Geopolitical Tensions and Cyber Risk: What Agents Should Know
Rising geopolitical tensions involving Iran and broader global instability are drawing renewed attention across the cyber insurance market. Historically, periods of conflict often align with increased cyber activity, including ransomware, denial of service attacks and intrusions targeting critical infrastructure and supply chain–dependent industries.
Not all cyber incidents during these periods are state-sponsored. More often, threat actors use global unrest as an opportunity to increase activity, probe defenses and exploit known vulnerabilities. For insureds and the agents advising them, the focus is less on the headlines and more on how heightened activity may affect claims frequency, severity and coverage interpretation.
What This Means for Insureds
Most cyber claims still stem from familiar causes. Phishing, compromised credentials and unpatched systems remain the leading drivers of loss. During periods of heightened geopolitical tension, however, the frequency and impact of these events can increase, particularly for organizations with weak security controls or exposed infrastructure.
From an underwriting and claims perspective, insurers are also more alert to aggregation risk. Events that impact multiple insureds at the same time, especially within critical industries, remain a key concern for the cyber market.
Where Coverage Becomes More Complex
The real nuance lies in how nation-state activity intersects with policy language. Most cyber policies contain some form of a war exclusion, originally designed to address traditional armed conflict. In cyber, that language has become more difficult to apply.
Attribution remains challenging, and determining whether an incident qualifies as state-sponsored or politically motivated is rarely straightforward. In response, carriers have tightened wording over the past several years, adding clearer references to cyber operations between states, retaliatory attacks and widespread or systemic events affecting critical infrastructure.
Some policies now include carve-backs that preserve coverage unless there is a formal war or the insured is directly involved in the conflict. While this does not mean routine ransomware or phishing claims will be denied, it can introduce uncertainty and scrutiny when losses are tied to large-scale or systemic events.
What We Are Seeing in the Market
Underwriters are paying closer attention to insureds’ ability to withstand elevated threat conditions. This includes scrutiny of remote access controls, patch management practices and reliance on third-party vendors. Systemic risk, particularly within energy, healthcare, manufacturing and public services, remains top of mind.
Policy language continues to evolve, making it increasingly important for agents to review exclusions and endorsements with insureds before a loss occurs.
Fundamentals Still Matter Most
While geopolitical risk may be rising, the controls that reduce cyber losses have not changed. Insureds that focus on fundamentals remain best positioned to avoid claims and manage underwriting expectations.
Securing remote access, enforcing multifactor authentication, prioritizing patching of internet-facing systems and strengthening phishing defenses continue to make a meaningful difference. Limiting administrative privileges, monitoring for unusual login activity and maintaining tested, offline backups can significantly reduce loss severity when an incident occurs.
Supply chain exposure also deserves attention. Understanding dependencies on third-party vendors and confirming that key partners maintain strong security controls is increasingly important as cyber events become more interconnected.
The Agent’s Role
For most insureds, everyday cyber losses will continue to look familiar. The greater concern lies in catastrophic, systemic events tied to geopolitical conflict, where attribution and coverage interpretation become more complex.
Independent agents play a critical role in setting expectations, helping insureds understand evolving policy language and reinforcing the importance of sound cyber hygiene. In a volatile global environment, preparation and clarity remain the best tools for managing cyber risk.