Marine cyber risk has matured into a broadly concerning exposure for shipowners, charterers, vessel managers, terminal operators, and maritime logistics firms. Modern vessels and port interfaces depend on integrated information technology and operational technology for navigation, propulsion monitoring, cargo planning, access control, satellite communications, and commercially critical documentation. When these systems are disrupted, the loss is rarely limited to data. The more common outcome is operational impairment that can translate into delayed sailings, unsafe conditions, cargo deterioration, contractual penalties, and complex multi-party liability disputes. The International Maritime Organization has emphasized that maritime cyber risk management is intended to safeguard ships from current and emerging cyber threats and vulnerabilities and to support effective cyber risk management through functional elements that can be integrated into existing management practices (International Maritime Organization [IMO], 2025). Marine cyber insurance should be evaluated as more than a generic cyber policy applied to a vessel. In mature placements, it is a purpose-built risk transfer mechanism designed to align with maritime operations, regulatory expectations, and the unique causation patterns that arise when cyber incidents affect safety-critical systems and ship port interfaces.
Governance and Regulatory Drivers Increasing Demand for Marine Cyber Coverage
Demand for marine cyber insurance is being shaped by converging governance signals from regulators, industry bodies, and classification societies. The IMO guidance on maritime cyber risk management provides high-level recommendations and functional elements to help organizations identify cyber threats, implement protections, and support response and recovery planning (IMO, 2025). This guidance complements the widely adopted industry document, Guidelines on Cyber Security Onboard Ships, which is updated by a consortium of maritime organizations and explicitly focuses on work processes, equipment, training, incident response, and recovery management (BIMCO et al., 2024).
For newbuilds, the most consequential market development is the normalization of cyber resilience requirements at the classification level. The International Association of Classification Societies has advanced Unified Requirements UR E26 and UR E27 to strengthen cyber resilience expectations for ships and onboard systems, with applicability tied to new ships under relevant build timelines and survey oversight (International Association of Classification Societies [IACS], 2024). These requirements matter to insurers because they improve baseline standardization for asset inventories, system segmentation, secure design expectations, and lifecycle governance.
In the United States, the Coast Guard has published a final rule on cybersecurity in the Marine Transportation System that establishes minimum cybersecurity requirements, including planning and accountability elements, and sets an effective date in 2025 (U.S. Coast Guard, 2025; Federal Register, 2025). Even for non United States operators, these requirements influence commercial expectations because many maritime supply chains depend on United States port calls, counterparties, and contractual compliance representations.
The Maritime Threat Model and Why Marine Cyber Losses Escalate Quickly
Maritime cyber incidents frequently involve tight coupling between corporate networks and vessel or terminal operations. Remote access, vendor support channels, satellite connectivity, and shared identity systems can create pathways from shore-side compromise to shipboard operational disruption. The IMO guidance recognizes that cyber vulnerabilities can affect a wide range of ship systems and emphasizes structured risk management elements that support effective management across the organization (IMO, 2025). When disruptions occur during port approaches, cargo operations, or critical maintenance windows, the time value of the loss can be significant, particularly where charter party terms, slot allocations, and perishable cargo conditions create immediate financial consequences.
Another distinguishing feature is loss ambiguity across what we know about marine lines. A cyber event may be the initiating cause of a physical incident, but the resulting claim can present as hull damage, cargo loss, pollution exposure, and/or third party bodily injury. This creates friction if policy language is not explicit about cyber triggers, exclusions, and the intended coordination between marine cyber coverage and traditional hull, cargo, and liability placements. Accordingly, marine cyber insurance is increasingly purchased to reduce uncertainty and to clarify coverage intent where cyber causation might otherwise be contested.
Marine Cyber Insurance Coverage Architecture
A mature marine cyber product typically combines first-party operational protection with third-party liability coverage. First-party components often address incident response costs such as forensic investigation, containment, restoration, and crisis management. They may also address business interruption and extra expense resulting from a network security incident. For maritime insureds, underwriting attention tends to focus on whether business interruption triggers require a security event, whether system failure scenarios are contemplated, and whether dependent business interruption for critical vendors is included, since maritime operations often rely on port community systems, documentation platforms, terminal operators, and satellite communications providers.
Third party components can respond to claims alleging failure to secure systems, failure to meet contractual cybersecurity obligations, and liabilities associated with a cyber event affecting customers or counterparties. While privacy liability is relevant to passenger operations and crew data, maritime cyber liability frequently centers on commercial allegations tied to operational disruption, cargo handling, and service failures.
The central technical challenge is avoiding coverage gaps created by silent cyber ambiguity. The industry trend is toward explicit cyber language, coordinated endorsements, and careful attention to war, sanctions, and state-backed attack provisions that are especially sensitive in maritime trade. In practice, insureds obtain the most value when the marine cyber policy is positioned as part of an integrated risk transfer program rather than as a standalone purchase.
Underwriting Marine Cyber Risk Using Recognized Frameworks
Marine cyber underwriting is increasingly evidence-based, relying on documentation, control testing, and governance artifacts rather than broad representations. A common anchor for underwriting dialogue is the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0, which provides a taxonomy of outcomes to help organizations manage cybersecurity risk and communicate cybersecurity posture, including the addition of a distinct governance function that strengthens accountability and enterprise alignment (National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST], 2024). Maritime insureds can use the framework to map controls across ship and shore operations, identify gaps, and present a coherent maturity narrative to underwriters.
Industry guidance provides more maritime-specific benchmarks. The Guidelines on Cyber Security Onboard Ships emphasize operationally grounded practices such as training, defined responsibilities, incident response, and recovery management, all of which influence loss severity when incidents occur (BIMCO et al., 2024). For newbuilds and modern fleets, IACS requirements further encourage structured cyber resilience across ship systems and equipment. This improves baseline assurance for segmentation, access control, and secure lifecycle processes (IACS, 2024).
From an underwriting perspective, the controls most associated with reduced severity include rigorous asset inventories, segregation between corporate and operational environments, strict remote access controls for vendors, immutable and tested backups, and tabletop exercises that involve both shore teams and shipboard leadership. The commercial implication is straightforward: stronger evidence of governance and resilience is increasingly associated with improved terms, clearer triggers, and faster claims resolution.
Claims and Response Services as Part of the Product Value
Marine cyber losses are operationally time sensitive, which makes response capability a critical differentiator. The IMO guidance and industry guidelines both stress functional elements and practices that support effective risk management and recovery, reinforcing the importance of preparedness and continuous improvement (IMO, 2025; BIMCO et al., 2024). In insurance terms, this translates into the practical value of pre-loss risk engineering and post-loss response coordination, i.e., forensics, restoration, and crisis management support that can reduce downtime and prevent secondary safety events. Claims also hinge on evidence. Insureds that can demonstrate documented risk management processes, control implementation, and incident handling procedures are better positioned to establish causation, scope, and covered loss amounts. For maritime firms, aligning internal governance to IMO guidance, industry guidelines, and recognized frameworks such as NIST CSF 2.0 can improve both operational resilience and the efficiency of claims adjustment (IMO, 2025; NIST, 2024).
Janus Assurance Re Marine Cyber
Janus Assurance Re’s specialty class marine cyber program is designed for shipowners, vessel managers, charterers, and maritime logistics participants who seek coverage that is (are) specifically designed for operational continuity, ship-shore realities, and modern cyber risk governance. If your organization is aligning to IMO maritime cyber risk management guidance, industry best practices onboard ships, and recognized cybersecurity frameworks, Janus Assurance Re can structure a marine cyber placement that complements traditional marine lines and supports incident response readiness so you can restore operations quickly when cyber disruption occurs (IMO, 2025; BIMCO et al., 2024; NIST, 2024).
~ C. Constantin Poindexter, MA, JD, CPCU, AFSB, ASLI, ARe
Bibliography
- BIMCO, International Chamber of Shipping, INTERCARGO, InterManager, OCIMF, and industry partners. (2024, November 14). Guidelines on Cyber Security Onboard Ships (Version 5).
- Federal Register. (2025, January 17). Cybersecurity in the Marine Transportation System (Final rule).
- International Association of Classification Societies. (2024). IACS UR E26 and E27 press release.
- International Maritime Organization. (2025, April 4). MSC FAL.1 Circ.3 Rev.3: Guidelines on Maritime Cyber Risk Management.
- National Institute of Standards and Technology. (2024, February 26). The NIST Cybersecurity Framework (CSF) 2.0 (NIST CSWP 29).
- U.S. Coast Guard. (2025, January 17). Final rule: Cybersecurity in the Marine Transportation System implementation timeline and key requirements.
