.jpg?1736946657)
The holiday season brings more than just holiday cheer — it also marks a high-alert period for ransomware attacks. Retailers face surging transaction volumes, which can strain IT and a company’s cybersecurity resiliency, especially with key personnel out of the office. Acutely aware of this heightened vulnerability — and knowing that companies will pay up to prevent major losses — threat actors intensify their efforts.
This year, ransomware has emerged as the top corporate security threat in terms of case volume. It is also increasingly sophisticated, resulting in more expensive breach response. In fact, the global average cost of a data breach has climbed 10% in the past year, thanks largely to inefficient post-breach processes. In light of these rising costs, many organizations are re-evaluating how they handle incident response.
The key to faster, compliant breach responses
Today, non-compliance with regulatory standards (and related fines) continues to rank as a top amplifier of breach expenses, particularly when it comes to notification. When a breach of sensitive data occurs, companies are legally obligated to inform affected individuals, businesses, and, at times, law enforcement, regulatory agencies, and the media. Each U.S. state enforces laws that require timely disclosure of breaches involving sensitive personal data, with specific requirements differing by jurisdiction, industry, and data type. Now, not only is the breach itself more sophisticated, but so is the breach notification process tied to it.
Add to that the growing complexity of company data estates. Organizations are collecting more data than ever before and storing that data in both on-premises and cloud environments. After a breach, forensic teams must sort through massive volumes of data, often distributed across different repositories with varying logging, to identify what was compromised and conduct efficient, compliant notification.
As U.S. data privacy laws evolve and data estates grow, companies require specialized expertise and technology to navigate these complexities. That’s why victim organizations and their legal teams are turning to data mining for breach notification. Advanced data mining and forensics technology can play a critical role in precise, compliant breach responses by quickly identifying affected individuals and compromised data such as Social Security numbers, addresses, and other sensitive information. This information allows companies to promptly inform the right individuals, agencies, and media — avoiding costly over- or underreporting.
Given the sporadic nature of breaches and constantly changing compliance requirements, most organizations find it more cost-effective to outsource this expertise rather than maintain full-time staff.
Why traditional approaches to data mining are inefficient
Unfortunately, when companies seek that expertise in today’s data mining environment, they usually come up against a critical industry flaw: cyber vendors that outsource review overseas to manual labor centers, leading to deliverable inaccuracies, security risks, and uncertain pricing that extends timelines and exceeds budgets.
Consider the case of a large law firm hit by a breach requiring that 2 million files be processed as quickly as possible to meet breach notification requirements. Typically, an engagement of that size would take nine to 12 months based on industry averages, but one vendor assured completion within four weeks. Once the contract was signed, sensitive data was sent overseas for manual review. However, faced with exploding file counts and a lack of contextual understanding of the data, the manual review team fell behind immediately and brought on another manual vendor to assist––forcing the law firm to pay two bills to get the results they were promised. Despite the added resources, the manual review team ultimately failed, leaving the firm to scrap the project after nine months and issue a broad public notice about the breach.
Prolonged reviews like this have serious consequences. Delays in breach notifications leave individuals exposed to identity theft and fraud, while sensitive data lingers on the dark web. For businesses, this can lead to nine-figure compliance fines, irreversible reputational damage, and business disruptions that greatly compound the cost of the initial breach––not to mention the wasted money from the data mining engagement.
Cyber insurance often covers a portion of breach recovery costs, but companies are typically left to absorb the balance. Take the February 2024 headline-grabbing attack on United Health Group. While the initial attack cost $22 million in ransom, likely paid for by their insurance carrier, the company later disclosed the cyberattack cost a whopping $870 million, with nearly $600 million for system restoration and breach response in the first quarter alone. It’s estimated that full-year recovery costs will reach $1.4–$1.6 billion.
Reducing costs, delays, and errors in breach notification
Aware that overseas manual review vendors can make the response process more complicated — often amplifying costs and extending timelines — some organizations are evaluating the potential of AI-powered data mining tools and other advanced document review technology for breach notification processes. Here’s how companies can leverage data mining to mitigate the common risks associated with manual, offshore reviews and drive compliant, precise, efficient breach notification.
Tech-First, automated review
Advanced, tech-enabled reviews surpass manual processes in accuracy, especially when identifying and extracting compromised data from massive datasets. Companies that employ AI and ML automation as the first step in the review significantly reduce breach response costs — in some cases by an average of $2.2 million — while minimizing error and dramatically speeding up completion times. This approach also provides a more accurate picture of volume up front, preventing mid-project scope changes and delays. Typically, when more than 60% of the engagement is automated, companies will avoid the common inefficiencies and risks involved with manual review.
On-shore engagements
Transient, offshore review teams often lack knowledge of U.S. data privacy laws and context for document review, leading to increased compliance concerns, inaccurate reports (left to be cleaned up by expense legal teams), and delayed timelines. By working with 100% on-shore services — staffed with knowledgeable experts — organizations can mitigate these risks and expedite reviews.
Industry-standard data handling and security
International manual reviews pose further security risks by requiring cross-border data transfers and storage of once-compromised data in the cloud, exposing sensitive information to weaker security environments and more people.
Security-focused, on-shore processing conducted in secure forensics labs or within the victim organization’s own firewalls can prevent these unnecessary threats. Companies should look for services with ISO27001 certification and other leading information security standards to validate stringent data handling, facility security, and personnel management, ensuring the highest levels of security and compliance.
Transparent pricing
Manual reviews, particularly those conducted internationally, typically lead to overbilling. Without automation, initial project scoping is much less accurate, leading to surprises down the line and extended timelines. As data volumes increase mid-project, cyber vendors can exploit phased pricing agreements by increasing fees mid-project to cover the “additional” time and resources (i.e. training more workers, paying them for overtime, or translating international files) — essentially holding data hostage until further payments are made.
Organizations should scan phased contracts for embedded costs in the fine print, like after-hours or weekend fees, data housing, and translation services that can add up as file counts and types increase. The most effective way to drive down costs, however, is to prioritize AI-led solutions where manual labor is reduced to a bare minimum and conducted by regional experts.
Error-free reporting
Reports from overseas manual review teams are often riddled with errors, requiring expensive teams of legal associates and paralegals to correct inaccuracies before breach notification. Inaccurate reports delay response times and compound breach response costs with expensive legal fees.
To vet the reliability of vendor reports, organizations can seek out references from law firms or industry peers attesting to their accuracy and thoroughness to mitigate a large portion of the risks associated with data mining for breach notification and response.
SOW controls
To further protect themselves during data mining engagements, companies can also insert stipulations into Statements of Work (SOWs) and other contracts that impose penalties. For example, victim organizations can mandate $500 per day for missed deadlines or promise legal action when deliverable deadlines are not met to encourage accountability and timely project completion.
Log configuration
Organizations must also take proactive steps to simplify future data mining engagements by correctly configuring the logging of their firewalls, networks, applications, and repositories for both on-premises and cloud. This seemingly straightforward yet critical step can aid forensics teams in deriving the files impacted—driving a more efficient response on data mining.
Embracing a tech-forward approach to incident response
In today’s rapidly evolving cybersecurity landscape, efficient, accurate, and timely incident response is essential to avoid costly mistakes, delays, and unexpected expenses. As cyber threats like ransomware grow in both frequency and complexity, companies must be prepared with a proactive, tech-forward approach to data mining and breach notification.
Relying on manual, offshore processes only compounds risks, introducing inaccuracies, compliance concerns, and financial strain. By leveraging AI-driven automation, engaging with on-shore, security-focused partners, and demanding transparency and accountability in pricing, organizations can transform their incident response strategies. In a high-stakes environment where every second counts, a precise, tech-enabled response is the key to resilient, cost-effective recovery.
