As the threat of cyberattacks looms in the wake of the U.S.’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, President Biden signed into law a $1.5 trillion spending package on March 11, 2022 that funds the federal government through the fall. The law includes the strongest cybersecurity legislation in recent history and adopts the Strengthening American Cybersecurity Act of 2022. Jen Easterly, director of the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”), stated, “Put plainly, this legislation is a game changer.”
The law increases funding for CISA over 22% from last year, adding $568.7 million for a total allocation of $2.6 billion. The bolstered budget indicates the urgency to prevent cyberattacks and protect critical infrastructure and communications systems.
The legislation imposes mandatory reporting on certain critical infrastructure companies, like those dealing in oil, banking, transportation, and electricity. CISA’s guidance on Essential Critical Infrastructure is found here. These entities will be required to report covered cybersecurity incidents to CISA within 72 hours of a cyberattack and within 24 hours of a ransomware payment. CISA, in turn, must report to the appropriate federal agencies within 24 hours.
Reporting requirements have been supported by security experts following recent attacks on supply chains, as in the SolarWinds breach, and ransomware attacks on critical infrastructure providers, like the recent Colonial Pipeline shutdown. Mandated reporting of cyberattacks allows federal authorities to warn others, to understand how hackers target U.S. infrastructure and spot trends in cyberactivity, to fill information gaps, to prepare for widespread impact, and to allow CISA to render assistance to affected companies.
Historically, the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees CISA, has preferred to partner with critical infrastructure providers to address cyber incidents, rather than mandate reporting and punish for non-compliance. However, Senator Mark Warner, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, indicated during a hearing last week that the private sector only informs government agencies of about 30% of cyberbreaches. The recently passed legislation signals a reversal in DHS’s policy.
Critical infrastructure companies avoid notifying federal agencies for many reasons. Such disclosure would increase the risk of potential litigation from investors, potentially damage a brand, and open the company to law enforcement probes. To address these concerns, the legislation provides broad protection for submitted reports, including: protecting covered entities from liabilities for providing information to the federal government; limiting the use of reports by the government; treating reports as proprietary information; exempting reports from FOIA requests and other disclosure laws; and prohibiting ransomware payments from being used to regulate the infrastructure companies.
Fortunately for covered entities, the specifics of the law are subject to subsequent rulemaking by CISA and proposals and comments from a wide variety of industries will be incorporated into the final version of the law. CISA has 24 months to propose parameters for the new rules, including how to determine which entities are covered, what must be reported, and what information is needed to complete a report. CISA will then have 18 months to finalize the rules.
Although there is significant lead time before the implementation of any regulations, given the current global uncertainties, it is conceivable that the timeline could be sped up to address the urgency of strong cyber protection. Companies that are or may be covered by the new law should continue to monitor the regulatory process and begin assessing what actions may be necessary to comply with the law and regulations.
- Senior Attorney
Carey Kulp, CIPP/US, helps clients protect one of their most valuable assets: their brands.
Drawing on more than 10 years’ experience in intellectual property law, Carey counsels her clients on strategies to identify and develop ...
Subscribe
Recent Posts
- Artificial Ingenuity: Is Generative AI the New 'Person of Ordinary Skill' in Patent Law?
- The Expiration of the After Final Consideration Pilot Program 2.0 (AFCP 2.0)
- Patently Unclear: Why Result-Oriented Claims Don’t Make the Cut Under 35 U.S.C. § 101
- Make Your Invention The Priority, What Track-1 Can Do For You!
- Navigating Final Rejections in Patent Prosecution: AFCP 2.0 vs. 37 CFR § 1.116
- A Clear POV on Patent Eligibility Under 35 U.S.C. 101: Contour’s Claims Zoom Back Into Focus in Contour v. GoPro
- Understanding the Recent Federal Circuit Decision in Broadband iTV, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. on Patent Ineligibility
- Federal Circuit Clarifies Obviousness-Type Double Patenting in Allergan v. MSN Laboratories: The Impact of Patent Term Adjustments on First-Filed Patents
- The Risks and Rewards of Using Open Source Software
- Don't Let Your Trade Secrets Walk Out the Door With Your Employees: Patent Them!
Archives
- November 2024
- September 2024
- August 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- October 2022
- August 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- June 2019
- April 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- October 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017