1

By the Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (“OCIE”)1

Volume IV, Issue 4 February 3, 2015

CYBERSECURITY 

EXAMINATION SWEEP SUMMARY

I. Introduction

OCIE’s National Examination Program staff (the “Staff”), recently 

examined 57 registered broker-dealers and 49 registered investment 

advisers to better understand how broker-dealers and advisers address 

the legal, regulatory, and compliance issues associated with 

cybersecurity (the “Cybersecurity Examination Initiative” or the “Initiative”).2 The examined 

firms were selected to provide perspectives from a cross-section of the financial services industry 

and to assess various firms’ vulnerability to cyber-attacks. Appendices A and B include 

breakdowns of the types of broker-dealers and advisers examined. 

In the examinations, the staff collected and analyzed information from the selected firms relating 

to their practices for: identifying risks related to cybersecurity; establishing cybersecurity 

governance, including policies, procedures, and oversight processes; protecting firm networks 

and information; identifying and addressing risks associated with remote access to client 

information and funds transfer requests; identifying and addressing risks associated with vendors 

and other third parties; and detecting unauthorized activity. In addition to reviewing documents, 

the staff held interviews with key personnel at each firm regarding its: business and operations; 

detection and impact of cyber-attacks; preparedness for cyber-attacks; training and policies 

relevant to cybersecurity; and protocol for reporting cyber breaches.3

The staff’s document reviews and questions were designed to discern basic distinctions among 

the level of preparedness of the examined firms. The staff conducted limited testing of the 

 

1

 The views expressed herein are those of the staff of OCIE, in coordination with other staff of the Securities 

and Exchange Commission (“SEC” or “Commission”), including the Division of Trading and Markets and 

the Division of Investment Management. The Commission has expressed no view on the contents of this

Risk Alert. This document was prepared by the SEC staff and is not legal advice.

2

 See OCIE, “OCIE Cybersecurity Initiative” (April 15, 2014), available at: 

http://www.sec.gov/ocie/announcement/Cybersecurity-Risk-Alert--Appendix---4.15.14.pdf.

3

 The Initiative’s review period for broker-dealers covered calendar year 2013; adviser examinations, which 

began a few months after the broker-dealer examinations, reviewed firm practices in 2013 through April 

2014.

This Risk Alert provides 

summary observations from 

OCIE’s examinations of 

registered broker-dealers and 

investment advisers, conducted 

under the Cybersecurity 

Examination Initiative, 

announced April 15, 2014.
2

accuracy of the responses and the extent to which firms’ policies and procedures were 

implemented. The examinations did not include reviews of technical sufficiency of the firms’

programs.

This Risk Alert provides summary observations from the examinations conducted under the 

Cybersecurity Examination Initiative.

II. Summary Examination Observations

 The vast majority of examined broker-dealers (93%) and advisers (83%) have adopted 

written information security policies. Most of the broker-dealers (89%) and the majority 

of the advisers (57%) conduct periodic audits to determine compliance with these 

information security policies and procedures.

o Written business continuity plans often address the impact of cyber-attacks or 

intrusions. Such written policies and procedures, for both the broker-dealers 

(82%) and the advisers (51%), discuss mitigating the effects of a cybersecurity 

incident and/or outline the plan to recover from such an incident. 

o Written policies and procedures generally do not address how firms determine 

whether they are responsible for client losses associated with cyber incidents. 

The policies and procedures of only a small number of the broker-dealers (30%) 

and the advisers (13%) contain such provisions, and even fewer of the brokerdealers (15%) and the advisers (9%) offered security guarantees to protect their 

clients against cyber-related losses.

o Many firms are utilizing external standards and other resources to model their 

information security architecture and processes. Most of the broker-dealers 

(88%) and many of the advisers (53%) reference published cybersecurity risk 

management standards, such as those published by the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology (“NIST”), the International Organization for 

Standardization (“ISO”), and the Federal Financial Institutions Examination 

Council (“FFIEC”).

 The vast majority of examined firms conduct periodic risk assessments, on a firm-wide 

basis, to identify cybersecurity threats, vulnerabilities, and potential business 

consequences. These broker-dealers (93%) and advisers (79%) reported considering such 

risk assessments in establishing their cybersecurity policies and procedures. 

o Fewer firms apply these requirements to their vendors. A majority of the brokerdealers (84%) and approximately a third of the advisers (32%) require 

cybersecurity risk assessments of vendors with access to their firms’ networks.

 Most of the examined firms reported that they have been the subject of a cyber-related 

incident. A majority of the broker-dealers (88%) and the advisers (74%) stated that they 
3

have experienced cyber-attacks directly or through one or more of their vendors. The 

majority of the cyber-related incidents are related to malware and fraudulent emails. 

o Over half of the broker-dealers (54%) and just under half of the advisers (43%) 

reported receiving fraudulent emails seeking to transfer client funds. Over a 

quarter of those broker-dealers (26%) reported losses related to fraudulent emails 

of more than $5,000; however, no single loss exceeded $75,000. One adviser 

reported a loss in excess of $75,000 related to a fraudulent email, for which the 

client was made whole.

o One-quarter (25%) of the broker-dealers that had losses related to fraudulent 

emails noted that these losses were the result of employees not following the 

firms’ identity authentication procedures. The one adviser that reported a loss 

also noted that its employees had deviated from its identity authentication 

procedures.

o Almost two-thirds of the broker-dealers (65%) that received fraudulent emails 

reported the emails to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) by 

filing a Suspicious Activity Report (SAR),4but only a small number of those 

firms reported the fraudulent emails to law enforcement or other regulatory 

agencies (7%). With the exception of the investment adviser loss in excess of 

$75,000 related to a fraudulent email noted above, advisers generally did not 

report incidents to a regulator or law enforcement.

o While firms identified misconduct by employees and other authorized users of the 

firms’ networks as a significant concern, only a small proportion of the brokerdealers (11%) and the advisers (4%) reported incidents in which an employee or 

other authorized user engaged in misconduct resulting in the misappropriation of 

funds, securities, sensitive client, or firm information, or in damage to the firms’ 

networks.

 Many examined firms identify best practices through information-sharing networks. 

Almost half of the broker-dealers (47%) were members of industry groups, associations, 

or organizations (both formal and informal) that exist for the purpose of sharing 

information regarding cybersecurity attacks and identifying effective controls to mitigate 

harm. Many of the broker-dealers identified the Financial Services Information Sharing 

 

4

 See 31 C.F.R. § 1023.320(a)(2). Broker-dealers are obligated to report a transaction involving funds or 

other assets of at least $5,000 that is conducted or attempted by, at, or through the firm if the firm knows, 

suspects, or has reason to suspect, in part, that the transaction involves use of the broker-dealer to facilitate 

criminal activity. The scope of these particular exams did not include a review of the broker-dealers’ 

compliance with this rule.
4

and Analysis Center (“FS-ISAC”) as adding significant value in this effort. While a few 

of the advisers also identified FS-ISAC as a resource, advisers more frequently relied on 

discussions with industry peers, attendance at conferences, and independent research to 

identify cybersecurity practices relevant to their business and learn about latest guidance 

from regulators, government agencies, and industry groups.

 The vast majority of examined firms report conducting firm-wide inventorying, 

cataloguing, or mapping of their technology resources. Such practices were reportedly 

performed for the following devices, systems, and resources at the broker-dealers and 

advisers, respectively: physical devices and systems (96% and 92%); software platforms 

and applications (91% and 92%); network resources, connections, and data flows (97% 

and 81%); connections to firm networks from external sources (91% and 74%); 

hardware, data, and software (93% and 60%); and logging capabilities and practices 

(95% and 68%).

 The examined firms’ cybersecurity risk policies relating to vendors and business partners 

revealed varying findings. Most of the broker-dealers incorporate requirements relating 

to cybersecurity risk into their contracts with vendors and business partners (72%). In 

contrast, few of the advisers incorporate such requirements (24%). Similarly, a slim 

majority of the broker-dealers maintain policies and procedures related to information 

security training for vendors and business partners authorized to access their networks 

(51%), whereas a much smaller number of the advisers have such policies (13%).

 Almost all the examined broker-dealers (98%) and advisers (91%) make use of 

encryption in some form. 

 Many examined firms provide their clients with suggestions for protecting their sensitive 

information. Of the broker-dealers with retail customers that offer online access (65%), 

all firms (or their clearing firms or third-party vendors) provide their customers with 

some form of information about reducing cybersecurity risks in conducting transactions 

with the firm. Similarly, of the advisers that primarily advise retail clients and permit 

those clients to access their account information on-line (26%), the majority (75%) 

provide those clients with information about certain steps that can be taken to reduce 

cybersecurity risks when conducting business with the firm. The information may be 

directly addressed to clients on the advisers’ website or in periodic email or postal 

distributions (i.e., newsletters or bulletins).

 The designation of a Chief Information Security Officer (“CISO”) varied by the 

examined firms’ business model. Approximately two-thirds of the broker-dealers (68%) 

examined have an individual explicitly assigned as the firm’s CISO. In contrast, less than 

a third of the advisers (30%) have designated a CISO; rather, the advisers often direct 
5

their Chief Technology Officer to take on the responsibilities typically performed by a 

CISO or they have assigned another senior officer (i.e., the Chief Compliance Officer, 

Chief Executive Officer, or Chief Operating Officer) to liaise with a third-party 

consultant who is responsible for cybersecurity oversight.

 Use of cybersecurity insurance revealed varying findings among the examined firms. 

Over half of the broker-dealers maintain insurance for cybersecurity incidents (58%). In 

contrast, a small number of the advisers (21%) maintain insurance that covers losses and 

expenses attributable to cybersecurity incidents. Out of the broker-dealers and advisers, 

only one broker-dealer and one adviser reported that they had filed claims.

III. Conclusion

The staff is still reviewing the information to discern correlations between the examined firms’ 

preparedness and controls and their size, complexity, or other characteristics. As noted in 

OCIE’s 2015 priorities, OCIE will continue to focus on cybersecurity using risk-based 

examinations.5

The Staff welcomes comments and suggestions about how the Commission’s examination 

program can better fulfill its mission to promote compliance, prevent fraud, monitor risk, and 

inform SEC policy. If you suspect or observe activity that may violate the federal securities laws 

or otherwise operates to harm investors, please notify us at 

http://www.sec.gov/complaint/info_tipscomplaint.shtml.

This Risk Alert is intended to highlight for firms risks and issues that the Staff has identified in the course of 

examinations of broker-dealers’ and investment advisers’ controls regarding cybersecurity and preparedness. In 

addition, this Risk Alert describes factors that firms may consider to (i) assess their supervisory, compliance and/or 

other risk management systems related to cybersecurity risks, and (ii) make any changes, as may be appropriate, to 

address or strengthen such systems. These factors are not exhaustive, nor will they constitute a safe harbor. 

Factors other than those described in this Risk Alert may be appropriate to consider, and some of the factors may 

not be applicable to a particular firm’s business. While some of the factors discussed in this Risk Alert reflect 

existing regulatory requirements, they are not intended to alter such requirements. Moreover, future changes in 

laws or regulations may supersede some of the factors or issues raised here. The adequacy of supervisory, 

compliance and other risk management systems can be determined only with reference to the profile of each specific 

firm and other facts and circumstances.

 

5

 OCIE, “Examination Priorities for 2015” (Jan. 13, 2015), available at: 

http://www.sec.gov/news/pressrelease/2015-3.html.
6

Appendix A – Breakdown of Examined Broker-Dealers6

 

6

Figures in this Appendix are rounded approximations.

12.3%

22.8%

12.3%

28%

12.3%

12.3%

By Number of Registered 

Representatives (RR)

0-50 RR

51-200 RR

201-500 RR

501-2000 RR

2001-5000 RR

5000+ RR

10%

7%

7%

9%

5%

9%

37%

2% 14%

By Category/Peer Group

Clearing

Foreign-Affiliated

Institutional

Insurance Co.-Affiliated

Online Services

Proprietary or Direct Market Access

Retail Brokerage

Small Diversified

US Bank-Affiliated
7

Appendix B – Breakdown of Examined Investment Advisers7

 

7

Figures in this Appendix are rounded approximations.

36.7%

26.5%

36.7%

By Assets Under Management (AUM)

Less than $400 Million AUM

$401-900 Million AUM

$900 Million+ AUM

12.2%

4.1%

14.3%

67.3%

2.0%

By Client Concentration

Diversified/Institutional

Pension

Private Funds

Retail/Individual

Registered Investment

Companies

67%

33%

By Custody

Have Custody

Do Not Have Custody