Catagory:Legal & Regulatory Risk

1
“WannaCry” Ransomware Attack Causes Disruption Globally – with the worst yet to come
2
No Cybersecurity? No Business, Banks Say
3
Abbott Labs makes a costly mistake as FDA targets cybersecurity deficiencies
4
Is Uber’s Greyball pushing the boundaries of what is legally and ethically OK?
5
Boards Push Insurers to Quantify Cyber Risks
6
Data breach penalties could cost U.K. companies £122B in 2018
7
UK telecoms company handed record fine for data breach
8
Ashley Madison data breach joint findings released
9
Lawyers potential rich targets for hackers
10
Government committed to introducing Mandatory Data Breach Notification laws

“WannaCry” Ransomware Attack Causes Disruption Globally – with the worst yet to come

By Cameron Abbott and Edwin Tan

A ransomware known as “WannaCry” affected 200,000 people in 150 countries over the weekend, locking computer files and demanding payment to release them. As of this morning, Australia and New Zealand users seem to have avoided the brunt of the attack, with the Federal Government only confirming three reports of Australian companies being affected.  Not that ransomware attacks tend to be the subject of reporting – there is quite a high rate of payment of affected users as the pricing is deliberately cheaper than most alternatives unless your back-up process is very good.

The ransomware utilises vulnerabilities in out-of-date, unpatched versions of Microsoft Windows to infect devices. It spreads from computer for computer as it finds exposed targets, without the user having to open an e-mail attachment or click a link as is commonplace in most attacks. Ransom demands start at US$300 and doubles after three days.

The U.K. National Health Service (NHS) was among the worst hit organisations, forcing hospitals to cancel appointments and delay operations as they could not access their patients’ medical records. The Telegraph suggested that 90 percent of NHS trusts were using a 16 year old version of Windows XP which was particularly vulnerable to the attack. More attacks are anticipated throughout the working week as companies and organisations turn on their devices.

The U.K. National Cyber Security Center has released guidance to help both home users and organisations limit the impact of the attacks. It can be read here.

No Cybersecurity? No Business, Banks Say

By Cameron Abbott and Edwin Tan

A recent survey by leading analytics company FICO revealed that 75 percent of senior fraud managers in Asia Pacific banks were prepared to stop working with business partners that fail cybersecurity audits. 65 percent of respondents confirmed that preventing cybercrime is a key focus in 2017, with the majority nominating cybercrime as having the largest potential financial impact on banks.

Large retailers and telecommunications companies were identified as the greatest data breach risks for banks. Dan McConaghy, president of FICO Asia-Pacific, explained that the problem was compounded in the Asia Pacific by a huge growth in sales by poorly protected companies.

Companies are going to have to realise that data security is now a sales issue and not simply an afterthought.

Abbott Labs makes a costly mistake as FDA targets cybersecurity deficiencies

By Cameron Abbott and Giles Whittaker

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), after a previous warning in 2014, threatens legal action against Abbott Labs if the company fails to address safety and security issues in implanted cardiac devices sold by St Jude Medical – a recent subsidiary acquired by Abbott Labs. The internet of things takes a much more serious tenure when it’s a medical device compared to your fridge!

The company recently purchased St. Jude Medical, which makes implanted cardiac devices that have been the subject of cybersecurity concerns. A warning letter issued by the FDA gives Abbott Labs 15 days to submit a plan to address errors in the products’ design that could allow hackers to tamper with the settings and drain the batteries of the devices. Many of the cybersecurity concerns first came to light after medical device security research firm MedSec submitted a report outlining a variety of alleged security flaws in St. Jude products to investment firm Muddy Waters Research (MWR). MWR subsequently publically announced the product design failures while short-selling St. Jude Medical’s stock in order to capitalise on the expected market response.

As the public increases its awareness of cybersecurity issues it becomes apparent that a failure to adequately consider these issues – as a day to day function of operating a business or prior to the acquisition of a new business – can result in significant damage to a company’s bottom line. The recent short-selling by MWR indicates the necessity for cybersecurity considerations to form central in a company’s business model, otherwise risk having its inadequacies called out in a public forum. And we are not even thinking about what litigation liability risk these sorts of issues might raise.

Is Uber’s Greyball pushing the boundaries of what is legally and ethically OK?

By Cameron Abbott and Allison Wallace

Ridesharing service Uber has been using a self-developed program called Greyball in a bid to avoid regulatory scrutiny and other law enforcement activity.

As reported in The New York Times, the program uses various techniques to survey government officials when rolling out the service in new cities. This came after Uber’s services encountered legal issues (including cars being impounded and drivers fined) as it tried to operate in new locations, including in Melbourne, Australia. Read More

Boards Push Insurers to Quantify Cyber Risks

By Cameron Abbott and Rebecca Murray

US risk management firm Advisen recently held the Cyber Risk Insights Conference where insurers, brokers, corporate risk managers and CSOs came together to discuss the importance of company CFOs quantifying cybersecurity risks. Panelists included the risk managers of Merck and Time, who both classified cybersecurity risk exposure as a top danger faced by corporations. Time’s risk management department, for example, is working to quantify the company’s exposure to cyber attacks so that it can transfer some of the risks to insurers. However, Time’s director of risk management says culling all cyber-risk-management information together in a meaningfully predictive way is a challenging task.

Furthermore, gaining assistance from insurers about how to quantitatively define cybersecurity risk is also problematic as the insurance industry is only getting started on truly understanding how to forecast cyber losses. Cyber security practice leader for insurance broker Lockton Cos, Ben Beeson has revealed that insurers have only really become aware of the vast extent of loss that can eventuate when handling personal data this year. Keeping up with incredibly evolving and dynamic cybersecurity threats is sure to be an immense challenge for insurers. Read more here.

Data breach penalties could cost U.K. companies £122B in 2018

By Cameron Abbott and Rebecca Murray

U.K. businesses could face up to £122 billion in penalties for data breaches when EU legislation comes into effect in 2018, according the Payment Card Industry Security Standards Council (PCI SSC). The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) will introduce fines for groups of companies of to €20 million or 4% of annual worldwide turnover, significantly higher than the current maximum of £500,000. This means that if data breaches remain at 2015 levels, the fines paid to the European regulator could see a near 90-fold increase, from £1.4 billion in 2015 to £122 billion, the PCI SSC calculated. For large U.K. organisations, this could see regulatory fines for data breaches soar to £70 billion, more than a 130-fold increase, rising to an average of £11 million per organisation. Regulatory fines for SMEs could see a 57-fold increase, rising to £52 billion, averaging £13,000 per SME. Read more at ComputerWeekly.com by clicking here.

 

UK telecoms company handed record fine for data breach

By Cameron Abbott and Rebecca Murray

Major UK telecoms company, TalkTalk has been fined £400,000 for failing to adequately safeguard personal data when they were hacked in October 2015. The Information Commissioner’s Office’s (ICO) investigation revealed that hackers obtained the details of 156,959 customers, including names, addresses, birthdates, phone numbers and email addresses. In over 15,000 cases, hackers even gained access to bank account details and sort codes. The cyber-attack triggered the launch of a committee inquiry into protection of personal data online. You can read the inquiry report here.

After in depth investigation, the ICO found that TalkTalk’s failure to implement even the most basic cyber security measures allowed hackers to easily penetrate its systems causing substantial damage and distress to its customers. See how the investigation unfolded here and read the ICO’s penalty notice here. The ICO identified TalkTalk’s principal errors as failing to actively monitor its own activities and allowing vulnerabilities to go unnoticed, failing to update its database to protect from bugs, failing to respond to two previous attacks on the same webpages and failing to fix a bug in the software for which a fix was readily available.

It would seem regulators are losing patience with organizations that don’t take their security obligations seriously.

Ashley Madison data breach joint findings released

By Cameron Abbott and Rebecca Murray

The Australian Privacy Commissioner, Timothy Pilgrim and The Privacy Commissioner of Canada, Daniel Therrien have released a joint report on the data breach of cheating website Ashley Madison which affected approximately 36 million Ashley Madison user accounts last year. Read our post on the breach here.

Controversially, despite the company not having a physical presence in Australia, the Commissioners found that Ashley Madison’s parent company Avid Life Media (ALM) was regulated as an “APP entity” due to the fact that it carried on business and collected personal information in Australia. This finding was based on the fact that ALM conducted marketing in Australia, targeted Australian residents for its services and collected the personal information of Australians.

ALM agreed to a number of enforceable undertakings to the Commissioner. Amongst other things, ALM has undertaken to augment its security framework, provide extensive security training for staff and cease its practice of retaining the information of users with deleted, deactivated or inactive accounts. Consistent with the trend in undertakings it requires independent verification of certain compliance steps. Find the undertakings here.

It also seeks to address the accuracy of the records, which is a challenge for a cheating website. Letting someone sign up using for example Tony Blair’s email address captured the attention of the regulators. They focused on the interests under Privacy laws of those whose email addresses were falsely added to the sign up. A confirming email with an option to opt out was not considered an adequate measure.

Read more about the report here.

Lawyers potential rich targets for hackers

By Cameron Abbott and Rebecca Murray

As the threat of cybercrime and cyber espionage continues to grow globally, the Law Council of Australia has announced that it will launch a national cyber security information campaign for the legal profession this year. Read the Law Council’s media release here.

The Law Council has been working in partnership with the legal profession, cyber security experts, and government to formulate the information initiative since it nominated cyber security as a key priority at the beginning of the year. Launch of the campaign is expected by the end of 2016.

The president of the Law Council, Stuart Clark, says cyber security is a ‘major problem’ for law firms and the government has an important role to play in raising awareness and providing information about the technology involved. We say, we like teasing large global companies about their security failings … as long as it’s not ours!!

Government committed to introducing Mandatory Data Breach Notification laws

By Cameron Abbott and Rebecca Murray

After much delay, a spokesperson for Attorney-General, George Brandis has said the government is committed to introducing the Mandatory Data Breach Notification laws this year. We will be sure to look out for it during the next term of Parliament. You can find more information on the proposed scheme and its regulatory impact on the Attorney General’s Department consultation for Serious Data Breach Notification webpage.

 

Copyright © 2024, K&L Gates LLP. All Rights Reserved.