On-Demand   On-Demand Web Programs

Cybersecurity 2017: Managing Cybersecurity Incidents

Released on: Sep. 21, 2017
Running Time: 05:40:10

Cyber attacks have wreaked havoc on organizations in nearly every industry sector. C-suites and boards of directors alike rank this issue to be of the highest concern — and for good reason. From the technology sector to financial services, cyber criminals have made it clear that no entity is immune. In today’s interconnected world, cybercrime targets go beyond those that maintain personal information; many entities are targeted for other confidential information they hold. Media reports of the staggering number of increasingly sophisticated cyber attacks attest to an upward trend in cybercrime, and the events of the last few years have dwarfed earlier hacking incidents.

There has been significant activity by the U.S. government to take measures designed to prevent or mitigate cybersecurity incidents. Highlights of U.S. government activities in this area include the Cybersecurity Act of 2015 and various cyber-related Executive Orders. State governments also are playing a leading role in seeking to combat cyber crime. Other countries, such as the European Union and China, have taken significant steps to respond to the critical threat posed by cyber crime.

To keep up with the rapidly evolving legal landscape in this field, companies need to be informed not only about the risks they face, but also about policy pronouncements and legislation that could affect how they do business. A thorough understanding of this area is particularly important for companies that have not previously been in cyber attackers’ crosshairs and need to consider strategies to confront these sophisticated and persistent threats.

The multiple challenges posed by cybersecurity issues demand an interdisciplinary approach. Please join us for a robust discussion of the future of cybersecurity with leading experts in the field, including law enforcement authorities, Chief Information Security Officers, cybersecurity lawyers, forensic experts and scholars.

Topics Include:

  • Understanding today’s threat environment and cyber criminals
  • The lawyer’s role in identifying and investigating cybersecurity attacks, including incident mitigation strategies
  • Proactive cyber readiness activities every company should undertake
  • Effective cyber governance structures and company policies to address cybersecurity threats and response
  • Legal and contractual obligations resulting from cybersecurity attacks
  • Federal and state cybersecurity laws and regulations
  • Cybersecurity regulation in the European Union and China

In-house counsel, privacy officers, information security professionals, general practitioners, technology lawyers and others who need a comprehensive update on the rapidly developing issues surrounding cybersecurity will benefit this program.


Lecture Topics [Total time 05:40:10]

Segments with an asterisk (*) are available only with the purchase of the entire program.

  • Opening Remarks and Introduction* [00:08:33]
    Lisa J. Sotto
  • Cybersecurity: U.S. and Global Legal Landscape [01:05:00]
    Peter M. Marta, Paul M. Tiao, Aaron K. Martin
  • Cyber Attack Simulation [01:22:12]
    Lisa J. Sotto, Emily Stapf
  • Cybersecurity Risks in M&A Transactions and Cybersecurity Insurance [01:01:54]
    Elissa Doroff, J. Andrew Heaton, Robert V. Lautsch
  • Cybersecurity: A Hacker’s Perspective [01:02:24]
    Jaswinder S. Hayre, Vincent Liu
  • Cybersecurity: Regulators and a CISO Speak [01:00:07]
    Bob Lord, Laura Riposo VanDruff

The purchase price of this Web Program includes the following articles from the Course Handbook available online:


  • COMPLETE COURSE HANDBOOK
  • Turnaround and Transformation in Cybersecurity: Key Findings from The Global State of Information Security® Survey 2016
    Emily Stapf
  • Global Economic Crime Survey 2016: US Results
    Emily Stapf
  • Hunton & Williams LLP Privacy & Information Security Law Blog: Global Privacy and Cybersecurity Law Updates and Analysis (Including Attachments: 1-10)
    Paul M. Tiao
  • Anna Pateraki, EU Regulation Binding Corporate Rules Under the GDPR—What Will Change? Bloomberg BNA World Data Protection Report, Volume 16, Number 3 (March 24, 2016)
    Paul M. Tiao
  • Manuel E. Maisog, Lawyer Insights, China’s Data Localization Provision Is Bad for the Nation (November 21, 2016)
    Paul M. Tiao
  • Lisa J. Sotto and Aaron P. Simpson, A How-To Guide to Information Security Breaches, BNA, Inc. Privacy & Security Law Report (April 2, 2007)
    Lisa J. Sotto
  • Toward New Possibilities in Threat Management: How Businesses Are Embracing a Modern Approach to Threat Management and Information Sharing
    Emily Stapf
  • Surviving Contact with Reality: Crisis Exercises as a Key Element of Cyber Incident and Crisis Management Response
    Emily Stapf
  • United States Federal Government Fact Sheet, Cyber Incident Reporting: A Unified Message for Reporting to the Federal Government
    Lisa J. Sotto
  • Lisa J. Sotto and Aaron P. Simpson, United States, Getting the Deal Through: Data Protection & Privacy (2017)
    Lisa J. Sotto
  • Hunton & Williams LLP, Client Alert, Privacy and Data Security Due Diligence in M&A Transactions (May 2017)
    Lisa J. Sotto
  • Hunton & Williams LLP Privacy & Information Security Law Blog: Global Privacy and Cybersecurity Law Updates and Analysis (Including Attachments: 1-2)
    Lisa J. Sotto
  • Alex DeFreese, “How We Can Stop Email Spoofing,” Bishop Fox Blog (May 23, 2017), https://www.bishopfox.com/blog/2017/05/how-we-can-stop-email-spoofing/
    Vincent Liu
  • Nathan Elendt, “What the Newly Drafted NIST Password Guidelines Mean to You,” Bishop Fox Blog (May 30, 2017), https://www.bishopfox.com/blog/2017/05/newly-drafted-nist-passwordguidelines-mean/
    Vincent Liu
  • United States Government Interagency Guidance Document, Ransomware: What It Is and What To Do About It
    Lisa J. Sotto
  • United States Government Interagency Guidance Document, How to Protect Your Networks from Ransomware
    Lisa J. Sotto
  • United States Department of Health and Human Services, Fact Sheet: Ransomware and HIPAA
    Lisa J. Sotto
  • “Telling the Security Story: An Interview with Josh Koplik,” Bishop Fox Blog (November 10, 2016), https://www.bishopfox.com/blog/2016/11/telling-security-story-interview-josh-koplik/
    Vincent Liu
  • Information Sharing and Analysis Organizations: Putting Theory into Practice (April 2016)
    Emily Stapf
  • U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Private Sector, Cyber Awareness
    Lisa J. Sotto
  • Federal Trade Commission, Start with Security: A Guide for Business, Lessons Learned from FTC Cases (June 2015)
    Lisa J. Sotto

Presentation Material


  • Aligning Security With Prioritized Threats: Healthcare and Entertainment Sectors
    Eric M. Friedberg
  • Cybersecurity – U.S. and Global Legal Landscape
    Peter M. Marta, Aaron K. Martin, Paul M. Tiao
  • Cyber Attack Simulation
    Lisa J. Sotto, Emily Stapf
  • Cyber Insurance Market Overview
    Elissa Doroff
  • Cybersecurity in M&A Transactions
    J. Andrew Heaton
  • Rite Aid's Information Security Program
    Robert V. Lautsch
  • A Hacker’s Perspective: From the Offensive Side of Security
    Jaswinder S. Hayre , Vincent Liu
Chairperson(s)
Lisa J. Sotto ~ Hunton & Williams LLP
Speaker(s)
Elissa Doroff ~ Vice President, Underwriting and Product Manager for Technology and Cyber Liability, XL Catlin
Mike Dvilyanski ~ Supervisory Special Agent, Cyber Branch, Federal Bureau of Investigation
Eric M. Friedberg ~ Co-President, Stroz Friedberg LLC
Jaswinder S. Hayre ~ Chief Information Security Officer, Dow Jones & Company
J. Andrew Heaton ~ Global Lead Counsel - Data Privacy and Security, EY Global Limited
Robert V. Lautsch ~ Vice President & Chief Information Security Officer, Rite Aid Corporation
Vincent Liu ~ Partner, Bishop Fox
Bob Lord ~ Chief Information Security Officer (Former), Yahoo! Inc.
Peter M. Marta ~ Assistant General Counsel for Global Cybersecurity, JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Aaron K. Martin ~ Vice President, Global Technology Regulatory Policy, JPMorgan Chase & Co
Emily Stapf ~ Partner, Cybersecurity & Forensics, PwC
Paul M. Tiao ~ Hunton & Williams LLP
Laura Riposo VanDruff ~ Assistant Director, Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, Federal Trade Commission
General credit information about this format appears below. For credit information specific to this program, please choose your jurisdiction(s) in the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page.

PLI’s live and on-demand webcasts are single-user license products intended for an individual registrant only. Credit will be issued only to the individual registered.


U.S. MCLE States

Alabama:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

Alaska:  All PLI products can fulfill Alaska’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Arizona:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “interactive CLE” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via interactive CLE programs.

Arkansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for Arkansas CLE credit.

California:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “participatory” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via participatory programs.

Colorado:  All PLI products can fulfill Colorado’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Connecticut: Effective January 1, 2017, all PLI products can fulfill Connecticut’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Delaware:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “eCLE” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of eCLE per reporting period, no more than 6 of which may be audio-only.

Florida:  All PLI products can fulfill Florida’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Georgia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “in-house” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 in-house credits per reporting period.

Hawaii:  All PLI products can fulfill Hawaii’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Idaho:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Illinois:  All PLI products can fulfill Illinois' CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Indiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance education” credit. Attorneys are limited to 9 credits of distance education per reporting period.

Iowa:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “unmoderated” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of unmoderated programs per reporting period.

Kansas:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “prerecorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of prerecorded programs per reporting period.

Kentucky:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-live” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 non-live credits per reporting period.

Louisiana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Maine:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5.5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Minnesota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 on-demand credits per reporting period.

Mississippi:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Missouri:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Montana:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Nebraska:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “computer-based learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 5 credits of computer-based learning per reporting period.

Nevada:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via self-study programs.

New Hampshire:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New Jersey:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternative verifiable learning formats” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of alternative verifiable learning formats per reporting period.

New Mexico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 4 credits of self-study per reporting period.

New York

Experienced Attorneys:  All PLI products can fulfill New York’s CLE requirements for experienced attorneys. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Newly Admitted Attorneys:  PLI’s transitional on-demand web programs can be used to fulfill the requirements for New York newly admitted attorneys. Only professional practice and law practice management credits may be earned via transitional on-demand web programs. Ethics and skills credits may not be earned via on-demand web programs.

North Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online programs per reporting period.

North Dakota:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Ohio:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Oklahoma:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of online, on-demand programs per reporting period.

Oregon:  All PLI products can fulfill Oregon’s CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Pennsylvania:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Puerto Rico:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “non-traditional” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of non-traditional programs per reporting period.

Rhode Island:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 3 on-demand credits per reporting period.

South Carolina:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “alternatively delivered” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of alternatively delivered programs per reporting period.

Tennessee:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “distance learning” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of distance learning per reporting period.

Texas:  All PLI products can fulfill Texas’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Utah:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Vermont:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 10 credits of self-study per reporting period.

Virgin Islands:  All PLI products can fulfill the Virgin Islands’ CLE requirements. There is no limit to the number of credits an attorney can earn via PLI products.

Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “pre-recorded” credit. Attorneys are limited to 8 credits of pre-recorded programs per reporting period.

Washington:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “A/V” credit. Attorneys are limited to 22.5 credits of A/V programs per reporting period.

West Virginia:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “online” credit. Attorneys are limited to 12 credits of online instruction per reporting period.

Wisconsin:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “repeated, on-demand” credit. Attorneys are limited to 15 credits of repeated, on-demand programs per reporting period. No ethics credits can be earned via on-demand web programs.

Wyoming:  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Attorneys are limited to 6 credits of self-study per reporting period.


CPD Jurisdictions

British Columbia (CPD-BC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not eligible for CPD-BC credit unless viewed with at least one other attorney or an articled student. In this case, the credit must be recorded as a “study group.”

Ontario (CPD-ON):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “recorded” credit. If viewed without a colleague, attorneys are limited to 6 credits of recorded programs per year. If viewed with at least one colleague, there is no limit to the number of credits that can be earned via recorded programs.

Quebec (CPD-QC):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill Quebec’s CPD requirements.

Hong Kong (CPD-HK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CPD-HK credit.

United Kingdom (CPD-UK):  PLI’s on-demand web programs can fulfill the United Kingdom’s CPD requirements.

Australia (CPD-AUS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Australia’s CPD requirements. Credit limits for on-demand web programs vary according to jurisdiction. Please refer to your jurisdiction’s CPD information page for specifics.


Other Credit Types

CPE Credit (NASBA):  Select on-demand web programs qualify as “QAS Self-Study” credit. Please check the Credit Information box on the right-hand side of this page to verify CPE credit availability.

IRS Continuing Education (IRS-CE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill IRS-CE requirements. To request IRS-CE credit, please notify PLI at plicredits@pli.edu of your request and include your Preparer Tax Identification Number (PTIN).

Certified Fraud Examiner CPE:  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Certified Fraud Examiner CPE requirements. To request CPE credit or find out which programs offer CPE, please contact PLI at plicredits@pli.edu.

IAPP Continuing Privacy Credit (CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill Privacy CPE credit requirements.

HR Recertification (HRCI):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill HR credit requirements.

SHRM Recertification (SHRM):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as "self-paced" credit. SHRM professionals are limited to 30 credits of self-paced programs per recertification period.

Compliance Certification Board (CCB):  PLI’s on-demand web programs qualify as “self-study” credit. Candidates are limited to 10 self-study credits per 12-month period, and certification holders are limited to 20 self-study credits per 2-year renewal period.

Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists Certification (CAMS):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for CAMS credit.

New York State Social Worker Continuing Education (SW CPE):  PLI’s on-demand web programs are not approved for SW CPE credit.

American Bankers Association Professional Certification (ABA):  PLI’s on-demand web programs may fulfill ABA credit requirements.

 

Share
Email

  • FOLLOW PLI:
  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2017 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2017 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.