Metaverse Law will be speaking as part of The (Security) Balancing Act series hosted by BrightTALK. The topic of discussion is “Data Sovereignty in a Multi-Cloud World” and the event will take place November 10, 2021 at 9:00am PST.
Register and learn more at https://www.brighttalk.com/webcast/17830/503271.
Image Credit: Michael Jowen from Unsplash.
U.S. government agencies have a reputation for occasionally clinging on to outdated technology. Some illustrative examples include the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) paying Microsoft $9 million to continue supporting the defunct Windows XP in 2015 and a U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report from 2019 documenting multiple agencies using legacy systems with 8 to 50-year-old components. In its findings, the GAO unsurprisingly concluded that such legacy systems using outdated or unsupported software languages and hardware poses a cybersecurity risk.
In the wake of the SolarWinds, Microsoft Exchange, and Colonial Pipeline security incidents that impacted U.S. government agencies and/or U.S. critical infrastructure, President Biden issued Executive Order 14028 to update minimum cybersecurity standards for all software sold to the federal government and throughout the supply chain.
The new obligations arising out of Executive Order 14028 add to existing security regulations for certain government contractors and subcontractors.
The Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program (FedRAMP) oversees the safe provisioning of cloud products and services from a Cloud Service Provider (CSP) to any government agency. As part of the FedRAMP authorization process, an accredited Third-Party Assessment Organization (3PAO) assesses the CSP’s controls under NIST SP 800-53, a security framework for federal government information systems. The 3PAO also assesses additional controls above the NIST baseline that are unique to cloud computing.
Contractors who supply products or services specifically to the DoD are subject to the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS). The DFARS standards establish compliance with fourteen groups of cybersecurity requirements under NIST SP 800-171, meant to protect Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI).
In November 2020, the DoD released the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) framework, which builds upon DFARS. Contractors undergo an audit by a CMMC Third Party Assessment Organization (C3PAO), which issues a certification for the contractors’ assessed cybersecurity maturity level. The certification ranges from CMMC Level 1, indicating a low, ad-hoc maturity, to CMMC Level 5, indicating a high, optimized maturity. As contractors progress further up the DoD supply chain all the way to prime contractors—those working directly with the DoD—the DoD scale requirements for those contractors to meet higher certification levels. Meeting all DFARS controls and 110 controls in NIST SP 800-171 roughly correlates to CMMC level 3.
Image Credit: MarkThomas from Pixabay.
[Originally published as a Feature Article: Will the Courts Treat Foreign Data Privacy Laws as Fact or Farce in U.S. Contracts?, by Amira Bucklin and Lily Li, in Orange County Lawyer Magazine, May 2021, Vol. 63 No.5, page 40.]
by Amira Bucklin and Lily Li
In 2020, when lockdown and shelter-at-home orders were implemented, the world moved online. Team meetings, conference calls, even court hearings entered the cloud. More than ever, consumers used online shopping instead of strolling through malls, and online learning platforms instead of classrooms. “Zoom” became a way to meet up with friends over a glass of wine, or conduct job interviews in a blouse, suit jacket, and yoga pants.
This has had vast consequences for personal privacy and cybersecurity. While most consumers might recognize the brand of their online learning platform, ecommerce store, or video conference tool of choice, most consumers don’t notice the network of service providers that work in the background. A whole ecosystem of connected businesses and platforms that collect, store, and transfer data and software, all governed by a new set of international privacy rules and contractual commitments. Yet, many of these rules have not been tested in the courts, and they have several implications in the context of privacy.
The Privacy Conundrum
This month marks the three-year anniversary of the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). As expected, its consequences have been far-reaching, and fines for violations have been staggeringly high.
The GDPR requires companies in charge of personal data (“data controllers”) to enter into data processing agreements with their service providers (or “data processors”), including, at times, standard data protection clauses drafted by the EU Commission. These data processing mega-contracts (ranging from 1-100+ pages) impose a series of foreign data protection and security obligations on the parties.
A unique challenge presented by these contracts is the fact that such data processing agreements and model data protection clauses often include their own choice of law provisions, calling for the applicability of EU member state law, and requiring the parties to grant third-party beneficiary rights to individuals in a wholly different country.
This challenge is not just limited to parties contracting with EU companies, either. Due to the GDPR’s extraterritorial scope, two U.S.-based companies can enter into a contract subject to the laws of the State of California, but which includes a data processing addendum or security schedule that is subject to the laws of the United Kingdom, France, or Germany.
What happens if there is a dispute between these parties regarding their rights and responsibilities, which are subject to foreign data protection laws? How will U.S. courts treat these disputes? How much deference will—and should—a U.S. court provide to foreign interpretations of law?
Continue Reading Will the Courts Treat Foreign Data Privacy Laws as Fact or Farce in U.S. Contracts? Whose Law Will Prevail in Privacy Disputes?Image Credit: Schäferle from Pixabay.
***Updated March 13, 2021 – CISA has identified seven webshells associated with this activity. This is not an all-inclusive of webshells that are being leveraged by actors. CISA recommends organizations review the following malware analysis reports (MARs) for detailed analysis of the seven webshells, along with TTPs and IOCs.
***Updated March 12, 2021 – Check my OWA tool for checking if a system has been affected.
Earlier this month Microsoft disclosed a set of vulnerabilities in Microsoft Exchange server products. Microsoft has provided a blog post where you can find an explanation of the attack on Exchange servers, information on HAFNIUM, and more.
Check out this latest advisory from the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), with step-by-step instructions on how to gather evidence with FTK Imager and KAPE. The Alert includes information on how to mitigate the vulnerabilities, including tactics, techniques and procedures (TTP) and the indicators of compromise (IOCs) associated with this attack.
As of March 10, 2021, CISA recommends the following:
Furthermore, according to Bloomberg, the Chinese state-sponsored hacking group has claimed at least 60,000 known victims globally.
Photo by Franck on Unsplash
In 2020, with large portions of the global workforce abruptly sent home indefinitely, IT departments nationwide scurried to equip workers of unprepared companies to work remotely.
This presented an issue. Many businesses, particularly small businesses, barely have the minimum network defenses set up to prevent hacks and attacks in the centralized office. When suddenly everyone must become their own IT manager at home, there are even greater variances between secure practices, enforcement, and accountability.
“Reasonable Security” Requirements under CCPA/CPRA and Other Laws
Under the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), the implementation of “reasonable security” is a defense against a consumer’s private right of action to sue for data breach. A consumer who suffers an unauthorized exfiltration, theft, or disclosure of personal information can only seek redress if (1) the personal information was not encrypted or redacted, or (2) the business otherwise failed its duty to implement reasonable security. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.150.
Theoretically, this means that a business that has implemented security measures—but nevertheless suffers a breach—may be insulated from liability if the security measures could be considered reasonable measures to protect data. Therefore, while reasonable security is not technically an affirmative obligation under the CCPA, the reduced risk of consumer liability made reasonable security a de facto requirement.
However, under the recently passed California Privacy Rights Act (CPRA), the implementation of reasonable security is now an affirmative obligation. Under revised Cal. Civ. Code § 1798.100, any business that collects a consumer’s personal information shall implement reasonable security procedures and practices to protect personal information. See our CPRA unofficial redlines.
Continue Reading Reasonable Security: Implementing Appropriate Safeguards in the Remote Workplace
