By Ryan Windt | Head of Growth Marketing | Updated March 2026
Geopolitics shows up in cyber through state-backed operations, spillover from regional conflicts, and mass-exploitation of widely used technology. Most incidents you face will still be ordinary crimeware, but wording around state operations and systemic events matters at renewal more than it ever has. The Stryker attack in March 2026 made that concrete: an Iran-linked hacktivist group used weaponized access to Microsoft Intune to wipe over 200,000 endpoints at a Fortune 300 company. That attack raised direct questions about war exclusions and how carriers handle attribution.
Since 2024, NIST CSF 2.0 and the SEC cybersecurity disclosure rules have raised the bar on governance and incident transparency, and insurers increasingly expect alignment. The 2025 Verizon DBIR also highlighted more breaches with third-party involvement and surges in vulnerability exploitation, exactly the patterns that turn geopolitical tension into direct business risk.
Why Geopolitics Matters Even if You Are Not a Target
Recent conflicts show that cyber can create regional events with a global blast radius. The Viasat KA-SAT satellite attack, timed to the start of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, disrupted service across parts of Europe and was formally attributed to Russia by the EU and allies. Spillover like this can affect businesses that have no connection to the conflict and no reason to consider themselves a target.
It is not just the Russia-Ukraine dynamic. In 2023 through 2025, governments warned about PRC state-sponsored actors burrowing into critical infrastructure for pre-positioning (“living off the land”) and persistence, and Iran-aligned actors targeting water utilities’ industrial controllers. Both have the potential to affect ordinary businesses through suppliers and shared platforms.
At the same time, mass-exploitation of popular software has shown how one vulnerability can ripple across thousands of organizations regardless of geopolitical context. The MOVEit Transfer exploitation in 2023 affected government agencies and private companies across dozens of countries. No state conflict was required for the impact to be systemic.
The 2026 Risk Picture
Third-party concentration risk is rising. The 2025 DBIR noted increased third-party involvement in breaches and surging vulnerability exploitation, both of which amplify spillover when geopolitical tensions are elevated.
Governance expectations have hardened. NIST CSF 2.0 adds a Govern function. The SEC requires timely disclosure of material incidents and board oversight detail. Even private firms are being asked to demonstrate alignment by investors, partners, and insurers alike.
Attribution keeps happening publicly. Joint bulletins from CISA and NCSC, along with EU statements on state activity, provide the “competent authority” context that some policies reference when applying or denying exclusions.
What This Means for Your Insurance
State-backed cyber operations (“cyber war”) language
Lloyd’s required clearer state-backed cyber-attack wording under Bulletin Y5381, and the LMA released model war and cyber operation clauses (LMA5564 through LMA5567, A and B versions). There is no single universal clause. Details differ on attribution triggers, how “widespread” is defined, and whether carvebacks exist for collateral damage. You need to know which form is on your policy.
Red flags to watch for: vague “widespread” triggers, overly broad “state-backed” definitions, and attribution language that treats any government statement as dispositive with no room for contrary evidence.
Good signs: clear definitions, attribution via a credible competent authority with room for challenge, and carvebacks that preserve coverage for uninvolved bystanders caught in spillover.
Systemic and vendor events
Policies vary significantly on contingent business interruption, dependent system failure, data restoration for supplier outages, and aggregation sublimits triggered by systemic incidents. The MOVEit wave is still the most useful mental model for what a systemic event looks like in practice and how policy language responds to it.
Governance and disclosure readiness
Public companies must disclose material cyber incidents within four business days and describe risk management and board oversight. Private companies are increasingly being asked for CSF 2.0 alignment, incident response playbooks, and tabletop exercise documentation during underwriting. This is not a box-checking exercise. Carriers are using it to evaluate whether your organization is capable of containing an incident before it becomes a major loss.
What Underwriters Will Expect in 2026
Identity hardening. Phishing-resistant MFA for admins and users, privileged access management, and break-glass controls. The Stryker attack is the clearest recent example of what happens when identity governance fails at scale.
Rapid patching of internet-facing technology. Treat newly exploited vulnerabilities like MOVEit-class events. Maintain an emergency patch runbook. Carriers are checking external scan results as part of the underwriting process.
Third-party risk discipline. Inventory critical SaaS providers and suppliers. Require SSO and MFA, access to logs, incident response SLAs, and pre-approved IR vendors. Regulatory focus on supply chain risk is intensifying and underwriters are following suit.
Detection and response. EDR with monitored alerting, tested tabletop exercises for vendor compromise scenarios, and wiper-style attack simulations. CISA and NCSC guidance consistently emphasizes operational readiness, not just control implementation.
Framework alignment. Map your controls and processes to NIST CSF 2.0. Use the new Govern function to codify roles, risk appetite, and board reporting. Carriers are increasingly using this as a proxy for organizational security maturity.
10 Questions to Ask Your Broker Before Renewal
- Which state-backed or cyber operation exclusion is on our policy, and which version (A or B)?
- How does attribution work under our specific clause, and what constitutes a “competent authority”?
- Are there carvebacks if we are collateral damage rather than an intended target?
- How does our policy treat dependent business interruption from cloud or SaaS outages?
- Are there aggregation sublimits triggered when a systemic event is declared?
- Are OT and ICS incidents covered, and under what conditions?
- Do we have data restoration coverage if wiper-style malware hits us or a key vendor?
- What evidence of NIST CSF 2.0 alignment and tabletop exercises will you ask for at renewal?
- Which incident reporting and regulatory costs are covered if we must disclose under SEC rules?
- What is the process to adjust coverage mid-term if a key supplier’s risk profile changes significantly?
Practical Checklist
- Enforce SSO and MFA everywhere, especially for administrators, vendors, and remote access
- Track and patch externally exposed services on a weekly cycle; treat actively exploited CVEs as same-day priority
- Maintain a critical vendor register with contacts, available logs, BCP documentation, and contract SLAs
- Run at least two tabletops per year: one for a vendor compromise scenario (MOVEit-style) and one for a state-scale disruption (loss of communications, wiper attack)
- Map policies and processes to NIST CSF 2.0 and use the Govern function to clarify roles and board reporting
Frequently Asked Questions
Are state-linked attacks automatically excluded?
No. Modern policies use more precise language and generally require specific triggers or credible attribution. The key is knowing your exact clause and version before an incident occurs, not after.
Does this only matter if we operate in conflict zones?
No. Spillover and supplier-side impacts have crossed borders repeatedly, including satellite, telecom, cloud, and file transfer tools. Your exposure is determined by your technology supply chain, not your geography.
We are a private company. Do SEC disclosure rules affect us?
Not directly. But customers, partners, and carriers are benchmarking governance expectations against those disclosure standards. Demonstrating that your security program could meet the SEC bar is increasingly part of the underwriting conversation even for private firms.
For more on how war exclusions and attribution language played out in a real 2026 incident, read our breakdown of the Stryker attack and what it means for cyber insurance coverage.
SeedPod Cyber specializes in cyber and Tech E&O coverage for businesses. Contact us for a coverage review or quote.