Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

CybersecurityFeaturesTechnology Media and TelecomCybersecurity Law & Strategy

New York Releases Updated Proposed Cybersecurity Regulation

By Justin Hectus and Julie Taylor
December 28, 2016

On December 28, the New York State Department of Financial Services (DFS) issued an updated version of its first-in-the-nation cybersecurity regulation after having “carefully considered all comments submitted” during the comment period following the issuance of the original regulation in September.  The comments received by the DFS included a strongly worded and detailed letter authored by banking and insurance industry groups.  The updated draft is subject to an additional comment period of 30 days and the final version will become effective March 1, 2017. The updated proposed regulation provides significantly more wiggle room than the original version, shifting from an approach that enforces minimum standards to a risk-based approach with increased transition periods for compliance.  A few highlights of the changes are summarized below:

Timeline

In addition to the delayed effective date of March 1 (from January 1)and the default transition period of 180 days to comply (which now runs on August 28, 2017), the DFS has built in longer transition periods for certain sections.  New deadlines include:

  • February 15, 2018 – deadline for submission of Certificate of Compliance
  • March 1, 2018 – deadline for compliance with Risk Assessment, Multi-Factor Authentication and Penetration Testing and Vulnerability Assessment sections as well as portions of the Chief Information Security Officer and Training and Monitoring sections
  • August 30, 2018 – deadline for compliance with Audit Trail, Application Security, Limitations on Data Retention and Encryption of Nonpublic Information sections as well as a portion of the Training and Monitoring section
  • March 1, 2019 – deadline for compliance with Third-Party Service Provider Security Policy

Other Changes of Significance

Penetration Testing and Vulnerability Assessments (Section 500.05): In addition to the longer transition period provided, this section was updated to allow for “continuous monitoring or periodic penetration testing and vulnerability assessments.”  If the proposed regulation becomes final in its current form, vulnerability assessments will only required bi-annually.  In the DFS's original proposed regulations, penetration testing would have been required annually and vulnerability assessments quarterly “at a minimum,” and there was no suggestion of continuous monitoring as a substitute option.

Third Party Service Provider Security Policy (Section 500.11): In addition to the 18 month extension on implementation of this section, this section sets a lower threshold of accountability for vendors with access to information systems and nonpublic information and then, only “to the extent possible.”  Notable changes include removal of the requirement that contracts with third party service providers require “prompt notice” of cybersecurity events and the right “to perform cyber security audits” of the third party.

Limitations on Data Retention (Section 500.13): Secure disposal is still required in the updated proposal, but the word “timely” has been removed and replaced with “on a periodic basis.”  An exception has also been added for destruction of data “where targeted disposal is not reasonably feasible due to the manner in which the information is maintained.”

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?

The Cost of Making Partner Image

Making partner isn't cheap, and the cost is more than just the years of hard work and stress that associates put in as they reach for the brass ring.