Call us now:
An interesting article from the FT. The SolarWinds hack is by no means a cause celebre, but it demonstrates the catastrophic effect of a cyber attack on an organisation. An attack that had not been seen at such scale, an attack that resulted from a supply chain compromise, effecting SolarWinds customers en-mass. An attack that affected U.S government agencies, prompting a national U.S agency response. The attack was a clear example of the vulnerability of boards to cyber, the complexity of cyber attacks and that attacks are a nation state and national security problem. While the article points out, the attack was a baptism of fire for the SolarWinds board, it should have in reality been anything but.
The board of SolarWinds has always had a duty to manage material risks such as cyber, as the response from U.S and EU regulators now demonstrates. ‘Seeing the light’ post incident resulted in costs of remediation, public, market and regulatory scrutiny.
Board responsibility for cyber is being formalized by EU, U.S and Australian regulators. Regulating board responsibility for cybersecuirty risk management, oversight, assurance and attestation. Backed by regulatory and legal sanctions. In our CLE cyber risk management program for U.S Attorneys, delivered with Thompson Reuters and Celesq Attorneys Ed Center, we discuss cyber risk management regulation. The legal, fiduciary and ethic responsibilities of cyber regulation, the responsibilities of board members and the program of risk remediation that boards need to consider to meet their regulatory commitments. Including risk culture, risk assessment, risk remediation, reporting and governance.
Ted Dziekanowski Rachel V. Rose, JD, MBA Stephen Pitt-Walker, JD, FGIA
#cybersecurity #cyberriskmanagement #cyberregulation #solarwinds
View Original Post
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn%3Ali%3Ashare%3A7065216607043604481