Increasing Cloud Usage Puts Legal Communications at Risk
Today, the cloud is the new normal for enterprise apps, with 70 percent of all organizations having at least one app in the cloud, according to IDG¹s…
August 18, 2017 at 08:28 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Today, the cloud is the new normal for enterprise apps, with 70 percent of all organizations having at least one app in the cloud, according to IDG¹s Enterprise Cloud Computing Survey 2016. The cloud makes sharing documents with customers and colleagues more convenient and allows access documents on your desktop or laptop from your phone while working remotely.
However, using the cloud also raises questions about security. While cloud storage services use many layers of encryption to protect user¹s information that data is relatively exposed when it is being transmitted to and from the service.
Shaun Murphy, a former government security consultant and the CEO of sndr.com, recently sat down with Inside Counsel to discuss cloud security issues law firms and the legal industry should be aware of and how to keep data safe.
“The term cloud quite literally refers to someone else's computer,” he said. “Increasingly the apps and services used today utilize some form of cloud computing. Whether its app data, location tracking or private messages, most individuals do not know where their data is being stored and are not able to safeguard it.”
While it is true some cloud services providers and moving to incorporate some levels encryption within their offering, they are generally focused on in-transit (securing the data between your devices and their servers) and at rest (when they save your data to their storage). This means that your data is protected if a third party is intercepting communications to servers or if a storage device is stolen but does nothing to protect your data from the service itself or the employees that have access to your data, per Murphy.
“A malicious party can easily gain entry to and access your messages through spear phishing tactics, he explained. “These types of attacks may appear to come from a reliable source such as a coworker or a vendor requesting sensitive information or providing a link to click. Internet security training, penetration testing and two-factor authentication should be implemented across employee internet usage policies.”
So, how can cloud-stored data be better protected?
When protecting data stored in the cloud one must use end to end cryptography (only you and your intended recipients can decrypt the data) and about securing endpoints. According to Murphy, data integrity is only as strong as its weakest link and any person or device with access to the cloud can be compromised. Safeguards like two factor authentications can help mitigate risk against compromised credentials or devices with access – all should be encrypted with 256 encryption rest, in-transit and end to end.
“All systems, local or cloud, can be compromised,” he said. “So, understanding the security pitfalls of both options, and determining employee access requirements are critical when assessing and selecting a service provider. Under the assumption that a closed off network is safer than storing eDiscovery and legal files on the cloud, law firms have been slow to adopt cloud services and legacy local systems are still intact.”
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 AllTrump Likely to Keep Up Antitrust Enforcement, but Dial Back the Antagonism
5 minute readA Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readTrending 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