Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
Zurich Insurance Group, the Cyber Threat Alliance, and the CyberGreen Institute released “Cyber Metrics for Key Decision-Makers.” The report recommends the establishment of standardized national cybersecurity metrics, based on six key measures and a supporting institutional framework. In plain terms: agree on common definitions, measure consistently, and publish national scorecards. In the smallest way, this need for a common “language” is illustrated by the fact that the report uses the phrase “cyber security,” which consists of two words. The more common usage in the UK. Others use “cybersecurity,” a single word, which is more common in the US. As Irishman George Bernard Shaw noted we are “separated by a common language.”
Insurance first: size the protection gap
The report centers on the cyber insurance market early. It highlights a growing protection gap of USD 0.9 trillion. Insured losses cover only 1% of economic losses from cyber events. The report argues that better national metrics can evaluate market effectiveness and inform public-private backstops. Clear measures can guide future parametric designs and trigger models.
The problem: countries still fly blind
The report states the core issue plainly. “Without accurate, timely, and comprehensive data, organizations are essentially flying blind in their cyber defenses.” Corporate frameworks from ENISA and CISA exist. National-level metrics remain absent. The report argues that governments need a shared vocabulary and consistent indicators.
The solution: six actionable national metrics
The report proposes six metrics for governments. They align with NIST CSF functions.
- Percentage of organizations with cyber insurance or audit certification. It gauges preparedness and awareness.
- Proportion of exploited vulnerabilities older than one year. It signals ecosystem defense speed.
- Number of significant cyber incidents. It reflects detection and analysis maturity.
- Average time to containment of cyber incidents. It demonstrates how quickly responders can halt the spread.
- Mean time to restore operations. It measures recovery speed.
- Percentage of unfilled cybersecurity positions. It exposes workforce gaps.
A scoreboard the public can read
The report promotes the use of scorecards for leaders and citizens. “A simple scorecard showing the metric, target, status, and change since the last report… can be effective.” Visualizations help set baselines and build feedback loops. They improve utility and accountability.
Build the institutions to collect the data
The report advocates for the establishment of National Cyber Statistics Bureaus. These would collect, analyze, and publish trusted cyber statistics. Core functions include incident reporting, continuous tracking, publication, and regulation evaluation. A supranational body could aggregate findings and issue alerts. It could also align standards and shared definitions.
What current rules miss
The report assesses EU reporting against six key metrics. Only Detection is fully covered. Response and Recovery are partial. Identification, Protection, and Governance lack the required data points. Many bodies collect data, but they do not share it consistently. The report concludes that incident reporting alone cannot guide national strategy.
Focus beyond loss data
Ransomware evolves with the use of AI and increasingly targets supply chains. Current reporting lags that pace. The report urges a holistic approach to cyber metrics. It wants ratios of threats to losses, hygiene indicators, and systemic weaknesses.
Get The Cyber Insurance Upload Delivered
Subscribe to our newsletter!
Why six numbers can close the gap
Aggregated metrics enable comparisons across economies. Policymakers can see how threats and losses correlate with GDP and defense capacity. Metrics support standards and market interventions. They also help size catastrophic risk and inform public support.
Three actions for policymakers
First, collaborate on data collection across sectors. Second, establish dedicated entities to manage national and global cyber statistics. Third, harmonize standards and reporting protocols. The authors insist this shift enables proactive action, not reactive cleanup.
The report concludes, “Collaboration between governments and the private sector is essential. The private sector must actively collaborate with governments to develop a consistent set of national cyber metrics.”
Related Posts
