DataBreaches.Net

Menu
  • About
  • Breach Notification Laws
  • Privacy Policy
  • Transparency Report
Menu

Wyndham: A Case Study in Cybersecurity: How the cost of a relatively small breach can rival that of a major hack attack

Posted on March 19, 2015 by Dissent

Timothy Cornell of Clifford Chance US LLP has an interesting write-up on the Wyndham case that really details the time and labor costs of responding to a government investigation following a data breach. Here’s an example:

On April 8, 2010, the FTC began to investigate Wyndham Worldwide and three of its subsidiaries (collectively “Wyndham”), sending Wyndham a voluntary request for information. The FTC’s investigatory focus, as stated in that April 8, 2010 letter, was to determine: “whether Wyndham’s information security practices comply with Section 5 of the [FTC] Act, which prohibits deceptive or unfair acts or practices, including misrepresentations about security and unfair security practices that cause substantial injury to consumers.”[2] The FTC’s request contained 14 detailed inquiries (most with subparts) and sought information about Wyndham’s IT architecture, cybersecurity policies, and the three data breaches that occurred. It took Wyndham more than five months to locate all responsive documents. [3]

During 2010 and the first half of 2011, the FTC sent three supplemental requests for information and documents, and also posed oral requests at meetings between the parties. In total, 29 document requests and 51 information requests were issued to Wyndham prior to December 2011.[4] Wyndham produced over 1 million pages of documents and written responses that totaled 72 pages single spaced. In addition, Wyndham Worldwide’s CFO and head of Information Security – along with attendant inside and outside counsel – attended seven in-person meetings with the FTC.[5] The time and cost associated preparing for each of those meetings was likely significant.

Wyndham estimated that its response cost exceeded $5 million in legal and vendor fees.[6] And that estimate did not include the time employees spent responding to the requests or the business disruption caused thereby, nor the costs associated with preparing for meetings with the FTC.

Read more on The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel.


Related:

  • Two U.K. teenagers appear in court over Transport of London cyber attack
  • ModMed revealed they were victims of a cyberattack in July. Then some data showed up for sale.
  • Toys “R” Us Canada customers notified of breach of personal information
  • Gatineau gymnastics centre warns members of possible data breach
  • Confidence in ransomware recovery is high but actual success rates remain low
  • Kaufman County's data breach was their second one in three weeks
Category: Business SectorCommentaries and AnalysesHackOf NoteU.S.

Post navigation

← Judge OKs $10 million settlement in Target data breach
TX: ID Theft Conspiracy Leader Sentenced To 16 Years In Federal Prison And Ordered To Pay $88,131 In Restitution →

Now more than ever

"Stand with Ukraine:" above raised hands. The illustration is in blue and yellow, the colors of Ukraine's flag.

Search

Browse by Categories

Recent Posts

  • Suspected Russian hacker reportedly detained in Thailand, faces possible US extradition
  • Did you hear the one about the ransom victim who made a ransom installment payment after they were told that it wouldn’t be accepted?
  • District of Massachusetts Allows Higher-Ed Student Data Breach Claims to Survive
  • End of the game for cybercrime infrastructure: 1025 servers taken down
  • Doctor Alliance Data Breach: 353GB of Patient Files Allegedly Compromised, Ransom Demanded
  • St. Thomas Brushed Off Red Flags Before Dark-Web Data Dump Rocks Houston
  • A Wiltshire police breach posed possible safety concerns for violent crime victims as well as prison officers
  • Amendment 13 is gamechanger on data security enforcement in Israel
  • Almost two years later, Alpha Omega Winery notifies those affected by a data breach.
  • Court of Appeal reaffirms MFSA liability in data leak case, orders regulator to shoulder costs

No, You Can’t Buy a Post or an Interview

This site does not accept sponsored posts or link-back arrangements. Inquiries about either are ignored.

And despite what some trolls may try to claim: DataBreaches has never accepted even one dime to interview or report on anyone. Nor will DataBreaches ever pay anyone for data or to interview them.

Want to Get Our RSS Feed?

Grab it here:

https://databreaches.net/feed/

RSS Recent Posts on PogoWasRight.org

  • Lawmakers Warn Governors About Sharing Drivers’ Data with Federal Government
  • As shoplifting surges, British retailers roll out ‘invasive’ facial recognition tools
  • Data broker Kochava agrees to change business practices to settle lawsuit
  • Amendment 13 is gamechanger on data security enforcement in Israel
  • Changes in the Rules for Disclosure for Substance Use Disorder Treatment Records: 42 CFR Part 2: What Changed, Why It Matters, and How It Aligns with HIPAAs

Have a News Tip?

Email: Tips[at]DataBreaches.net

Signal: +1 516-776-7756

Contact Me

Email: info[at]databreaches.net
Security Issue: security[at]databreaches.net
Mastodon: Infosec.Exchange/@PogoWasRight
Signal: +1 516-776-7756
DMCA Concern: dmca[at]databreaches.net
© 2009 – 2025 DataBreaches.net and DataBreaches LLC. All rights reserved.