2016 , organization=

2016
[157]

Quality and Reliability Engineering International , volume=

Availability analysis of redundant and replicated cloud services with Bayesian networks , author=. Quality and Reliability Engineering International , volume=. 2024 , publisher=

2024
[158]

IEEe Access , volume=

Reliability and availability evaluation for cloud data center networks using hierarchical models , author=. IEEe Access , volume=. 2019 , publisher=

2019
[159]

2017 40th International Conference on Telecommunications and Signal Processing (TSP) , pages=

Evaluation of customer's losses and value-at-risk under cloud outages , author=. 2017 40th International Conference on Telecommunications and Signal Processing (TSP) , pages=. 2017 , organization=

2017
[160]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15701 , year=

Cyber risk modeling using a two-phase Hawkes process with external excitation , author=. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.15701 , year=

arXiv
[161]

Insurance: Mathematics and Economics , volume=

Cyber risk frequency, severity and insurance viability , author=. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics , volume=. 2022 , publisher=

2022
[162]

Journal of Computational Social Science , volume=

Network models of financial systemic risk: a review , author=. Journal of Computational Social Science , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

2018
[163]

Annual Review of Economics , volume=

Systemic risk in financial networks: A survey , author=. Annual Review of Economics , volume=. 2021 , publisher=

2021
[164]

The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance-Issues and Practice , volume=

Insurability of cyber risk: An empirical analysis , author=. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance-Issues and Practice , volume=. 2015 , publisher=

2015
[165]

2024 , url =

AMRAE , title =. 2024 , url =

2024
[166]

2025 , url =

AON , title =. 2025 , url =

2025
[167]

Frontiers in Computer Science , volume=

Quantifying the econometric loss of a cyber-physical attack on a seaport , author=. Frontiers in Computer Science , volume=. 2023 , publisher=

2023
[168]

2020 , url =

IAIS , title =. 2020 , url =

2020
[169]

Insurance: Mathematics and Economics , volume=

Copula approaches for modeling cross-sectional dependence of data breach losses , author=. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

2018
[170]

, author=

Cyber-Insurance: Copula Pricing Framework and Implication for Risk Management. , author=. WEIS , year=
[171]

2024 , url =

Flexera , title =. 2024 , url =

2024
[172]

What was the Possible Cause of the OVHcloud Data Centre Fire in 2021? , year =

2021
[173]

OVH must pay more than 400\,000 € after a fire destroyed its data centers , year =

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A. Z. Abualkishik, A. A. Alwan, and Y. Gulzar. Disaster recovery in cloud computing systems: An overview. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 11 0 (9), 2020

2020

[2] [2]

J. C. Aerts, W. Botzen, A. van der Veen, J. Krywkow, and S. Werners. Dealing with uncertainty in flood management through diversification. Ecology and Society, 13 0 (1), 2008

2008

[3] [3]

Cyber risk accumulation, 2022

American Academy of Actuaries . Cyber risk accumulation, 2022. URL https://actuary.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/5Accumulation.pdf

2022

[4] [4]

Light upon cyber insurance, 2024

AMRAE. Light upon cyber insurance, 2024. URL https://www.amrae.fr/bibliotheque-de-amrae/lucy-light-upon-cyber-insurance-2024-edition

2024

[5] [5]

Angelelli, R

E. Angelelli, R. Mansini, and M. G. Speranza. A comparison of mad and cvar models with real features. Journal of Banking & Finance, 32 0 (7): 0 1188--1197, 2008

2008

[6] [6]

Global 2025 cyber risk report, 2025

AON. Global 2025 cyber risk report, 2025. URL https://www.aon.com/cyber-risk-report

2025

[7] [7]

Asensio, A

C. Asensio, A. Bouveret, and A. Harris. Financial stability risks from cloud outsourcing. European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), Risk Analysis and Economics, 2022

2022

[8] [8]

Awiszus, T

K. Awiszus, T. Knispel, I. Penner, G. Svindland, A. Vo , and S. Weber. Modeling and pricing cyber insurance: Idiosyncratic, systematic, and systemic risks. European Actuarial Journal, 13 0 (1): 0 1--53, 2023

2023