Epiq's Ransomware Response Is By The Books, But Dangers Still Lurk
In the aftermath of a ransomeware attack, Epiq Global is executing moves straight out of the cyber incident response playbook. However, the attack could still raise some interesting questions for how e-discovery providers will evaluate tools like cyber insurance moving forward.
March 03, 2020 at 03:13 PM
4 minute read
The e-discovery industry may have experienced one its most high-profile cyber incidents over the weekend. Epiq Global confirmed that it had been hit with a ransomware attack, prompting the e-discovery and managed services company to take its systems offline for the foreseeable future. A statement released by the e-discovery and managed services provider on Monday stated that "at this time there is no evidence of any unauthorized transfer or misuse or exfiltration of any data in our possession."
What's next for Epiq, its systems and the ongoing e-discovery projects they contain is still unclear, but at the moment it doesn't appear that the situation is unfolding much differently from any other ransomware attack. Gulam Zade, CEO at LogicForce, stressed that while e-discovery vendors may appeal to bad actors for many of the same reasons that law firms do—access to sensitive information and a duty to preserve client data—ransomware has always, and will likely continue to be, industry agnostic.
"This isn't going away. You have to be diligent about what you're doing on the cybersecurity side, or you could end up like this," Zade said.
Epiq has yet to reveal a timeline for when its systems will be brought online again. Still, even that measure is nothing too out of the ordinary. Per Zade, taking a system offline in the aftermath of an attack is a common feature of most incident response plans, but how high or low that step falls on the list varies depending on the company and circumstances involved. In the case of Epiq, the move could possibly offer some insight into the scope of the attack.
TechCrunch cited an anonymous source with knowledge of the situation who claimed that that the ransomware hit Epiq's "entire fleet of computers across its 80 global offices," but also noted that a company spokesperson had declined to confirm the extent of the incident. Whatever the number of computers involved, Zade said a business is unlikely to shut down over one machine infected by ransomware.
"If you've got ransomware that's spreading and you can't find the root cause and you are worried that it's going to get to your backup system, which would cause catastrophic failure… you're going, 'Alright what's worse? Three days of down time or going to everybody and saying, not only are we down, we can't get your data back,'" Zade said.
Further complicating the aftermath of any cyberattack is the possibility that investigators aren't just checking for ransomware, but signs of data exfiltration or other harmful programs. "Just because ransomware is part of the attack doesn't mean it's all of the attack," said Marcus Christian, a partner in Mayer Brown's cybersecurity and data privacy practice. He pointed out that a tech-dependent e-discovery vendor such as Epiq likely maintains "very expansive systems," which equates to a lot of ground to cover during an investigation.
But perhaps the most obvious factor influencing the duration of a ransomware investigation is whether or not companies choose to pay the ransom. Per Christian, many organizations do opt to pursue that route, but the decision can often hinge on whether a company has internal backups to rely upon or the extent to which the impacted data disrupts business continuity. "If it's a small ransom, you may say 'Well, it's a good business decision,'" Christian said.
But while those concerns may not be the exclusive domain of the e-discovery industry, there's still a good chance that the attack on Epiq will cause other vendors to sit up and take notice. Mary Mack, CEO and chief legal technologist at EDRM, indicated that while e-discovery providers have generally been stepping up their cybersecurity protocols, there are other lessons at stake here as well—like the importance of wide-ranging cyber insurance.
"The damages are going to be widespread. Did they insure against not only what they need to do to recover, but if somebody loses a court case or if someone gets sanctioned because they are not being able to use their systems, is that going to get covered?" Mack said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Justices Will Weigh Constitutionality of Law Allowing Terror Victims to Sue PLO
- 2Nevada Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Groundbreaking Contingency Cap Ballot Measure
- 3OpenAI Tells Court It Will Seek to Consolidate Copyright Suits Under MDL
- 44th Circuit Allows State Felon Voting Ban Challenge to Go Forward
- 5Class Actions Claim Progressive Undervalues Totaled Cars
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250