3 Realities of Modern Cybersecurity
The new era of data protection and regulation is far from full proof, but more realistic and comprehensive than ever before.The cybersecurity environment…
June 14, 2017 at 07:29 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The new era of data protection and regulation is far from full proof, but more realistic and comprehensive than ever before.
The cybersecurity environment is one in constant flux—not just in terms of attacks and how cybercriminals operate, but also in how corporations think about and ultimately implement cybersecurity in-house. At Legalweek West's “Regulatory Update & Strategies to Manage Cyber Risk” session on June 12, speakers from legal and corporate looked to define this new era of best practices and protection.
Below are three trends that are at the foundation of how modern companies and law firms address cybersecurity in the current market.
|1. IT is a partner, not the main player.
At the foundation of any cybersecurity plan is the need to identify where and how corporate data resides. However, it is an area where most law firms and corporations come up short. “This is where firms are told to start but they fail [to answer] why exactly they care about [the data] and where exactly it is,” said Matthew Todd, chief security officer and vice president at financial adviser group Financial Engines Inc.
The problem, he explained, is that most companies tend to depend on their IT department to know and manage all its in-house data. But given that many departments store data with cloud providers or vendors without informing IT, such thinking can be out-of-date.
Companies “need to have an ongoing conversation, because guess what, [where data resides] is not static and changes over time,” Todd said.
And what's more, even if the IT department did have visibility into all data in-house, it would still need to know what data warrants higher levels of protection.
“IT are given the prerogative to protect the data, but they don't always have the context with which to do it,” Todd said. He advised that IT should know what information is considered high-value to “make trade offs. This kind of stuff can be protected more, or this less.”
While it may seem obvious which information is considered sensitive, Steve Bunnell, a partner at O'Melveny & Myers, noted that in some companies, this is not always clear cut. “There are also [data] categories that could be more harmful if they get out, data that could affect the operations of the car or avionics that could cause a plane to crash. Those are important things to protect even if they're not secret-sauce stuff.”
|2. Cyber regulations are near a tipping point.
As of spring 2017, almost every state has a breach notification law that requires companies to inform authorities or the public if they suffer a specified type of breach. Julie Engbloom, co-chair of the privacy and data security practice group at Lane Powell, noted that New Mexico became the most recent state to pass such a law in 2017.
But the move towards breach notification is not the only cybersecurity regulatory trend happening within the country. Engbloom pointed to the effect New York state's Department of Financial Service's cybersecurity regulation, which has unprecedented scope, can have on the future of other state laws.
“[New York's] regulation has certainly raised the bar and likely will become a model for other states,” she said, adding that the regulation “elevates the notion of security from IT right into the board room, and certainly boards have been put on notice.”
Among the regulations various requirements, Engbloom pointed to the need to provide “notice within 72 hours of a breach,” and how “third-party vendors [of the regulated company] need [to] be in compliance with the law as well” as the most far-reaching and aggressive.
New York's regulation, which takes effect in August 2017, is already starting to do what financial services companies expect of their law firms.
“Mayer Brown responds to 30 [security] audits, half of which are from financial companies every month,” said Eric B. Evans, partner and co-chair of the firm's electronic discovery and information governance practice. He added that the law is “increasingly shaping how financial services companies and law firms that deal with them are able to make choices.”
|3. Effective training is holistic—but never foolproof.
When he was general counsel of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Bunnell oversaw almost 2,000 lawyers. “While some of them were focused on cybersecurity, the vast majority [weren't],” he recalled. “And it became clear to me very early on that most of them were not very technically proficient, like many lawyers.”
So to help his attorneys understand cybersecurity best practices, Bunnell launched what he called “a campaign for cyber literacy.” An attempt to educate the department's attorneys in technical internet and cybersecurity knowledge, the program attempted to help lawyers “ask better questions” and use more “security by design thinking earlier on.”
Such basic technology education, Bunnell explained, is pivotal, as it gives attorneys a better understanding of why they should protect data in the ways that they are increasingly called to employ.
Training, however, doesn't necessarily result in a completely secure environment. Financial Engines' Todd noted that his company uses “an anti-phishing campaign” that sends emails “that look really realistic” to staff. He said that while the rate of those noticing the emails are part of a phishing campaign will “never be perfect,” the company will have to “keep chipping away at it.”
Todd added that even among his team of tech services professionals, many were tricked by phishing email tests. While many “realized it was phishing,” they still clicked on it because they were “distracted by another thing.”
For Bunnell, accounting for such failure is a necessary part of any cybersecurity testing. To better catch mistakes and teach in-house attorneys at the DHS, he said that his security team would test them with fake phishing emails offering “invitations to pick up free Redskins tickets. And when they showed up to pick them up, they got an hour of [cybersecurity] training.”
Copyright Legaltech News. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Contact Rhys Dipshan at [email protected]
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 AllDigging Deep to Mitigate Risk in Lithium Mine Venture Wins GM Legal Department of the Year Award
5 minute readFTC Settles With Security Firm Over AI Claims Under Agency's Compliance Program
6 minute readPeople and Purpose: AbbVie's GC on Leading With Impact and Inspiring Change
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Cars Reach Record Fuel Economy but Largely Fail to Meet Biden's EPA Standard, Agency Says
- 2How Cybercriminals Exploit Law Firms’ Holiday Vulnerabilities
- 3DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 4GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 5Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
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