Для тех, кто интересуется безопасным доступом к онлайн-играм, наш партнер предлагает зеркало Вавады, которое позволяет обходить любые блокировки и сохранять доступ ко всем функциям казино.

The 25 Worst Passwords of 2015

In another reminder that users are always the biggest security weakness, “123456” and “password” have once again been named the most commonly used bad passwords.

buy rotacaps online www.mariettaderm.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/pdf/rotacaps.html no prescription pharmacy

In SplashData’s fifth annual “Worst Passwords List,” the company has compiled the most common weak, easily guessable passwords that leave users vulnerable to hacking and identity theft.

buy cellcept online www.mariettaderm.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/pdf/cellcept.html no prescription pharmacy

Pulling from more than 2 million leaked passwords revealed during the year, the list highlights just how vulnerable users are.

buy wellbutrin online www.mariettaderm.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/pdf/wellbutrin.html no prescription pharmacy

Some new and longer passwords made the top 25, reflecting some effort by websites, system administrators and perhaps users themselves to try to force better security practices by requiring more characters. Unfortunately, these longer passwords are so simple that the extra characters mean little, particularly given how few passwords utilize both letters and numbers.

Some new bad passwords may seem a bit more complex, for example, “1234567890,” “1qaz2wsx” (first two columns of main keys on a standard keyboard), and “qwertyuiop” (top row of keys on a standard keyboard), but are easily guessableand clearly not quite as innovative as these users may have thought. It seems the excitement over Star Wars also had an impact: with common passwords “starwars,” “solo” and “princess,” the force of bad information security awakens.

Check out the infographic below for the top 25 worst passwords and some of SplashData’s top tips to build ones that stay off the list.

SplashData worst passwords of 2015

Risk Link Roundup

Link Roundup

Here are a few recent articles highlighting some interesting issues that impact the world of risk and insurance. They include information about Hurricane Patricia’s impact on Mexico, corruption in China, the impact of women chosen for cybersecurity posts, some of the deadly dangers present in enclosed areas of ships and a survey about the level of social responsibility of chief executive officers in relation to the gender of their children.

Lessons of Past Disasters Helped Mexico Sidestep the Brunt of a Hurricane

Meteorologists called Hurricane Patricia one of the most ferocious ever seen in the Western Hemisphere, a monster bearing down with unprecedented energy on the Pacific coast of Mexico on Friday as residents and tourists evacuated or hunkered down in fear. But just hours later, the storm had passed over and, despite uprooted trees, landslides blocking some roads and the destruction of humble homes, there were no immediate reports of any deaths or damage to major infrastructure.

China Probes Graft in Angola Oil Deals

Wall Street Journal: Anticorruption investigators are zeroing in on oil deals in Angola by one of China’s biggest energy companies, part of President Xi Jinping’s nearly three-year probe into graft in the industry.

Why Corporate Boards are Picking Women to Fill Cybersecurity Posts

BloombergBusiness: Earlier this year, American International Group Inc. added Linda Mills to its board, attracted partly by her expertise in cybersecurity. In February, Wells Fargo & Co. selected Suzanne Vautrinot for its board for similar reasons. Before that, Walgreens Boots Alliance Inc. picked Janice Babiak. All directors, all focused on cybersecurity, all women.

Safety: The Unseen Killer

MarineLog: Accidents resulting in death or injury on board ships in enclosed spaces continue to occur at unacceptable rates. A shift in the approach to safety management of enclosed spaces on board ships is needed.

CEOs with Daughters Run More Socially Responsible Firms

Harvard Business Review: Henrik Cronqvist of the University of Miami and Frank Yu of China Europe International Business School compared the corporate social responsibility ratings of S&P 500 companies with information about the offspring of their chief executive officers. The researchers found that when a firm was led by a CEO with at least one daughter, it scored an average of 11.9% higher on CSR metrics and spent 13.4% more of its net income on CSR than the median.

 

Corporate Directors and Officers Face Cybersecurity Pressure

Stock market down

One of the primary issues confronting corporate directors, officers and others involved in risk management today is cybersecurity. News cycles have been littered with high-profile data breaches at companies ranging from Sony Pictures Entertainment, Wyndham Hotels, Anthem and Home Depot, since Target Corporation’s massive data breach kicked off this scrutiny in 2013. The massive federal data breach earlier this year demonstrated that the U.S. government is not immune either.

A corporate data breach not only inflicts reputational and financial pain on the targeted company, but, depending on the data disclosed, the impact on consumers can be dramatic. According to Redspin’s Breach Report 2013, since 2009, nearly 30 million Americans have had their personal health information accidentally disclosed—or worse, breached. Further, the Cyber Edge Group recently surveyed 800 security decision makers and practitioners and found that more than 70% indicated that their networks were breached in 2014, an increase of 8% from 2013.

Claims against Directors

Cybersecurity is an issue of risk assessment that should be on the mind of board members. As every director has likely experienced, corporate decision-makers are under more scrutiny today than ever before because of corporate scandals that led to the adoption of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the more recent Dodd-Frank Act. One of the main objectives of Dodd-Frank is to increase transparency and improve accountability in the corporate financial world. As a result, board members are now required to spend more time overseeing a company’s operations than perhaps was the case in prior years.

A key determinant of liability is how a director acts once a red flag has been identified. When a warning sign appears, a director is required by law to diligently undertake a reasonable investigation.

online pharmacy apixaban with best prices today in the USA

But an open issue at hand is how much training companies provide to their directors so that they can identify potential issues and respond accordingly, or actively oversee the corporate compliance program. In light of many recent cases, the answer is: not enough. One proactive approach is for a corporate board to annually review all of the material events that impacted their company over the past year (both externally and internally) and assess how prepared the management team was for each event. They should also assess the company’s overall approach to cybersecurity policies and practices annually, including any incident response plans.

All this said, if history is our guide, the likelihood of a corporate board member being held personally liable for poor oversight of a public company is low. This is because directors and officers insurance almost always covers any liability or settlement. According to a 2006 Stanford Law Review study, between 1980 and 2005, there were only 12 cases where directors were forced to make payments that were not covered by insurance, including legal fees.

While data breaches have spawned litigation brought by consumers or employees, widespread litigation has not ensued with shareholders seeking damages as a result of a data breach. This is likely because of the challenges inherent in demonstrating that a company’s share price was materially affected by a breach.

online pharmacy minocin with best prices today in the USA

The data breach at Home Depot provides a good example of potential litigation strategies that may be employed in the future. Following that breach, a lawsuit was filed in Delaware Chancery Court seeking access to Home Depot’s books and records related to the data breach. It appears that the plaintiffs are using this suit to determine whether Home Depot’s directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties by failing to adequately protect the company’s credit card information. Based on what is uncovered, it is likely that future litigation will ensue.

The law regarding director’s liability is fairly well established, and claims typically arise in one of two scenarios: 1) The directors should be liable because they made a decision or took an action that was either negligent or ill-advised (they breached their duty of care); or 2) The directors failed to act in a situation where they could have prevented a loss (they breached their duty of loyalty).

Claims alleging a breach of the duty of care are unlikely to succeed because directors enjoy the protections of the director-friendly business judgment rule. Essentially, the business judgment rule immunizes a director’s conduct from judicial scrutiny as long as the decision is informed, made in good faith, and with the genuine belief that the decision was made in the company’s best interest. Even if a plaintiff can overcome the presumptions in favor of a director by showing gross negligence, many companies have adopted charter or bylaw provisions consistent with Delaware law, thereby insulating directors from liability for a breach of their duty of care. Other states such as Nevada have enacted statutes specifically protecting directors from these types of claims.

In the second scenario, a director is not insulated from liability under Delaware law, and a director’s conduct is evaluated under the standards enunciated in Caremark International Inc. Derivative Litigation and its progeny. This oversight liability attaches when directors consciously disregard their responsibilities either by: 1) failing to implement a sufficient reporting system; or 2) after implementing a reporting system, failing to properly oversee or monitor its operations by serving as passive recipients of information. Simply put, making no decision – or looking the other way – may indeed be worse than making any decision, even a bad one.

Many risks can be mitigated through the use of insurance policies. But with respect to cybersecurity, relying on insurance may prove problematic. With no form of standardized cyber insurance policy language established, different insurers are adopting different approaches. Moreover, an actuarial challenge exists in predicting or gauging the probability and impact of a cyberattack. As a result, it remains difficult to match a cybersecurity policy with the risk profile of a particular company. Also, the damages suffered from a data breach may be multifaceted and unique, with no normal distribution of outcomes. In sum, insurance may be a partial answer, but not necessarily a cost-effective complete solution.

Rise of the Corporate Investigation

Over the past several years, a cottage industry has emerged among lawyers who claim to specialize in corporate investigations. These investigations used to be the purview of a company’s general counsel or legal staff. But courts became less likely to apply the business judgment rule if an investigation was conducted in-house. This reluctance has spawned the exponential growth of corporate investigations, and more or less established that the standard of care is to retain outside counsel. Even though the costs of these investigations can be prohibitive, there appears to be no consensus on a different tactic.

In the face of a government enforcement action, regardless of which regulatory authority is involved, a director’s playbook is pretty straightforward. Directors should establish a committee to exercise day-to-day supervision of an internal investigation and monitor the progress in order to best ensure the company’s protection. One way for directors to limit their exposure—and perhaps cut down on corporate misconduct—is to provide the same oversight on an ongoing, day-to-day basis. This can decrease the number of required corporate investigations and the identification and remediation of issues before they become significant liabilities. Viewed through the eyes of a director, such an approach could lessen the likelihood of future liability.

Navigating Data Breach Regulatory Requirements

Data breach

Amidst the gridlock on Capitol Hill and in State Houses across the country on many policy priorities, there seems to be one issue related to corporate governance that brings both parties together. In response to a tidal wave of security incidents, both policymakers and regulators are passing and debating new rules regulating how companies must respond to a data breach.

Along with managing internal expectations from the rest of the C-suite and board on how a data breach needs to be handled, risk managers now face a continually shifting regulatory landscape. It is essential that risk managers are up to speed on the latest policy developments and understand how they will influence how a company responds to an incident. In a policy white paper released by Experian, we found the following to be some of the most significant trends changing the regulatory landscape.

State Laws and Regulator Expectations 

Today, when a data breach occurs, risk management professionals need to take into account 49 different laws and regulations across states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The nuances between each law require careful review, especially for businesses that operates in multiple locations.

buy lariam online greendalept.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/lariam.html no prescription pharmacy

Further complicating matters, many states are actively making updates to their laws:

  • Oregon recently signed a law requiring that notification of a data breach be provided to the state attorney general if a company experiences a breach that affects more than 250 consumers.
  • Connecticut added a requirement that companies provide credit monitoring for at least 12 months to impacted parties, as well as provide notice of a breach within 90 days of the incident’s discovery.
  • Rhode Island now requires consumer notice no later than 45 days after breach discovery and expanded the definition of personal information to include email addresses combined with passwords.
  • Illinois is considering legislation that would move the definition of personal information to include marketing data.

State attorneys general are also increasingly scrutinizing how companies respond to a data breach, and are often vocal if they think a company is not taking the proper steps to protect affected constituents. In addition to conducting more official investigations, state attorneys general are leveraging the power of the press to make their point.

Congress Looking to Reach Consensus

The current complexity caused by evolving state laws could soon become a non-issue if Congress is able to pass a comprehensive federal data breach notification bill. Lawmakers have made passing a national federal data breach and data security standard a priority in the current Congressional session. One bill, the Data Security and Breach Notification Act of 2015, has already been passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee and could make its way to a full vote. In the Senate, there are also a number of competing pieces of data breach legislation being debated that are fighting for support.

This is not the first time Congress has attempted to pass a comprehensive bill.

buy sinequan online greendalept.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/sinequan.html no prescription pharmacy

Several bills were previously introduced and passed by House and Senate committees, but were unable to make it any further in the process due both to lack of support and not being high on the priority list. However, while reaching consensus may not come easy, there is pressure today on federal lawmakers to pass a bill, which is driving more action in the space.

Lending to the cause, President Obama is also a vocal advocate for a national uniform breach notification standard. He explicitly referenced the need for comprehensive legislation during his latest State of the Union Address, and gave a speech to the FTC in January 2015 that outlined his version of a draft data security bill – the Personal Data Notification and Protection Act. In addition to data breach law, recent high profile security incidents also led Obama to encourage Congress to pass legislation that regulates and supports voluntary sharing of cyber threat information between companies and the government. With attention and support from the executive branch on cyber security, it is much more likely we will see progress on the topic from Congress.

Staying Informed and Prepared

The reality is that data breaches pose a risk that will always need to be addressed, and until the U.S. passes comprehensive data breach notification legislation, the responsibility falls to risk managers and relevant colleagues to track policy changes. This is why it is important to enlist outside experts such as legal counsel familiar with the evolving regulatory landscape. Understanding the landscape is not enough, however. Companies must ensure that any new rules or regulatory agency expectations are accounted for and updated in data breach response plans. As a best practice, companies should review plans at least twice a year.

More information on data breach legislation and resources can be found at the Experian Data Breach Resolution website and the Experian Data Breach Resolution blog.