News
WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE WHEN THE COMPANY SUFFERS A CYBERATTACK?
Managing cyber attacks has always been a complex task and, in almost every scenario, it implied the dismissal of the CISO of the company. However, as we will see, there are several reasons to conclude that there is no only one person who shall face responsibility.

1. The pressure on the CISO
One of the main traditional obstacles when managing a cyber-attack had to do with the pressure under the CISO for not having been able to foresee it or not knowing how to handle it in time. In fact, the CISO was sometimes dismissed after a cyber-attack of a certain magnitude, in the belief that by dismissing this professional the company was justifying the incident as a purely human error caused by one of its employees, which could mitigate the reputational impact of the incident.
In fact, what was achieved was nothing more than adding more pressure on an expert who is already under great stress to resolve security incidents that are becoming more numerous and technically more complex.
2. The CISO role under the current legislation
In this sense, the current cybersecurity legislation seems to protect the CISO and exempt him (to a certain extent) from sole responsibility for the occurrence of the incident. As a matter of fact, the new regulation consolidates the principle of shared responsibility, in the sense that, although the CISO may be liable for his actions during incident management (in the same way as the DPO is with respect to the performance of his tasks), the ultimate responsibility for making decisions related to the implementation of appropriate, sufficient and proportionate technical and organisational measures, as well as for supervising their effectiveness, lies with the entity's governing body, especially in the case of essential, important and critical entities.
Actually, the NIS2 Directive, currently being transposed into member states laws, already mentions this in Article 32.6, when it states that "Member States shall ensure that any natural person responsible for or acting as a representative of a critical institution with powers to represent it, the authority to take decisions on its behalf or the authority to exercise control over it has powers to ensure that it complies with this Directive. Member States shall ensure that such natural persons can be held liable for failure to comply with their duty to ensure compliance with this Directive".
In consequence, the entities considered of relevance under this rule cannot discharge their liability for any cyber-attacks suffered, as cybersecurity is a business risk and, hence, a responsibility of their administrators, as it requires decision-making that only corresponds to the governing body within its obligation of diligent management of the business.
This has also been established by the Spanish Supreme Court, in its judgment of 15 February 2022, when it ruled that:
[Although] the disputed question raised serious doubts as to the nature of the security obligations in the field of data protection, in fact the party's argument that we are dealing with an obligation of means and not an obligation of result is accepted.
This implies that in obligations of means the commitment acquired is to adopt the technical and organisational measures, as well as to deploy a diligent activity in their implementation.
The difference lies in the liability in each case, because while in the obligation of result one is liable for a harmful result due to the failure of the security system, whatever its cause and whatever the diligence used, in the obligation of means it is sufficient to establish technically adequate measures and to implement and use them with reasonable diligence.
However, this argument in favour of the CISO does not mean that his or her actions are not subject to other types of responsibilities.
3. International approaches to the CISO responsibilities
Other countries also consider the strategic role that the CISO has in cyber incident management, not only in the strictly technical field, but also in the business field. In this case, the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in its capacity as the supervisory body for the proper functioning of the market, filed a lawsuit before a New York court on 30 October against the CISO of the company Solarwinds, known for being the victim of a serious cyberattack in October 2022 that led it to paying a compensation of 26 million dollars, and which has also recently been the victim of a new incident, known as Sunburst.
In this case, the FTC accuses the CISO and the company itself of defrauding investors for not being diligent in implementing cybersecurity measures and for failing to inform shareholders and adequately mitigate the cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities faced by the company ("alleging they defrauded investors by talking up SolarWinds' cybersecurity practices and downplaying or failing to disclose known risks").
As can be seen, the grounds affecting this case are not eminently technical, but economic. In other words, the omission of clear and complete information about the actual state of a company's cybersecurity can cause serious damage to the rights of investors in that company. And it is the company's responsibility to ensure that the rights of the market in general and investors in particular are protected.
This is yet another example of cybersecurity going beyond the technical to become a purely business and sometimes even market competition issue.
One of the main obstacles that traditionally existed when it came to properly managing a cyber-attack had to do with the pressure on the CISO of the affected company to be held internally responsible for not having been able to foresee it or not knowing how to handle it in time. In fact, the CISO was sometimes dismissed after a cyber-attack of a certain magnitude, in the belief that by dismissing this professional the company was justifying the incident as a purely human error caused by one of its employees, which could mitigate the reputational impact of the incident.
In fact, what was achieved was nothing more than adding more pressure on an expert who is already under great pressure to resolve security incidents that are becoming more numerous and technically more complex.
In this sense, the current cybersecurity legislation seems to protect the CISO and exempt him (to a certain extent) from sole responsibility for the occurrence of the incident. As a matter of fact, the new regulation consolidates the principle of shared responsibility, in the sense that, although the CISO may be liable for his actions during incident management (in the same way as the DPO is with respect to the performance of his tasks), the ultimate responsibility for making decisions related to the implementation of appropriate, sufficient and proportionate technical and organisational measures, as well as for supervising their effectiveness, lies with the entity's governing body, especially in the case of essential, important and critical entities.
Actually, the commonly known as the NIS Directive2 , currently being transposed into Spanish law, already mentions this in Article 32.6, when it states that "Member States shall ensure that any natural person responsible for or acting as a representative of a critical institution with powers to represent it, the authority to take decisions on its behalf or the authority to exercise control over it has powers to ensure that it complies with this Directive. Member States shall ensure that such natural persons can be held liable for failure to comply with their duty to ensure compliance with this Directive".
In consequence, the entities considered of relevance under this rule cannot discharge their liability for any cyber-attacks suffered, as cybersecurity is a business risk and, hence, a responsibility of their administrators, as it requires decision-making that only corresponds to the governing body within its obligation of diligent management of the business.
This has also been established by the Spanish Supreme Court, in its judgment of 15 February 2022, when it ruled that:
[Although] the disputed question raised serious doubts as to the nature of the security obligations in the field of data protection, in fact the party's argument that we are dealing with an obligation of means and not an obligation of result is accepted.
This implies that in obligations of means the commitment acquired is to adopt the technical and organisational measures, as well as to deploy a diligent activity in their implementation and use that tends to achieve the expected result, with means that can reasonably be qualified as suitable and sufficient for their achievement. Precisely for this reason they are called "diligence" or "behavioural" obligations.
The difference lies in the liability in each case, because while in the obligation of result one is liable for a harmful result due to the failure of the security system, whatever its cause and whatever the diligence used, in the obligation of means it is sufficient to establish technically adequate measures and to implement and use them with reasonable diligence.
However, this argument in favour of the CISO does not mean that his or her actions are not subject to other types of responsibilities.
Other countries also consider the strategic role that the CISO's role has in cyber incident management, not only in the strictly technical field, but also in the business field. In this case, the US Federal Trade Commission, in its capacity as the supervisory body for the proper functioning of the market, filed a lawsuit before a New York court on 30 October against the CISO of the company Solarwinds, known for being the victim of a serious cyberattack in October 2022 that led it to paying a compensation of 26 million dollars, and which has also recently been the victim of a new incident, known as Sunburst.
In this case, the FTC accuses the CISO and the company itself of defrauding investors for not being diligent in implementing cybersecurity measures and for failing to inform shareholders and adequately mitigate the cybersecurity risks and vulnerabilities faced by the company ("alleging they defrauded investors by talking up SolarWinds' cybersecurity practices and downplaying or failing to disclose known risks").
As can be seen, the grounds affecting this case are not eminently technical, but economic. In other words, the omission of clear and complete information about the actual state of a company's cybersecurity can cause serious damage to the rights of investors in that company. And it is the company's responsibility to ensure that the rights of the market in general and investors in particular are protected.
This is yet another example of cybersecurity going beyond the technical to become a purely business and sometimes even market competition issue.
Article provided by INPLP members: Francisco Perez Bes and Esmeralda Saracibar (ECIX Group, Spain)
Discover more about the INPLP and the INPLP-Members
Dr. Tobias Höllwarth (Managing Director INPLP)
News Archiv
- Alle zeigen
- Jänner 2025
- Dezember 2024
- November 2024
- Oktober 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- Juli 2024
- Juni 2024
- Mai 2024
- April 2024
- März 2024
- Februar 2024
- Jänner 2024
- Dezember 2023
- November 2023
- Oktober 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- Juli 2023
- Juni 2023
- Mai 2023
- April 2023
- März 2023
- Februar 2023
- Jänner 2023
- Dezember 2022
- November 2022
- Oktober 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- Juli 2022
- Mai 2022
- April 2022
- März 2022
- Februar 2022
- November 2021
- September 2021
- Juli 2021
- Mai 2021
- April 2021
- Dezember 2020
- November 2020
- Oktober 2020
- Juni 2020
- März 2020
- Dezember 2019
- Oktober 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- Juli 2019
- Juni 2019
- Mai 2019
- April 2019
- März 2019
- Februar 2019
- Jänner 2019
- Dezember 2018
- November 2018
- Oktober 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- Juli 2018
- Juni 2018
- Mai 2018
- April 2018
- März 2018
- Februar 2018
- Dezember 2017
- November 2017
- Oktober 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- Juli 2017
- Juni 2017
- Mai 2017
- April 2017
- März 2017
- Februar 2017
- November 2016
- Oktober 2016
- September 2016
- Juli 2016
- Juni 2016
- Mai 2016
- April 2016
- März 2016
- Februar 2016
- Jänner 2016
- Dezember 2015
- November 2015
- Oktober 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- Juli 2015
- Juni 2015
- Mai 2015
- April 2015
- März 2015
- Februar 2015
- Jänner 2015
- Dezember 2014
- November 2014
- Oktober 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- Juli 2014
- Juni 2014
- Mai 2014
- April 2014
- März 2014
- Februar 2014
- Jänner 2014
- Dezember 2013
- November 2013
- Oktober 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- Juli 2013
- Juni 2013
- Mai 2013
- April 2013
- März 2013
- Februar 2013
- Jänner 2013
- Dezember 2012
- November 2012
- Oktober 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- Juli 2012
- Juni 2012
- Mai 2012
- April 2012
- März 2012
- Februar 2012
- Jänner 2012
- Dezember 2011
- November 2011
- Oktober 2011
- September 2011
- Juli 2011
- Juni 2011
- Mai 2011
- April 2011
- März 2011
- Februar 2011
- Jänner 2011
- November 2010
- Oktober 2010
- September 2010
- Juli 2010