Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cyber Insurance Between the Lines

Posted by timothy on from the door-hit-rear-on-way-out dept.

Shackleford writes "Security Focus has an article that discusses insurance policies regarding 'computer attacks and cyber sabotage.' It discusses a case in which an administrator who set up back doors in the system with which he was trusted deleted files to which he could access after he was fired. His company had insurance against dishonest acts by employees, but not against 'acts of destruction.' Eventaully, the company won, but the case went to litigation. So the lesson to be learned here is that your company may have 'cyber insurance' without knowing it, but you need to be sure about it."

10 of 89 comments (clear)

  1. FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    shit yeah

  2. Damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic


    Should have insured that this might have been the first posting

  3. YFI by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    hell no

  4. Re:Good God Man by cperciva · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What is that sentence supposed to mean? Use a freaking comma!

    Where would you put a comma in that sentence? Commas do not exist simply for the purpose of being scattered randomly.

    The only correction necessary would be to remove the extraneous "to":
    It discusses a case in which an administrator who set up back doors in the system with which he was trusted deleted files to which he could access after he was fired.

    --
    Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
  5. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    I wonder if they sell insurance for /. Fx?

  6. Re:Good God Man by Gibble · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    Actually commas could be inserted properly.

    It discusses a case in which an administrator, who set up back doors in the system with which he was trusted, deleted files to which he could access after he was fired.

    --
    Gibble: Descriptive of an emotional state in which one's mind is scrabbling for some purchase on reality
  7. My suggestion by Otter · · Score: 0, Offtopic
    It discusses a case in which an administrator, who set up back doors in the system with which he was trusted, deleted files to which he could access after he was fired.

    Or, after changing his somewhat peculiar syntax: It discusses a case in which an administrator, who had set up back doors in the system with which he was trusted, deleted files after he was fired.

    Hey, the imprtant thing is no its/it's errors...

    --
    What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
  8. I ANAL, too! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    We should get together sometime!

    email me

  9. Could someone translate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    The article summary makes about as much sense as a Lilith Fair cover of "Smack my bitch up."

  10. Re:Good God Man by cperciva · · Score: -1, Offtopic

    No. Delimiting "who set up ... was trusted" with commas marks it as a subsidiary clause. It isn't a subsidiary clause -- the meaning of the sentence would be completely changed without it.

    Commas should be used, like this, to delimit a clause only when that clause is less important than the rest of the sentence.

    --
    Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid