Vendor Vigilance: Supply Chain Cybersecurity Should Be Addressed Before a Breach
Attacks on third-party vendors have risen in number and severity.
May 07, 2021 at 02:00 PM
8 minute read
The importance of third-party supply chain cybersecurity has become increasingly apparent over the past few years. The recent well-publicized incident at SolarWinds, an IT service provider, is the latest example of a supply chain attack, where the intended victim is not the organization itself, but rather its customers and business partners. Over the past year, the cyber "attack surface" and the amount of sensitive data to which third-party vendors have access has increased due to the large uptick in remote working because of the COVID-19 pandemic. In response to a recent survey by the Ponemon Institute of 581 IT security professionals and 302 C-suite executives, 58% of respondents said that, despite the increased risk, their organizations do not have a third-party cyber risk management program. Ponemon Institute, Digital Transformation & Cyber Risk: What You Need To Know To Stay Safe (2020).
Attacks on third-party vendors have risen in number and severity. 2020 saw a 430% increase in attacks on third-party supply chains. Cyber Attacks: Better Vendor Risk Management Practices in 2021, Shared Assessments (Dec. 18, 2020). Ransomware attacks in particular have seen the most growth, increasing by 715%. BitDefender, Mid-Year Threat Landscape Report 2020 (2020).
Cyberattacks on an organization's third-party vendors present a unique set of challenges. Not only are they harder to detect, but they are also harder to respond to and recover from. Because organizations have far less visibility into a cyberattack on a vendor than they would if they experienced an attack themselves, everything from containment to legal compliance is more difficult. In addition, while many organizations focus their third-party oversight efforts on vendors that hold their personal identifiable information (PII), some do not sufficiently consider the implications of a cybersecurity incident at a vendor that does not hold PII but is nonetheless integral to the organization's supply chain. As outlined below, organizations can take a number of steps to proactively respond to the inevitable attack on their third-party vendors.
This content has been archived.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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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