Skip to Main Content

insightsarticles

Higher ed: GLBA is the new
four-letter
word, but it's not as bad as you think

09.10.19

Editor’s note: If you are a higher education CFO, CIO, CTO or other C-suite leader, this blog is for you.

The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLBA) has been in the news recently as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has agreed to extend a deadline for public comment regarding proposed changes to the Safeguards Rule. Here’s what you need to know.

GLBA, also known as the Financial Modernization Act, is a 1999 federal law providing rules to financial institutions for protecting consumer information. Colleges and universities fall under this act because they conduct financial activities (e.g., administration of financial aid, loans, and other financial services).

Under the Safeguards Rule financial Institutions must develop, implement, and maintain a comprehensive information security program that consists of safeguards to handle customer information.

Proposed changes

The FTC is proposing five modifications to the Safeguards Rule. The new act will:

  • Provide more detailed guidance to impacted institutions regarding how to develop and implement specific aspects of an overall information security program.
  • Improve the accountability of an institution’s information security programs.
  • Exempt small business from certain requirements.
  • Expand the definition of “financial institutions” to include entities engaged in activities that the Federal Reserve Board determines to be incidental to financial activities.
  • Propose to include the definition of “financial institutions” and related examples in the rule itself rather than cross-reference them from a related FTC rule (Privacy of Consumer Financial Information Rule).

Potential impacts for your institution

The Federal Register, Volume 84, Number 65, published the notice of proposed changes that once approved by the FTC would add more prescriptive rules that could have significant impact on your institution. For example, these rules would require institutions to:

  1. Expand existing security programs with additional resources.
  2. Produce additional documentation.
  3. Create and implement additional policies and procedures.
  4. Offer various forms of training and education for security personnel.

The proposed rules could require institutions to increase their commitment in time and staffing, and may create hardships for institutions with limited or challenging resources.

Prepare now

While these changes are not final and the FTC is requesting public comment, here are some things you can do to prepare for these potential changes:

  • Evaluate whether your institution is compliant to the current Safeguards Rule.
  • Identify gaps between current status and proposed changes.
  • Perform a risk assessment.
  • Ensure there is an employee designated to lead the information security program.
  • Monitor the FTC site for final Safeguard Rules updates.

In the meantime, reach out to us if you would like to discuss the impact GLBA will have on your institution or if you would like assistance with any of the recommendations above. You can view a comprehensive list of potential changes here.

Source: Federal Trade Commission. Safeguards Rule. Federal Register, Vol. 84, No. 65. FTC.gov. April 4, 2019. https://www.ftc.gov/enforcement/rules/rulemaking-regulatory-reform-proceedings/safeguards-rule

Related Industries

Related Services

“We have engaged BerryDunn for the performance of two NIST/GLBA risk assessments over the last two years. Each time the consultants were professional, knowledgeable, and provided great insight with specific knowledge to the higher education industry.”  

- Alicia Porter, Ohio University

Testimonial
Higher education expertise

Read this if you are a CIO, CFO, Provost, or President at a higher education institution.

In my conversations with CIO friends over the past weeks, it is obvious that the COVID-19 pandemic has forced a lot of change for institutions. Information technology is the underlying foundation for supporting much of this change, and as such, IT leaders face a variety of new demands now and into the future. Here are important considerations going forward.

Swift impact to IT and rapid response

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on higher education. At the onset of this pandemic, institutions found themselves quickly pivoting to work from home (WFH), moving to remote campus operations, remote instruction within a few weeks, and in some cases, a few days. Most CIOs I spoke with indicated that they were prepared, to some extent, thanks to Cloud services and online class offerings already in place—it was mostly a matter of scaling the services across the entire campus and being prepared for returning students and faculty on the heels of an extended spring break.

Services that were not in place required creative and rapid deployment to meet the new demand. For example, one CIO mentioned the capability to have staff accept calls from home. The need for softphones to accommodate student service and helpdesk calls at staff homes required rapid purchase, deployment, and training.

Most institutions have laptop loan programs in place but not scaled to the size needed during this pandemic. Students who choose to attend college on campus are now forced to attend school from home and may not have the technology they need. The need for laptop loans increased significantly. Some institutions purchased and shipped laptops directly to students’ homes. 

CIO insights about people

CIOs shared seeing positive outcomes with their staff. Almost all of the CIOs I spoke with mentioned how the pandemic has spawned creativity and problem solving across their organizations. In some cases, past staffing challenges were put on hold as managers and staff have stepped up and engaged constructively. Some other positive changes shared by CIOs:

  • Communication has improved—a more intentional exchange, a greater sense of urgency, and problem solving have created opportunities for staff to get engaged during video calls.
  • Teams focusing on high priority initiatives and fewer projects have yielded successful results. 
  • People feel a stronger connection with each other because they are uniting behind a common purpose.

Perhaps this has reduced the noise that most staff seem to hear daily about competing priorities and incoming requests that seem to never end.

Key considerations and a framework for IT leaders 

It is too early to fully understand the impact on IT during this phase of the pandemic. However, we are beginning to see budgetary concerns that will impact all institutions in some way. As campuses work to get their budgets settled, cuts could affect most departments—IT included. In light of the increased demand for technology, cuts could be less than anticipated to help ensure critical services and support are uninterrupted. Other future impacts to IT will likely include:

  • Support for a longer term WFH model and hybrid options
  • Opportunities for greater efficiencies and possible collaborative agreements between institutions to reduce costs
  • Increased budgets for online services, licenses, and technologies
  • Need for remote helpdesk support, library services, and staffing
  • Increased training needs for collaborative and instructional software
  • Increased need for change management to help support and engage staff in the new ways of providing services and support
  • Re-evaluation of organizational structure and roles to right-size and refocus positions in a more virtual environment
  • Security and risk management implications with remote workers
    • Accessibility to systems and classes 

IT leaders should examine these potential changes over the next three to nine months using a phased approach. The diagram below describes two phases of impact and areas of focus for consideration. 

Higher Education IT Leadership Phases

As IT leaders continue to support their institutions through these phases, focusing on meeting the needs of faculty, staff, and students will be key in the success of their institutions. Over time, as IT leaders move from surviving to thriving, they will have opportunities to be strategic and create new ways of supporting teaching and learning. While it remains to be seen what the future holds, change is here. 

How prepared are you to support your institution? 

If we can help you navigate through these phases, have perspective to share, or any questions, please contact us. We’re here to help.

Article
COVID-19: Key considerations for IT leaders in Higher Ed

In light of the recent cyberattacks in higher education across the US, more and more institutions are finding themselves no longer immune to these activities. Security by obscurity is no longer an effective approach—all  institutions are potential targets. Colleges and universities must take action to ensure processes and documentation are in place to prepare for and respond appropriately to a potential cybersecurity incident.

BerryDunn’s Rick Gamache recently published several blog articles on incident response that are relevant to the recent cyberattacks. Below I have provided several of his points tailored to higher education leaders to help them prepare for cybersecurity incidents at their institutions.

What are some examples of incidents that managers need to prepare for?

Examples range from external breaches and insider threats to instances of malfeasance or incompetence. Different types of incidents lead to the same types of results—yet you can’t have a broad view of incidents. Managers should work with their teams to create incident response plans that reflect the threats associated with higher education institutions. A handful of general incident response plans isn’t going to cut it.

Managers need to work with their teams to develop a specific incident response plan for each specific type of incident. Why? Well, think of it this way: Your response to a careless employee should be different from your response to a malicious employee, for a whole host of legal reasons. Incident response is not a cookie-cutter process. In fact, it is quite the opposite. This is one of the reasons I highly suggest security teams include staff members outside of IT. When you’re responding to incidents, you want people who can look at a problem or situation from an external perspective, not just a technical or operational perspective within IT. These team members can help answer questions such as, what does the world see when they look at our institution? What institutional information might be valuable to, or targeted by, malicious actors? You’ll get some valuable fresh perspectives.

How short or long should the typical incident response plan be?

I often see good incident response plans no more than three or four pages in length. However, it is important that incident response plans are task oriented, so that it is clear who does what next. And when people follow an incident response plan, they should physically or digitally check off each activity, then record each activity.

What system or software do you recommend for recording incidents and responses?

There are all types of help desk software you can use, including free and open source software. I recommend using help desk software with workflow capabilities, so your team can assign and track tasks.

Any other tips for developing incident response plans?

First, managers should work with, and solicit feedback from across the academic and administrative areas within the institution when developing incident response plans. If you create these documents in a vacuum, they will be useless.

Second, managers and their teams should take their time and develop the most “solid” incident response plans possible. Don’t rush the process. The effectiveness of your incident response plans will be critical in assessing your institution’s ability to survive a breach. Because of this, you should be measuring your response plans through periodic testing, like conducting tabletop exercises.

Third, keep your students and external stakeholders in mind when developing these plans. You want to make sure external communications are consistent, accurate, and within the legal requirements for your institution. The last thing you want is students and stakeholders receiving conflicting messages about the incident. 

Are there any decent incident response plans in the public domain that managers and their teams can adapt for their own purposes?

Yes. My default reference is the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). NIST has many special publications that describe the incident response process, how to develop a solid plan, and how to test your plan.

Should institutions have dedicated incident response teams?

Definitely. Institutions should identify and staff teams using internal resources. Some institutions may want to consider hiring a reputable third party to act as an incident response team. The key with hiring a third party? Don’t wait until an incident occurs! If you wait, you’re going to panic, and make panic-based decisions. Be proactive and hire a third party on retainer.

That said, institutions should consider hiring a third party on an annual basis to review incident response plans and processes. Why? Because every institution can grow complacent, and complacency kills. A third party can help gauge the strengths and weaknesses of your internal incident response teams, and provide suggestions for general or specific training. A third party can also educate your institution about the latest and greatest cyber threats.

Should managers empower their teams to conduct internal “hackathons” in order to test incident response?

Sure! It’s good practice, and it can be a lot of fun for team members. There are a few caveats. First, don’t call it a hackathon. The word can elicit negative or concerned reactions. Call it “active testing” or “continuous improvement exercises.” These activities allow team members to think creatively, and are opportunities for them to boost their cybersecurity knowledge. Second, be prepared for pushback. Some managers worry if team members gain more cybersecurity skills, then they’ll eventually leave the institution for another, higher-paying job. I think you should be committed to the growth of your team members―it’ll only make your institution more secure.

What are some best practices managers should follow when reporting incidents to their leadership?

Keep the update quick, brief, and to the point. Leave all the technical jargon out, and keep everything in an institutional context. This way leadership can grasp the ramifications of the event and understand what matters. Be prepared to outline how you’re responding and what actions leadership can take to support the incident response team and protect the institution. In the last chapter, I mentioned what I call the General Colin Powell method of reporting, and I suggest using that method when informing leadership. Tell them what you know, what you don’t know, what you think, and what you recommend. Have answers, or at least a plan.

How much institution-wide communication should there be about incidents?

That’s a great question, but a tough one to answer. Transparency is good, but it can also unintentionally lead to further incidents. Do you really want to let your whole institution know about an exploitable weakness? Also, employees can spread information about incidents on social media, which can actually lead to the spread of misinformation. If you are in doubt about whether or not to inform the entire institution about an incident, refer to your Legal Department. In general, institution-wide communication should be direct: We’ve had an incident; these are the facts; this is what you are allowed to say on social media; and this is what you’re not allowed to say on social media.

Another great but tough question: When do you tell the public about an incident? For this type of communication, you’re going to need buy-in from various sources: senior leadership, Legal, HR, and your PR team or external PR partners. You have to make sure the public messaging is consistent. Otherwise, citizens and the media will try to poke holes in your official story. And that can lead to even more issues.

What are the key takeaways for higher education leaders?

Here are key takeaways to help higher education leaders prepare for and respond appropriately to cybersecurity incidents:

  1. Understand your institution’s current cybersecurity environment. 
    Questions to consider: Do you have Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) and/or a dedicated cybersecurity team at your institution? Have you conducted the appropriate audits and assessments to understand your institution’s vulnerabilities and risks?
  2. Ensure you are prepared for cybersecurity incidents. 
    Questions to consider: Do you have a cybersecurity plan with the appropriate response, communication, and recovery plans/processes? Are you practicing your plan by walking through tabletop exercises? Do you have incident response teams?

Higher education continues to face growing threats of cybersecurity attacks – and it’s no longer a matter of if, but when. Leaders can help mitigate the risk to their institutions by proactively planning with incident response plans, communication plans, and table-top exercises. If you need help creating an incident response plan or wish to speak to us regarding preparing for cybersecurity threats, please reach out to us.
 

Article
Cyberattacks in higher education—How prepared are you?

Focus on the people: How higher ed institutions can successfully make an ERP system change

The enterprise resource planning (ERP) system is the heart of an institution’s business, maintaining all aspects of day-to-day operations, from student registration to staff payroll. Many institutions have used the same ERP systems for decades and face challenges to meet the changing demands of staff and students. As new ERP vendors enter the marketplace with new features and functionality, institutions are considering a change. Some things to consider:

  1. Don’t just focus on the technology and make change management an afterthought. Transitioning to a new ERP system takes considerable effort, and has the potential to go horribly wrong if sponsorship, good planning, and communication channels are not in place. The new technology is the easy part of a transition—the primary challenge is often rooted in people’s natural resistance to change.  
  2. Overcoming resistance to change requires a thoughtful and intentional approach that focuses on change at the individual level. Understanding this helps leadership focus their attention and energy to best raise awareness and desire for the change.
  3. One effective tool that provides a good framework for successful change is the Prosci ADKAR® model. This framework has five distinct phases that align with ERP change:

These phases provide an approach for developing activities for change management, preparing leadership to lead and sponsor change and supporting employees through the implementation of the change.

The three essential steps to leveraging this framework:

  1. Perform a baseline assessment to establish an understanding of how ready the organization is for an ERP change
  2. Provide sponsorship, training, and communication to drive employee adoption
  3. Prepare and support activities to implement, celebrate, and sustain participation throughout the ERP transition

Following this approach with a change management framework such as the Prosci ADKAR® model can help an organization prepare, guide, and adopt ERP change more easily and successfully. 

If you’re considering a change, but need to prepare your institution for a healthy ERP transition using change management, chart yourself on this ADKAR framework—what is your organization’s change readiness? Do you have appropriate buy-in? What problems will you face?

You now know that this framework can help your changes stick, and have an idea of where you might face resistance. We’re certified Prosci ADKAR® practitioners and have experience guiding Higher Ed leaders like you through these steps. Get in touch—we’re happy to help and have the experience and training to back it up. Please contact the team with any questions you may have.

1Prosci ADKAR®from http://www.prosci.com

Article
Perspectives of an Ex-CIO

Cloud services are becoming more and more omnipresent, and rapidly changing how companies and organizations conduct their day-to-day business.

Many higher education institutions currently utilize cloud services for learning management systems (LMS) and student email systems. Yet there are some common misunderstandings and assumptions about cloud services, especially among higher education administrative leaders who may lack IT knowledge. The following information will provide these leaders with a better understanding of cloud services and how to develop a cloud services strategy.

What are cloud services?

Cloud services are internet-based technology services provided and/or hosted by offsite vendors. Cloud services can include a variety of applications, resources, and services, and are designed to be easily scalable, cost effective, and fully managed by the cloud services vendor.

What are the different types?

Cloud services are generally categorized by what they provide. Today, there are four primary types of cloud services:

Cloud Service Types 

Cloud services can be further categorized by how they are provided:

  1. Private cloud services are dedicated to only one client. Security and control is the biggest value for using a private cloud service.
  2. Public cloud services are shared across multiple clients. Cost effectiveness is the best value of public cloud services because resources are shared among a large number of clients.
  3. Hybrid cloud services are combinations of on-premise software and cloud services. The value of hybrid cloud services is the ability to adopt new cloud services (private or public) slowly while maintaining on-premise services that continue to provide value.

How do cloud services benefit higher education institutions?

Higher education administrative leaders should understand that cloud services provide multiple benefits.
Some examples:

Cloud-Services-for-Higher-Education


What possible problems do cloud services present to higher education institutions?

At the dawn of the cloud era, many of the problems were technical or operational in nature. As cloud services have become more sophisticated, the problems have become more security and business related. Today, higher education institutions have to tackle challenges such as cybersecurity/disaster recovery, data ownership, data governance, data compliance, and integration complexities.

While these problems and questions may be daunting, they can be overcome with strong leadership and best-practice policies, processes, and controls.

How can higher education administrative leaders develop a cloud services strategy?

You should work closely with IT leadership to complete this five-step planning checklist to develop a cloud services strategy: 

1. 

Identify new services to be added or consolidated; build a business case and identify the return on investment (ROI) for moving to the cloud, in order to answer:

• 

What cloud services does your institution already have?

• 

What cloud services does your institution already have?

• 

What services should you consider replacing with cloud services, and why?

• 

How are data decisions being made?

2. 

Identify design, technical, network, and security requirements (e.g., private or public; are there cloud services already in place that can be expanded upon, such as a private cloud service), in order to answer:

• 

Is your IT staff ready to migrate, manage, and support cloud services?

• 

Do your business processes align with using cloud services?

• 

Do cloud service-provided policies align with your institution’s security policies?

• 

Do you have the in-house expertise to integrate cloud services with existing on-premise services?

3. 

Decide where data will be stored; data governance (e.g., on-premise, off-premise data center, cloud), in order to answer:

• 

Who owns the data in the institution’s cloud, and where?

• 

Who is accountable for data decisions?

4. 

Integrate with current infrastructure; ensure cloud strategy easily allows scalability for expansion and additional services, in order to answer:

• 

What integration points will you have between on-premise and cloud applications or services, and can the institution easily implement, manage, and support them?

5. 

Identify business requirements — budget, timing, practices, policies, and controls required for cloud services and compliance, in order to answer:

• 

Will your business model need to change in order to support a different cost model for cloud services (i.e., less capital for equipment purchases every three to five years versus a steady monthly/yearly operating cost model for cloud services)?

• 

Does your institution understand the current state and federal compliance and privacy regulations as they relate to data?

• 

Do you have a contingency plan if its primary cloud services provider goes out of business?

• 

Do your contracts align with institutional, state, and federal guidelines?

Need assistance?

BerryDunn’s higher education team focuses on advising colleges and universities in improving services, reducing costs, and adding value. Our team is well qualified to assist in understanding the cloud “skyscape.” If your institution seeks to maximize the value of cloud services or develop a cloud services strategy, please contact me.

Article
Cloud services 101: An almanac for higher education leaders

Read this if you are a not-for-profit organization.

With springtime upon us, it may be difficult to start thinking about this upcoming fall, but that is exactly what many folks in the nonprofit sector are starting to do. The reason for this? It’s because 2022 brings with it the mid-term election cycle. While technically an off-year election, many congressional and gubernatorial races are being contested, in addition to a myriad of questions that will appear on ballots across the country. It is around this time of year we start to see many questions from clients in the nonprofit sector in the area of political campaign activities, lobbying (both direct and grassroots), and education/advocacy.

This article will discuss the three major types of activities nonprofit organizations may or may not undertake in this arena and will offer guidance to give organizations the vote of confidence they need to not run afoul of the potential pitfalls when it comes to undertaking these activities.

Political campaign activity

Political campaign activities include participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office, be it at the federal, state, or local level. Examples of such activities include contributions to political campaigns as well as making public statements in favor of or in opposition to any candidate. The IRS explicitly prohibits section 501(c)(3) organizations from conducting political campaign activities, the consequence of doing so being loss of exempt status. However, other types of exempt organizations (such as 501(c)(4) organizations) are allowed to engage in such activities, so long as those activities are not the organization’s primary activity. Only Section 527 organizations may engage in political campaign activities as their primary purpose. 

Direct lobbying

Direct lobbing activities attempt to influence legislation by directly communicating with legislative members regarding specific legislation. Examples of direct lobbying include contacting members of Congress and asking them to vote for or against a specific piece of legislation.

Grassroots lobbying

Grassroots lobbying, on the other hand, attempts to influence legislation by affecting the opinions of the general public and include a call to action. Examples of grassroots lobbying include requesting members of the general public to contact their representatives to urge them to vote for or against specific legislation.  

A quick way to remember the difference:
Political = think “P” for People – advocating for or against a specific candidate 
Lobbying = think “L” for Legislation – advocating for or against a specific bill

Education/advocacy

Organizations may engage in activities designed to educate or advocate for a particular cause so long as it does not take a specific position. For example, telling members of Congress how grants helped constituents would be considered an educational activity. However, attempting to get a member of Congress to vote for or against specific piece of legislation that would affect grant funding would be considered lobbying. Another example would be educating or informing the general public about a specific piece of legislation. Organizations need to be mindful here as taking a specific position one way or the other would lend itself to the activity being deemed to be lobbying, and not merely education of the general public. There is no limit on how much education/advocacy activity a nonprofit organization may conduct.

Why does this matter?

As you can see, there is a very fine line between lobbying and education, so it is important to understand the differences so that an organization conducting educational activities does not inadvertently end up conducting lobbying activities.

Organizations exempt under Code Section 501(c)(3) can conduct only lobbying activities that are not substantial to its overall activities. A 501(c)(3) organization may risk losing its exempt status and may face excise taxes on the lobbying expenditures if it is deemed to be conducting excess lobbying, whereas section 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) organizations may engage in an unlimited amount of lobbying activity.

What is substantial?

Unfortunately, there is no bright line test for determining what is considered substantial versus insubstantial. As an industry standard, many practitioners have taken a position that insubstantial means five percent or less of total expenditures, but that position is not codified and could be challenged by the IRS. 

Section 501(c)(3) organizations that intend to conduct lobbying activities on a regular basis may want to consider making an election under Code Section 501(h). This election is only applicable to 501(c)(3) organizations and provides a defined amount of lobbying activity an organization may conduct without jeopardizing its exempt status or becoming subject to excise tax. The 501(h) election limit is based on total organization expenditures with a maximum allowance of $1 million for “large organizations” (defined as an organization with total expenditures over $17,000,000). 

While the 501(h) election provides some clarity as to how much lobbying activity can be conducted, it may be prohibitive for some organizations whose total expenditures greatly exceed the $17,000,000 threshold. Another item to be aware of is that the lobbying threshold applies to all members of an affiliated group combined, which means the entire group shares the maximum threshold allowed. 

Another option for those engaging in lobbying is to create a separate entity (such as a 501(c)(4) organization) which conducts all lobbying activities, insulating the 501(c)(3) organization from these activities. As previously mentioned, organizations exempt under Code Section 501(c)(4) can conduct an unlimited amount of lobbying activities but can only conduct limited political campaign activities.

What about political campaign activities?

Section 527 organizations, known as political action committees, are exempt organizations dedicated specifically to conducting political campaign activities. If a 501(c)(4), (c)(5), or (c)(6) organization makes a contribution to a 527 organization, it may be required to file a Form 1120-POL and be subject to tax at the corporate tax rate (currently a flat 21%) based on the lesser of the political campaign expenditures or the organization’s net investment income. State income taxes may also be applicable. Section 501(c)(3) organizations may not make contributions to 527 organizations. 

If your organization is considering participation in any of the above activities, we would recommend you reach out to your not-for-profit tax team for additional information. We’re here to help!

Article
Lobbying and politics and education, oh my!

Read this if you have a cybersecurity program.

This week President Joe Biden warned Americans about intelligence that indicated Russia may be preparing to conduct cyberattacks on our private sector businesses and infrastructure as retaliation for sanctions applied to the Russian government (and the oligarchs) as punishment for the invasion of Ukraine. Though there is no specific threat at this time, President Biden’s warning has been an ongoing message since the invasion began. There is no need to panic, but this is a great time to re-visit your current security controls. Focusing on basic IT controls goes can make a big difference in the event of an attack, as hackers tend to go after the easy, low hanging fruit. 

  1. Access controls
    Review and understand how all access to your networks is obtained by on-site employees, remote employees, and vendors and guests. Make sure that users are maintaining strong passwords and that no user is connecting remotely to any of your systems without some form of multi-factor authentication (MFA). MFA can come in the form of a token (in hand or built-in) or as one of those numerical codes you have delivered to your phone or email. Poor access controls are simply the difference between leaving your house unlocked versus locked when you leave to go somewhere. 
  2. Patching
    One of the most common audit findings we have to date and one of the biggest reasons behind successful attacks is related to unpatched systems. Software patches are issued by software providers to address vulnerabilities in systems that act as an unlocked door to a hacker, and allow hackers to leverage the vulnerability as a way to get into your systems. Ensuring your organization has a robust patch management program in place and that systems are up-to-date on needed patches is critical to your security operations. Think of an unpatched system like a car with a broken window—sure the door is locked, but any thief can reach through the broken window and unlock the car. 
  3. Logging 
    Account activity, network traffic, system changes—these are all things that can be easily logged and with the right tools, configured to alert you to suspicious activity. Logging that is done correctly can alert management to suspicious activity occurring on your network and notifies your security team to investigate the issue. Consider logging and alerting like your home’s security camera. It may alert you to the activity outside, but someone still needs to review the footage and react to it to mitigate the threat.  
  4. Test backups and more
    Making sure that your systems are successful backed up and kept separate from your production systems is a control we are all familiar with. Organizations should do more than just make sure their backups are performed nightly and maintained, but need to make sure that those data backups can be restored back to a useable state on a regular basis. More so than backups, we also often hear in the work we do that our client’s test only parts of their disaster recovery and failover plans—but have never tested a full-scale fail-over to their backup systems to determine if the failover would be successful in the event of an event or disaster. Organizations shouldn’t be scared to do a full-scale failover test, because when the time comes, you may not have the option to do a partial failover and just hope that it occurs successfully. Not testing your backups is like not test driving a car before you buy it. Sure it looks nice in the lot, but does it actually run? 
  5. Incident Management Plan 
    We often review Incident Management Plans as part of the work we do, and often note that the plans are outdated and contain incorrect information. This is an ideal time to make sure your plans are current and reflect changes that may have occurred, like your increasingly remote work force, or that systems have changed. An outdated Incident Management Plan is like being sick and trying to call your doctor for help only to find out your doctor has retired. 
  6. Training—phishing attacks
    Hackers’ most common approach to gain access to systems and deploy crippling ransomware attacks is through phishing campaigns via email. Phishing campaigns trick a user into either providing the hacker with credentials to log into systems or to download malware that could turn into ransomware through what appears to be legitimate business correspondence. Training end-users on what to look for in verifying an email’s authenticity is critical and should be seen as an opportunity that benefits the entire organization. Testing users is also critical so management understands the current risk and what is needed for additional training. Security teams should also have other supporting controls to help prevent phishing emails and detection tools in place in case a user does fall for an email. Not training your employees on security is like not coaching your little league team on how to play baseball and then being surprised you didn’t win the game because no one knew what to do. 

In the current environment, information security is an asset to any organization and needs to be supported so that you can protect your organization from cyberattacks of all kinds. While we can never guarantee that having controls in place will prevent an attack from occurring, they make it a lot more challenging for the hacker. One more analogy, and then I’m done, I promise. Basic IT controls are like speedbumps in a neighborhood. While they keep most people from speeding (and if you hit them too fast they do a number on your car), you can still get over them with enough motivation. 

If you have questions about your cybersecurity controls, or would like more information, please contact our IT security experts. We’re here to help.

Article
Cyberattack preparation: A basics refresher

Read this if you are a plan sponsor of a 401(k) plan.

The trend of US workers leaving their jobs and employers struggling with high levels of employee turnover continues to gain momentum. Another 4.5 million US workers quit their jobs in November alone, according to data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics. Meanwhile, the number of job openings in the US remains elevated at 10.6 million, as companies across sectors and industries continue to have a hard time recruiting and retaining employees.

How are the issues related to what is now called the “Great Resignation” affecting plan sponsors in particular? The current environment not only makes it hard to build and manage an effective workforce, but plan sponsors also may face problems down the road when departing workers leave their 401(k) balances with their previous employers. These abandoned accounts can lead to penalties, additional administrative fees, and administrative challenges for employers.

How can plan sponsors resolve these issues?

Fortunately, there are some easy ways for plan sponsors to limit the potential burden of abandoned 401(k) accounts. Plan sponsors should start by ensuring that they have up-to-date contact information before an employee’s final day with the organization. Cell phone numbers, email addresses, and mailing addresses are critical data points to gather. Email addresses and other digital contact information are especially important in today’s increasingly digital world.

Existing rules can help employers resolve smaller abandoned accounts. By law, employers are allowed to cash out small, vested accounts of $1,000 or less. For vested account balances between $1,000 and $5,000, employers are permitted to move these assets to an Individual Retirement Account.

Currently, there is no specific guidance for account balances larger than $5,000. Because of this, employers have relied on Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) 2014-01, which is meant for participants in terminated defined contribution plans. Under this bulletin, plan sponsors are instructed to send a certified letter to the participant’s last known address; keep records on attempts to reach the missing participant; ask co-workers how to find the missing participant; and call the missing participant’s cell phone, among other instructions.

To help mitigate these issues in the future, some employers are adopting auto-portability benefits. These tools automatically transfer small balances to new employers. Plan sponsors that offer auto-portability benefits should explain how this tool works to departing employees.

Plan document language on forfeitures and cash-outs

For participants who leave before they are fully vested in a 401(k) plan, employer contributions are typically placed in forfeiture accounts. Employers can write this section of the plan document in a variety of ways, so it is crucial to understand how your specific plan establishes the timing and use of the forfeiture account.

For example, forfeitures can be paid at the time of termination or when the participant hits a five-year break in service. Employers wanting to access non-vested amounts more quickly should consider amending the plan document to allow access to non-vested amounts at the time of termination (as opposed to the time of distribution).

While plan documents can set cash-out thresholds (within the minimum and maximum allowable amounts), plans may elect the small balance cash-out option for accounts under $5,000. Rollover balances also can be disregarded when determining the $5,000 threshold, but the plan document must include this caveat.

Opportunity in the next plan restatement cycle

Every six years, the Internal Revenue Service requires employers with qualified, pre-approved plans to re-write or restate their basic plan documents. The current restatement cycle for defined contribution plans will close on July 31, 2022. 

The current restatement cycle provides an opportunity to amend your plan to make it beneficial to employers and employees when team members leave your organization. Your advisor can help review your plan documents and make the most of your plan restatement process in the context of current trends in the labor market and your organization’s objectives. As always, if questions arise, please don’t hesitate to contact our Employee Benefits Audit team.

Article
Easing the potential burden of abandoned 401(k) accounts