Who Is Legally Responsible For Your Cybersecurity?

As a cybersecurity professional and expert witness, I like to keep an eye on legal cases that set precedents. Case law allows the public to see the facts of any given case, and more importantly, the judge’s decisions. These decisions create a body of law that can set a precedent for judges in making future decisions on similar issues.

The principle of 'stare decisis', meaning 'to stand by things decided' is central to case law, ensuring legal consistency and predictability. Unfortunately, in the UK, and similarly the US, the vast majority of cases are settled out-of-court and very often bind both parties from disclosing any settlements, concessions or decisions based on the facts.

There is potentially an interesting case law in the offing in the US. 23andMe is a company that provides genetic testing for health and ancestry information. In October 2023, a hacker claimed to have breached 23andMe and sold access on the darkweb for between $1 to $10 per profile. In December 2023, 23andMe admitted that approximately 14,000 people had their accounts directly accessed and that data from a further 1.4 million to 6.9 million customers, depending on reports, had been accessed as a result of preferences that they had set, allowing “potential genetic relatives” to identify them.

As a result of the breach, a number of legal cases have sprung up against 23andMe. As part of their defence, 23andMe have stated that the unauthorized access to user accounts had been a result of a “credential stuffing” attack.

A credential stuffing attack is where attackers use automated scripts to try a large volume of usernames and password combinations against a website or multiple websites. These combinations are often obtained from previous data breaches. The aim is to gain unauthorized access to accounts, exploiting the fact that people often reuse passwords across multiple sites.

As such, 23andMe are essentially saying that it is not their fault that the approximately 14,000 accounts were compromised, because users were re-using passwords that had been breached previously, and that users had failed to update passwords or apply additional, multi-factor verification methods. As for the remaining nearly 7 million individuals, they opted to share their information within the platform.

Credential stuffing could potentially be detected, I’m making no assumptions as to the sophistication of the attacker’s methods or the detection mechanisms within 23andMe’s infrastructure. Such an attack would typically present as tens or hundreds or thousands of unsuccessful login attempts from one or multiple IP addresses. Intermixed with that would be the successful logins for genuine users of the site. This though only accounts for the 14,000 directly compromised accounts. The remaining 6.9 million impacted users opted to share their data on the platform.

There’s going to be many arguments on both sides regarding this case. Ultimately, I suspect that this will come down to a decision regarding duty of care, and who that duty of care lies with. On the one hand, detecting credential stuffing attacks and blocking based on IP addresses, is feasible. On the other hand, threat actors often hide behind VPN’s or infrastructures used to co-host legitimate services. As such, blocking access from these may impact legitimate users and functionality.

Notifying users of logins from new devices or locations is also perfectly feasible. Though users had not opted to enable multi-factor authentication (MFA) as a mechanism to detect mitigate against this type of attack themselves.

One point that does stand out to me is that these accounts had access to 6.9 million people’s data.  This seems like a staggeringly high blast radius, though does also make me question how much of the data would have been accessible to the attacker if, instead of using compromised accounts to gain access, they had signed up legitimately to the platform? And from this, were users provided with sufficient information to provide informed consent? And what boundaries, if any, come with that consent?

While this data loss and its impact has been a result of obvious malicious intent, with the threat actor selling individual records for between $1 and $10 USD on the darkweb; in 2020 the private equity firm “Blackstone” bought the DNA testing company Ancestry for $4.7 billion USD and in 2019 users of Family Tree DNA, a similar platform/service provider, found that their genetic sample, data, and by extension that of their relatives, was being used by the FBI. How are users therefore supposed to analyze, understand, accept, and control the risk of who has access to their data?

The broader point that I would like to see judgement on is where the balance point is between users having to take responsibility for their own password management, data, and cybersecurity and companies securing, monitoring, and responding to detections on their systems.

Ultimately, while I don’t expect these cases to answer all of the questions, or necessarily lay precedent for future actions, there has to come a point where users and providers work together to create a clear understanding of risk, consent, and responsibility.

Mark Cunningham-Dickie is a Senior Incident Responder for Quorum Cyber

Image: Ideogram 

You Might Also Read: 

Cyber Security Governance Is A Leadership Responsibility:

DIRECTORY OF SUPPLIERS - Governance, Risk & Compliance:

___________________________________________________________________________________________

If you like this website and use the comprehensive 6,500-plus service supplier Directory, you can get unrestricted access, including the exclusive in-depth Directors Report series, by signing up for a Premium Subscription.

  • Individual £5 per month or £50 per year. Sign Up
  • Multi-User, Corporate & Library Accounts Available on Request

Cyber Security Intelligence: Captured Organised & Accessible


 

« Iranian Hackers Targeted Israel’s Radar Systems
Problems With Underperforming Cyber Security Service Providers  »

CyberSecurity Jobsite
Perimeter 81

Directory of Suppliers

Practice Labs

Practice Labs

Practice Labs is an IT competency hub, where live-lab environments give access to real equipment for hands-on practice of essential cybersecurity skills.

The PC Support Group

The PC Support Group

A partnership with The PC Support Group delivers improved productivity, reduced costs and protects your business through exceptional IT, telecoms and cybersecurity services.

MIRACL

MIRACL

MIRACL provides the world’s only single step Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) which can replace passwords on 100% of mobiles, desktops or even Smart TVs.

IT Governance

IT Governance

IT Governance is a leading global provider of information security solutions. Download our free guide and find out how ISO 27001 can help protect your organisation's information.

ZenGRC

ZenGRC

ZenGRC - the first, easy-to-use, enterprise-grade information security solution for compliance and risk management - offers businesses efficient control tracking, testing, and enforcement.

Zscaler

Zscaler

Zscaler enables the world’s leading organizations to securely transform their networks and applications for a mobile and cloud first world.

e2e-assure

e2e-assure

e2e Protective Monitoring and Security Operations Centre (SOC) Service is a complete cyber defence service to protect your critical assets from cyber attacks and GDPR breaches.

Arcanum Information Security (AIS)

Arcanum Information Security (AIS)

Arcanum Information Security is a specialist Information Assurance Consultancy and a leading provider of Cyber Security services to UK Defence, UK Government, Enterprise businesses and SMEs.

Kivu Consulting

Kivu Consulting

Kivu Consulting combines technical and legal expertise to deliver data breach response, investigative, discovery and forensic solutions worldwide.

7 Elements

7 Elements

7 Elements is an independent IT security testing company providing expertise in technical information assurance through security testing, incident response and consultancy.

CYQUEO

CYQUEO

CYQUEO is your professional partner and system integrator. We secure your organization against advanced cyber threats.

Sopher Networks

Sopher Networks

Sopher is a secure communication and collaboration platform for business and personal use.

Intuity

Intuity

The Intuity suite of services provides companies with a complete awareness of their security status and helps them in an efficient, efficient and sustainable improvement process.

Polyrize

Polyrize

The Polyrize continuous authorization platform for SaaS and IaaS stops tomorrow's public cloud cyber threats, today.

Data Theorem

Data Theorem

Data Theorem is a leading provider in modern application security. Its core mission is to analyze and secure any modern application anytime, anywhere.

Smart Hive

Smart Hive

Smart Hive has created a platform that will allow organizations to share real-time, relevant and actionable threat intelligence among each other while maintaining confidentiality.

Global Cyber Risk (GCR)

Global Cyber Risk (GCR)

Global Cyber Risk is a technology and advisory services firm that provides first tier cybersecurity services to both large corporations and small and mid-sized businesses.

Blumira

Blumira

Blumira provides comprehensive, hybrid cloud security monitoring and reporting for organizations of all sizes, enabling them to detect and respond to cloud security threats quickly and effectively.

Stratus Technologies

Stratus Technologies

Edge Computing solves the inherent challenges of bandwidth, latency, and security at edge locations to enable IIoT devices and data acquisition.

eaziSecurity

eaziSecurity

eaziSecurity has built an eco-system of technology and services that bring enterprise scale security solutions to the SME marketplace.

Bearer

Bearer

Bearer helps modern teams ship trustworthy products with the help of our code security solution built for security, privacy and engineering teams.