The SEC Recently Issued A Cybersecurity Risk Alert For Financial Industry
The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently issued a cybersecurity risk alert that reminds the financial industry that it still has work to do. The risk alert specifically summarizes the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations’ observations from the latest round of examinations of registered broker‐dealers, investment advisers, and investment companies.
The SEC first launched its Cybersecurity Examination Initiative in 2015. The latest report discusses the compliance issues raised in the agency’s second round of examinations, which involved 75 firms. This time around, the SEC focused on testing whether cybersecurity policies and procedures were implemented and followed.
As expected, the OCIE’s latest cybersecurity risk alert acknowledged that regulated entities have prioritized cybersecurity. It specifically noted that nearly all the firms examined maintained cybersecurity-related written policies and procedures addressing the protection of customer/shareholder records and information.
In addition, nearly all broker-dealers, and the vast majority of advisers and funds conducted periodic risk assessments of critical systems to identify cybersecurity threats, vulnerabilities, and the potential business consequences of a cyber incident. The OCIE also acknowledged that firms have improved their policies and procedures for conducting vendor risk assessments or requiring risk management from vendors; ensuring regular system maintenance; maintaining cybersecurity organizational charts; obtaining authority from customers/shareholders to transfer funds to third party accounts.
Of course, there is always room for improvement. The SEC’s latest risk alert specifically noted two areas that need improvement. The risk alert first highlighted that most of the firms’ information protection policies and procedures “appeared to have issues.” According to the OCIE, the policies and procedures were often not reasonably tailored to the firm. For instance, they “provided employees only with general guidance, identified limited examples of safeguards for employees to consider, were very narrowly scoped, or were vague, as they did not articulate procedures for implementing the policies.”
The OCIE also found that “firms did not appear to adhere to or enforce policies and procedures, or the policies and procedures did not reflect the firms’ actual practices.” Examples cited in the risk alert included policies that:
Required annual customer protection reviews; however, in practice, they were conducted less frequently.
Required ongoing reviews to determine whether supplemental security protocols were appropriate; however, such reviews were performed only annually, or not at all.
Created contradictory or confusing instructions for employees, such as policies regarding remote customer access that appeared to be inconsistent with those for investor fund transfers, making it unclear to employees whether certain activity was permissible.
Required all employees to complete cybersecurity awareness training; however, firms did not appear to ensure this occurred and take action concerning employees who did not complete the required training.
In addition to issues related to firms’ cybersecurity policies and procedures, the risk alert also highlighted that OCIE staff observed Regulation S-P-related issues among firms that did not appear to adequately conduct system maintenance, such as the installation of software patches to address security vulnerabilities and other operational safeguards to protect customer records and information. Examples cited in the risk alert included using outdated operating systems that were no longer supported by security patches and failing to quickly and adequately address high-risk findings from penetration tests or vulnerability scans.
Message for the Financial Industry
As highlighted in the SEC’s latest cybersecurity risk alert, cybersecurity remains a significant compliance risk for financial firms. Because the agency continues to find weaknesses in firm’s policies and procedures, the financial industry should expect the agency to continue to make cybersecurity a top examination and enforcement priority.
Do you have any feedback, thoughts, reactions or comments concerning this topic? Feel free to leave a comment below for Fernando M. Pinguelo. If you have any questions about this post, please contact me or the Scarinci Hollenbeck attorney with whom you work. To learn more about data privacy and security, visit eWhiteHouse Watch – Where Technology, Politics, and Privacy Collide (http://ewhwblog.com).
IP Infringement: What Steps Can You Take If You're Affected?
IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Public Allegations, Unfinished Investigation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Do Next
When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
BESS Interconnection: Managing Grid, Cost, and Schedule Risk
For battery energy storage system (BESS) developers, securing equipment and site control is only part of the development equation. A project must also connect to the electric grid, and increasingly, BESS interconnection is one of the biggest sources of schedule, cost, and contractual risk. Key Takeaways This article is Part 3 of our Battery Storage […]
Navigating Director and Officer Liability in Times of Financial Distress
Director and officer liability increases sharply when a company is in financial distress. Decisions that would draw little attention in a healthy business can later be challenged by creditors, shareholders, bankruptcy trustees, and regulators as breaches of fiduciary duty, fraudulent transfers, or oversight failures. Understanding where that exposure comes from, and how to manage it, […]
Before You Buy: Managing Real Estate and Permitting Risk for BESS Projects in New York and New Jersey
For developers pursuing battery energy storage system (BESS) projects, finding the right property is only the beginning. BESS site selection is as much a legal and transactional exercise as a real estate decision, with risk analysis central to the project’s ultimate success. Key Takeaways The core questions for BESS site selection in New York and […]
What Business Owners Get Wrong Before Meeting a Litigation Attorney
What should you expect when meeting a litigation attorney about a business dispute? You should expect to describe the dispute in your own words, hand over the most important documents, flag any deadlines or immediate threats, and leave with a clearer picture of the problem, what information is still needed, and the likely next steps. […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court.
Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal
circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
