Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Demonstrates a maturity-aware framework optimizing cyber insurance in IoT networks, highlighting improved cost-efficiency and sustainability.
As the rapid evolution and expansion of Internet of Things (IoT) devices continues to accelerate, modern infrastructures face increasing cyber risks, largely driven by device inter-connectivity, limited security maturity, and interdependent attack propagation across networks. Traditional cyber insurance models often overlook these IoT-specific characteristics, relying on uniform or simplified risk assumptions that fail to capture real-world vulnerabilities. To address this gap, this paper presents a maturity-aware cyber insurance optimization framework tailored for interconnected IoT environments. The framework integrates organizational security maturity, interdependent risk propagation modeled through a modified Susceptible–Infected–Susceptible (SIS) process, and a Stackelberg game formulation that captures strategic interactions between the insurer and the defender. Through numerical studies on representative IoT topologies, we demonstrate that maturity-aware, risk-sensitive premium structures quantitatively outperform uniform pricing baselines in cost-efficiency and insurer sustainability. Specifically, our experimental results reveal that operating at an optimal intermediate maturity level (M=3) reduces the defender’s total expected cost by approximately 40% (from 255.38 k to 152.36 k) compared to the baseline state (M=1). Furthermore, this structural hardening triggers an 88.3% reduction in full-coverage insurance premiums (from 225.38 k to 26.36 k). In contrast, our uniform-pricing baseline exhibits reduced profitability in our experiments due to cross-subsidization effects, reinforcing the value of tiered, risk-proportional pricing for mitigating adverse-selection incentives. In summary, this work establishes a tractable, economically viable framework for cyber insurance in IoT ecosystems and provides a foundation for future extensions to richer network settings.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bhusal et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: