SecurityCertified

  • Subscribe to our RSS feed.
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Facebook
  • Digg

Saturday, November 19, 2011

SEC Guidance Emphasizes Materiality for Cyber Incidents

Posted on 1:02 PM by Unknown
Senator Jay Rockefeller and Secretary Michael Chertoff wrote the best article I've seen yet on the CF Disclosure Guidance: Topic No. 2, Cybersecurity issued by the SEC last month in their article A new line of defense in cybersecurity, with help from the SEC:

Managing cybersecurity risk has always been, and always will be, in large part a private sector responsibility...

Until recently, this responsibility may have been unclear — or unknown — to the directors and officers of publicly traded companies. But on Oct. 13, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued groundbreaking guidance to clarify companies’ disclosure obligations about material cybersecurity risks and events.

Federal securities law has long required publicly traded companies to report “material” risks and events — that is, information that the average investor would want to know before making an investment decision. But before the SEC’s action, many companies were not aware how — or perhaps even if — this duty applied to cybersecurity information. In fact, a Senate Commerce Committee review of past corporate disclosures suggested that a significant number of companies have not reported these risks for years.

This SEC guidance is critical because it allows market participants to weigh cybersecurity as an investment factor. It is generally understood that disclosing material breaches — such as the significant loss of a company’s intellectual property — will affect the value of a company, because existing or potential investors will reconsider their investment decisions. Without detailed public information about these events, investors are unaware of the risks to which companies are exposed. And without pressure from investors, corporate officers are less likely to change their risk-management practices.

The SEC guidance will fundamentally alter this equation by raising questions that historically have not been asked at many U.S. companies. Businesses will now have to consider, among other things, what constitutes a material cybersecurity breach and how to disclose such events to investors; how the value of intellectual property is measured; whether appropriate defenses are in place around that property; and whether risks are being appropriately mitigated, through defensive technologies or appropriate insurance coverage.
(emphasis added)

Make no mistake: this is a big deal. Until now "disclosure" laws have aimed at protecting consumers by making their PII the important aspect of a digital incident.

With the SEC guidance, we have a new audience for "disclosure" -- shareholders. The SEC is telling publicly traded companies that they have to disclose material cyber security incidents. Now the battle to define materiality will begin.

Tweet
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to XShare to Facebook
Posted in | No comments
Newer Post Older Post Home

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Popular Posts

  • Happy 7th Birthday TaoSecurity Blog
    Today, 8 January 2010, is the 7th birthday of TaoSecurity Blog . I wrote my first post on 8 January 2003 while working as an incident resp...
  • Review of Intelligence, 4th Ed Posted
    Amazon.com just posted my five star review of Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy, 4th Ed by Mark Lowenthall . From the review : I was a...
  • Review of Robust Control System Networks Posted
    Amazon.com just posted my five star review of Robust Control System Networks by Ralph Langner . From the review : I am not an industrial ...
  • Bejtlich's Thoughts on "Why Our Best Officers Are Leaving"
    Twenty-two years ago today I flew to Colorado Springs, CO and reported for Basic Cadet Training with the class of 1994 at the United States ...
  • Bejtlich Teaching at Black Hat DC 2011
    Over the holiday break I've been putting the finishing touches on TCP/IP Weapons School 3.0 , to be presented first at Black Hat DC 2011...
  • Risk Modeling, not "Threat Modeling"
    Thanks to the great new book Metasploit (review pending), I learned of the Penetration Testing Execution Standard . According to the site,...
  • Bejtlich to Speak at SANS Forensics and Incident Response 2010
    I am pleased to announce that I will return for the third SANS WhatWorks Summit in Forensics and Incident Response in DC, 8-9 July 2010. R...
  • Tort Law on Negligence
    If any lawyers want to contribute to this, please do. In my post Shodan: Another Step Towards Intrusion as a Service , some comments claim ...
  • My Role in Information Warfare during the Yugoslav Wars
    This morning I read a Tweet from @AirForceAssoc reminding me that: Today in Airpower History, August 30, 1995: NATO and U.S. aircraft bega...
  • Report on Instances of US Forces Abroad
    Thanks to Steven Aftergood's post Instances of US Forces Abroad I learned of a new Congressional Research Service report of the same na...

Categories

  • afcert
  • Air Force
  • analysis
  • announcement
  • apt
  • attribution
  • bestbook
  • blackhat
  • books
  • breakers
  • bro
  • bruins
  • certification
  • china
  • cisco
  • cissp
  • cloud
  • clowns
  • commodore
  • conferences
  • controls
  • correlation
  • counterintelligence
  • cybercommand
  • cyberwar
  • dfm
  • education
  • engineering
  • feds
  • fisma
  • freebsd
  • GE
  • ge-cirt
  • hakin9
  • history
  • impressions
  • information warfare
  • ipv6
  • law
  • leadership
  • malware
  • mandiant
  • microsoft
  • mssp
  • nsm
  • offense
  • oisf
  • packetstash
  • philosophy
  • pirates
  • powerpoint
  • press
  • psirt
  • reading
  • redteam
  • reviews
  • russia
  • sans
  • sec
  • sguil
  • snorby
  • spying
  • threat model
  • threats
  • Traffic Talk
  • training
  • tufte
  • tv
  • ubuntu
  • usenix
  • verizon
  • vulnerabilities
  • wisdom
  • writing

Blog Archive

  • ►  2013 (16)
    • ►  September (1)
    • ►  August (1)
    • ►  June (2)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (1)
    • ►  February (3)
    • ►  January (6)
  • ►  2012 (60)
    • ►  December (4)
    • ►  November (5)
    • ►  October (3)
    • ►  September (10)
    • ►  August (2)
    • ►  July (6)
    • ►  June (6)
    • ►  May (4)
    • ►  April (2)
    • ►  March (9)
    • ►  February (6)
    • ►  January (3)
  • ▼  2011 (108)
    • ►  December (3)
    • ▼  November (7)
      • National Public Radio Talks Chinese Digital Espionage
      • Dustin Webber Creates Network Security Monitoring ...
      • Trying NetworkMiner Professional 1.2
      • Thoughts on 2011 ONCIX Report
      • Tao of Network Security Monitoring, Kindle Edition
      • Why DIARMF, "Continuous Monitoring," and other FIS...
      • SEC Guidance Emphasizes Materiality for Cyber Inci...
    • ►  October (11)
    • ►  September (9)
    • ►  August (18)
    • ►  July (10)
    • ►  June (5)
    • ►  May (4)
    • ►  April (13)
    • ►  March (17)
    • ►  February (2)
    • ►  January (9)
  • ►  2010 (193)
    • ►  December (14)
    • ►  November (11)
    • ►  October (6)
    • ►  September (16)
    • ►  August (15)
    • ►  July (26)
    • ►  June (15)
    • ►  May (15)
    • ►  April (15)
    • ►  March (16)
    • ►  February (19)
    • ►  January (25)
  • ►  2009 (123)
    • ►  December (10)
    • ►  November (17)
    • ►  October (21)
    • ►  September (13)
    • ►  August (20)
    • ►  July (21)
    • ►  June (21)
Powered by Blogger.

About Me

Unknown
View my complete profile