Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

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

How Should Directors Respond to the SolarWinds Attack

By Paul A. Ferrillo
May 01, 2021

It is no surprise that the SolarWinds cyberattack of December 2020 continues to be in the news on a daily basis. Why? First, it was likely a sophisticated nation-state attack. It likely affected upwards of 18,000 clients of SolarWinds. It definitely affected many United States Government agencies also. The attack was sneaky and continues to be very hard to find on affected networks. Most importantly, it happened in an area that many people had not previously considered a risk — a regular update on a critical vendor software package that many companies have installed, get regular updates on, and, when updates are issued, they just press the button to stay "install."

This article is not about "who did what wrong" or "what nation-state commenced this attack." There are enough of those articles around. What this article is really more about is, "if I am a Director, what should I be thinking about the SolarWinds attack?" Indeed as noted by former SEC Commissioner Luis Aguilar on cybersecurity:

Given the known risks posed by cyber-attacks, one would expect that corporate boards and senior management universally would be proactively taking steps to confront these cyber-risks. Yet, evidence suggests that there may be a gap that exists between the magnitude of the exposure presented by cyber-risks and the steps, or lack thereof, that many corporate boards have taken to address these risks. Some have noted that Boards are not spending enough time or devoting sufficient corporate resources to addressing cybersecurity issues. According to one survey, Boards were not undertaking key oversight activities related to cyber-risks, such as reviewing annual budgets for privacy and IT security programs, assigning roles and responsibilities for privacy and security, and receiving regular reports on breaches and IT risks. Even when Boards do pay attention to these risks, some have questioned the extent to which Boards rely too much on the very personnel who implement those measures. In light of these observations, Directors should be asking themselves what they can, and should, be doing to effectively oversee cyber-risk management. (Emphasis supplied).

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
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers Image

In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.

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.

CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit Image

Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment 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.