We would love to hear from you. Click on the ‘Contact Us’ link to the right and choose your favorite way to reach-out!

wscdsdc

media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us

855.ask.wink

Close [x]
pattern

Industry News

Categories

  • Industry Articles (21,155)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (35)
  • Moore on the Market (414)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (800)
  • Wink's Articles (353)
  • Wink's Inside Story (274)
  • Wink's Press Releases (123)
  • Blog Archives

  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • November 2008
  • September 2008
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • NAIC Cybersecurity Panel Asked to Consider Using New York Rule After Draft Fails to Gain Consensus

    April 12, 2017 by Thomas Harman

    DENVER – After three attempts at developing an insurance data security model act that failed to gain consensus, the chairman of a National Association of Insurance Commissioners panel said he’s listening to all suggestions — including New York’s new cybersecurity rule.

    New York insurance Superintendent Maria Vullo, speaking at the NAIC’s Spring National Meeting, asked the cybersecurity working group to accept New York’s rule as the panel prepares for another round of deliberations. Panel Chairman Raymond Farmer, South Carolina’s insurance director, told Best’s News Service, “everything’s on the table.”

    New York’s cybersecurity rule took effect March 1. Vullo said the cornerstone of the rule is a periodic risk assessment of information systems, which includes an annual penetration test of a covered entity’s information system based on risk, as well as biannual vulnerability assessments. The rule requires insurance companies and other financial services institutions to establish and maintain cybersecurity programs. Companies will hire a chief information security officer responsible for implementing and overseeing the program and enforcing cybersecurity policies (Best’s News Service, Feb. 17, 2017).

    David Provost, deputy commissioner of the Vermont’s captive insurance division, suggested the panel move forward in an area of little disagreement between New York’s plan and the working group’s latest draft regarding having cybersecurity plans in place. Provost urged this part of the panel’s work be advanced quickly in order to deal with differences concerning notification processes and in what constitutes a breach.

    Vullo noted differences between the New York rule and the latest working group draft. She said the NAIC draft baseline requirement to institute information-sharing practices in the federal Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act were inadequate. Vullo said the New York rule does not conflict with the federal law.

    She said New York’s rule requires notices of significant cybersecurity events within 72 hours of a determination the event is material and reportable. But the NAIC model requires notice of data breaches within three days of determining that a breach may have occurred. “We believe that ‘may’ is too vague to be workable in practice, leading to confusion over what is required to be submitted,” Vullo said. “And also quite frankly, as a regulator, I don’t want to get a lot of junk.”

    She said the NAIC model encourages institutions to protect personal information by encryption or other means for wireless data transmitted or on a public network for all nonpublic personal information stored on a laptop or other portable devices. She said New York’s encryption requirements are more specific, while continuing to be risk-based. New York requires a risk-based determination on what should be encrypted and that a chief information security officer review and approve any alternative compensating controls to ensure they are effective if the institution chooses not to use encryption.

    Vullo said New York does not require institutions to specifically notify consumers in the event of a breach, but the rule does require institutions to have an incident-response plan that requires institutions to notify consumers as appropriate and notify regulators after a determination of a material event or breach.

    “We’ve tried three times and we’re not there just yet, so this is a good regulation to consider,” Farmer said.

    Comments on the working group’s latest draft and on the New York regulation are due to a drafting group headed by Rhode Island Insurance Superintendent Beth Dwyer April 17. A new revised draft is expected to be out the following week in advance of a May 9 conference call to discuss it. “Our focus is getting more narrow and more concise,” Farmer said, adding he hopes the committee might be able to take a vote on the next draft.

    (By Thomas Harman, Washington Bureau manager, BestWeek: Tom.Harman@ambest.com)

    Originally Posted at AM Best on April 10, 2017 by Thomas Harman.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency