Cyberthreats: On the board's agenda
Ebay. Wyndham. Target. Adobe. Youve read the news about major companies being compromised by hackers and viruses. Is your company ready for the cyberattack that is undoubtedly coming?
June 26, 2014 at 08:00 PM
4 minute read
Ebay. Wyndham. Target. Adobe. You've read the news about major companies being compromised by hackers and viruses. Is your company ready for the cyberattack that is undoubtedly coming?
It helps matters to elevate cyberthreats to a board-level issue. Sound a little “in the weeds” for a board meeting? Not at all. Consider how few companies can afford to be cavalier about a cyberattack's ability to erode shareholder value rapidly and dramatically. Loss of customer confidence, direct remediation costs, third party loss liability, government fines and penalties, theft of critical company intellectual property and more are all on the table.
Before I go further, let me clarify that I'm not suggesting that all boards of directors should include someone who is a cyberexpert. I am suggesting that boards implement and document a reasonable process designed to surface a company's particular cyber vulnerabilities. Boards can then ensure that management is taking a systematic approach to addressing these vulnerabilities.
As encouragement, consider the Security and Exchange Commission's (SEC) position on this topic by recalling its October 2011 publication of cyber liability disclosure guidance. This guidance specifically asked companies to consider whether they need to disclose information about potential cyber liability exposure. In addition, since 2009, the SEC has mandated disclosure concerning the board's role in the oversight of enterprise risk management. There can be no doubt that enterprise risk management has to address cyberthreats.
Below are some questions to use as a starting point for a board's oversight of the cyberthreat portion of a company's enterprise risk management program.
A. What kind of data do we collect, store or handle? Do we need all of it? Old credit card numbers and other out-of-date data should be purged in accordance with an appropriate document retention policy.
B. When was the last time the company had an independent party conduct a cybersecurity assessment? When is the next scheduled time?
C. What type of training are we giving the company's employees on this topic? For example, an employee could inadvertently compromise his or her company's internal network if untrained on matters like password management and public Wi-Fi use. Especially pernicious are hackers who use social engineering to breach a company's gates. Special training on this last point is warranted.
D. When is the last time we tested our incident response plan? When will be the next time? This response plan should include the company's technical protocols and backup plans. It should also include a communication plan for employees, clients and the press.
E. Who at the company is ultimately responsible for the company's cybersecurity? Can this person (or committee) access the company's board of directors? And is the person speaking with the board able to communicate complex topics accurately, patiently and effectively?
F. Do we buy insurance to transfer cyber risk away from the company? What metrics are being used when determining limits? Are we working with an insurance broker who has specialized expertise when it comes to cyber liability (and errors and omissions) insurance? Does the broker have enough direct and current experience to be on top of this rapidly evolving insurance market?
The goal of this exercise is two-fold: (a) actually understanding a company's cyber liability exposure and (b) setting the stage for any needed improvements. This process will allow a board to understand—and where necessary challenge—the steps the company has taken and deliberately declined to take. Without such a process, the board has no ability to oversee this element of enterprise risk management and ensure that resources are being directed appropriately.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllInside Track: How 2 Big Financial Stories—an Antitrust Case and a Megamerger—Became Intertwined
CLOs Still Jazzed About Gen Al, Even as They Realize Successfully Implementing It Is Harder Than It Looks
2 minute readAT&T General Counsel Joins ADM Board as Company Reels From Accounting Scandal
How Gen AI Is Changing Legal Work for In-House Counsel
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250