Small Firms May Consider Themselves Unlikely Cyber Targets—But They Aren't
While small firms may believe themselves to be less likely targets for cyber-related incidents, hackers may view them as the path of least resistance in an attempt to reach valuable data.
November 19, 2018 at 11:00 AM
4 minute read
While most smaller law firms may believe themselves to be unlikely targets for a cyberattack, they could actually be the golden ticket for hackers who have an eye on the path of least resistance.
“Smaller practices are being targeted by hackers specifically because such firms believe themselves to be unlikely targets and thus often do not have the infrastructure in place to protect themselves,” said Anurag Bana, a senior legal adviser with the International Bar Association (IBA).
Last October, the London-based IBA launched a list of cyber guidelines that took pains to emphasize the risks that bad actors posed to small firms, drawing particular attention to the shallower pool of human and financial resources that allots for less aggressive security defenses.
Enterprising firms attempting to compensate for those shortcomings by taking advantage of the digital revolution can also wind-up creating more trouble for themselves without the right technological know-how in place.
“Small firms tend to be more entrepreneurial—looking at ways to do things more creatively—and normally sending their data into various cloud applications without considering the implications,” said Guy Golan, CEO and founder of the cybersecurity services company Performanta.
Hackers view law firms as the kid brother to bigger corporations more capable of defending themselves against attack. For small firms who have built the bulk of their business around one large client, the aftereffects of a breach can echo for a long time.
The IBM guidelines cite a 2015 study claiming that 60 percent of small businesses who suffer a severe cyber attack go out of business within six months. When it comes to law firms large and small alike, the immediate consequences may appear to be more or less the same—a damaged reputation and maybe a drop in clients. But enduring the long-term fallout could require deeper pockets than those found in the trousers of the average small or mid-size enterprise.
Larger organizations that are operating within the same industry at different points across the globe have begun sharing incident data, which Golan said drops attack probability much lower.
“Smaller companies do not do that for various reasons. The main one is the lack of organization and time,” Golan said.
Hackers generally tailor attacks that exploit those deficits. According to Bana, strategies that deploy ransomware—a type of malware that denies users access to a system or data until a ransom is paid—are becoming more common.
The classics aren't going out of style either. Spear-phishing attacks are still very popular when it comes to smaller firms, trading on the naiveté of untrained employees.
Golan provided the example of a doctored email that appears to come from the firm's owner and directs a large amount of cash be urgently transferred to a “supplier.”
“Since there is lack of governance and awareness, the financial person is often happy to fulfill the boss's request ASAP, not being aware that this money is stolen forever,” Golan said.
The question then becomes how these attacks can be safeguarded against without breaking the bank. Implementing a data protection policy is most likely the cheapest solution in addition to keeping software systems updated and securing web browsing and email functions.
“These are basic safeguards for the firm that should ideally not incur any significant financial or human resource challenge for securing this purpose,” Bana said.
Golan also suggested freeing up at least $10,000 a year to spend on strong endpoint detection and response software, which provides security teams with enhanced visibility to detect and investigate cyber threats.
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 AllTrending Stories
- 1Friday Newspaper
- 2Judge Denies Sean Combs Third Bail Bid, Citing Community Safety
- 3Republican FTC Commissioner: 'The Time for Rulemaking by the Biden-Harris FTC Is Over'
- 4NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 5A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
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