On April 12, 2010, Brokerage firm D.A. Davidson & Co. was hit by The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) with a $375,000 fine due to a 2007 data breach. The breach potentially impacted 192,000 customers and involved social security numbers, dates of birth and other confidential information. In what has been for years now a fairly common occurrence, the firm was exploited by a SQL injection vulnerability that allowed hackers to break into a database server holding the data.
Davidson learned of the breach after it received an extortion note from one of the hackers seeking money to keep silent. According to FINRA, the breach was caused by Davidson’s failure to implement “well-known and recommended security measures for protecting customer data.” It said that Davidson had failed to encrypt sensitive customer data, and had kept its customer database on a Web server with a default vendor password and a “constant open Internet connection.”
This case should not be looked upon in isolation. A failure to implement reasonable security is giving rise to a growing regulatory risk. For example, on March 25, 2010, the FTC settled a case claiming that the Dave & Busters restaurant and arcade chain failed to inadequately protect consumer information. The FTC alleged in its complaint that a hacker exploited vulnerabilities in Dave & Buster’s systems to install unauthorized software and access approximately 130,000 credit and debit cards.
Negligence claims based on the lack of “reasonble security” has also been gaining ground in the courts. For example, last year the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois allowed suit to proceed against Citizens Financial Bank given that plaintiffs’ home equity loan was depleted to the tune of $26,500 by an online thief who transferred the money to a bank in Austria. The negligence claim against Citizens Financial Bank was allowed to proceed given there was a factual issue as to whether the bank utilized adequate security controls. There are other pending cases where the court has reasoned that the lack of reasonable security can be the underpining of a negligence claim. The moving target in all of these cases is determining what exactly constitutes “reasonable security”.