On January 8, 2025, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS”) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”) published finalized Security Requirements for Restricted Transactions (the “Requirements”) as designated by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) in the DOJ’s final rulemaking, each pursuant to Executive Order 14117 (Preventing Access to Americans’ Bulk Sensitive Personal Data and United States Government-Related Data by Countries of Concern) (“EO 14117”). EO 14117 tasked CISA with developing security requirements for transactions designated as “restricted” by the DOJ. CISA issued the Requirements in conjunction with the DOJ’s final rule on EO 14117 (“DOJ Rule”), also published on January 8, 2025. The Requirements and DOJ Rule will go into effect on April 8, 2025. See selections of our related coverage of the DOJ Rule and EO 14117, with links to additional materials.
As discussed in those posts, the DOJ Rule and EO 14117 establish a new regulatory regime that either prohibits or restricts “covered data transactions,” which are data brokerage, employment agreements, investment agreements and vendor agreements that could result in access to bulk U.S. sensitive personal data or government-related data (1) by a “country of concern” (i.e., China, Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Russia and Venezuela) or (2) a “covered person” affiliated with a country of concern. While certain transactions are prohibited outright, U.S. persons must adhere to certain compliance requirements before engaging in “restricted transactions,” including security regulations established by CISA to “adequately mitigate the risks of access by countries of concern or covered persons to bulk sensitive personal data or United States Government-related data.” Restricted transactions include any sharing or access with a covered vendor, employee or investor.
The Requirements are divided in two sections: (1) organizational- and covered system-level requirements and (2) data-level requirements. CISA’s intent is to provide entities with direct means of mitigating the risk of access to covered data, establish effective governance, and establish an auditable basis for compliance purposes. The Requirements are based on several similar, widely used cybersecurity standards or frameworks (i.e., the NIST Cybersecurity Framework (“CSF”), NIST Privacy Framework (“PF”) and CISA Cybersecurity Performance Goals (“CPGs”)), and include:
(1) Organizational- and covered system-level requirements for “covered systems” that “interact with” the “covered data as part of a restricted transaction, regardless of whether the data is encrypted, anonymized, pseudonymized, or de-identified:”
- Maintain an updated asset inventory (including at least monthly updates).
- Designate a person responsible and accountable for (1) cybersecurity and (2) governance, risk and compliance (one for both or one for each).
- Remediate known exploited vulnerabilities within at most 45 days.
- Document and maintain all vendor/supplier agreements for covered systems.
- Develop and maintain an accurate network topology and any network interfacing with a covered system.
- Implement a policy for requiring approval for new hardware or software.
- Maintain incident response plans and review at least annually.
- Implement logical and physical access controls, including: enforcing MFA, promptly revoking credentials upon termination/role change, logging (and logging storage and access practices), implementing deny-by-default configurations (with limited exceptions), and managing credentials that adequately prevent access to covered data, transactions and functions by covered persons and/or countries of concern.
- Conduct an internal data risk assessment.
Covered systems do not include systems that have the ability to view or read sensitive personal data (other than government-related data) but do not ordinarily interact with such data in bulk form.
(2) Data-level requirements for restricted transactions, to be implemented in a combination that is “sufficient to fully and effectively prevent access to covered data that is linkable, identifiable, unencrypted, or decryptable using commonly available technology by covered persons and/or countries of concern, consistent with the data risk assessment:”
- Apply data minimization and masking strategies, including: maintaining a written data retention and deletion policy, processing data in a way that it is no longer covered data or minimizes the linkability to a U.S. person (g., via techniques like anonymization, making sure identities can’t be extrapolated from data sets).
- Apply encryption techniques, including comprehensive encryption and specific key management practices.
- Apply privacy enhancing technologies, g., privacy preserving computation or differential privacy techniques.
- Configure the identity and access management techniques to deny authorized access to covered data.
Entities must also treat systems that do processing for data minimization, making and apply privacy enhancing technologies as covered systems subject to the organizational and system level requirements above.
CISA mapped each of the requirements to the corresponding NIST CSF controls, NIST PF controls and/or CISA CPGs. CISA declined to grant reciprocity for entities that already participate in existing data or cybersecurity regimes as they do not adequately “address the national security risks associated with restricted transactions,” but took various steps to introduce flexibility into many of the requirements and noted that it “remains open” to mapping the Requirements to existing frameworks such as ISO/IEC 27001 or NIST Special Publication 800-17. CISA also provided various examples to illustrate concepts like “access” to covered data. Companies should assess their readiness for the rapidly approaching enforcement date in April.
Search
Recent Posts
Categories
- Behavioral Advertising
- Centre for Information Policy Leadership
- Children’s Privacy
- Cyber Insurance
- Cybersecurity
- Enforcement
- European Union
- Events
- FCRA
- Financial Privacy
- General
- Health Privacy
- Identity Theft
- Information Security
- International
- Marketing
- Multimedia Resources
- Online Privacy
- Security Breach
- U.S. Federal Law
- U.S. State Law
- Workplace Privacy
Tags
- Aaron Simpson
- Accountability
- Adequacy
- Advertisement
- Advertising
- American Privacy Rights Act
- Anna Pateraki
- Anonymization
- Anti-terrorism
- APEC
- Apple Inc.
- Argentina
- Arkansas
- Article 29 Working Party
- Artificial Intelligence
- Australia
- Austria
- Automated Decisionmaking
- Baltimore
- Bankruptcy
- Belgium
- Biden Administration
- Big Data
- Binding Corporate Rules
- Biometric Data
- Blockchain
- Bojana Bellamy
- Brazil
- Brexit
- British Columbia
- Brittany Bacon
- Brussels
- Business Associate Agreement
- BYOD
- California
- CAN-SPAM
- Canada
- Cayman Islands
- CCPA
- CCTV
- Chile
- China
- Chinese Taipei
- Christopher Graham
- CIPA
- Class Action
- Clinical Trial
- Cloud
- Cloud Computing
- CNIL
- Colombia
- Colorado
- Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States
- Commodity Futures Trading Commission
- Compliance
- Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
- Congress
- Connecticut
- Consent
- Consent Order
- Consumer Protection
- Cookies
- COPPA
- Coronavirus/COVID-19
- Council of Europe
- Council of the European Union
- Court of Justice of the European Union
- CPPA
- CPRA
- Credit Monitoring
- Credit Report
- Criminal Law
- Critical Infrastructure
- Croatia
- Cross-Border Data Flow
- Cyber Attack
- Cybersecurity
- Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency
- Data Brokers
- Data Controller
- Data Localization
- Data Privacy Framework
- Data Processor
- Data Protection Act
- Data Protection Authority
- Data Protection Impact Assessment
- Data Transfer
- David Dumont
- David Vladeck
- Delaware
- Denmark
- Department of Commerce
- Department of Health and Human Services
- Department of Homeland Security
- Department of Justice
- Department of the Treasury
- District of Columbia
- Do Not Call
- Do Not Track
- Dobbs
- Dodd-Frank Act
- DPIA
- E-Privacy
- E-Privacy Directive
- Ecuador
- Ed Tech
- Edith Ramirez
- Electronic Communications Privacy Act
- Electronic Privacy Information Center
- Electronic Protected Health Information
- Elizabeth Denham
- Employee Monitoring
- Encryption
- ENISA
- EU Data Protection Directive
- EU Member States
- European Commission
- European Data Protection Board
- European Data Protection Supervisor
- European Parliament
- Facial Recognition Technology
- FACTA
- Fair Credit Reporting Act
- Fair Information Practice Principles
- Federal Aviation Administration
- Federal Bureau of Investigation
- Federal Communications Commission
- Federal Data Protection Act
- Federal Trade Commission
- FERC
- FinTech
- Florida
- Food and Drug Administration
- Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
- France
- Franchise
- Fred Cate
- Freedom of Information Act
- Freedom of Speech
- Fundamental Rights
- GDPR
- Geofencing
- Geolocation
- Georgia
- Germany
- Global Privacy Assembly
- Global Privacy Enforcement Network
- Gramm Leach Bliley Act
- Hacker
- Hawaii
- Health Data
- Health Information
- HIPAA
- HIPPA
- HITECH Act
- Hong Kong
- House of Representatives
- Hungary
- Illinois
- India
- Indiana
- Indonesia
- Information Commissioners Office
- Information Sharing
- Insurance Provider
- Internal Revenue Service
- International Association of Privacy Professionals
- International Commissioners Office
- Internet
- Internet of Things
- Iowa
- IP Address
- Ireland
- Israel
- Italy
- Jacob Kohnstamm
- Japan
- Jason Beach
- Jay Rockefeller
- Jenna Rode
- Jennifer Stoddart
- Jersey
- Jessica Rich
- John Delionado
- John Edwards
- Kentucky
- Korea
- Latin America
- Laura Leonard
- Law Enforcement
- Lawrence Strickling
- Legislation
- Liability
- Lisa Sotto
- Litigation
- Location-Based Services
- London
- Madrid Resolution
- Maine
- Malaysia
- Markus Heyder
- Maryland
- Massachusetts
- Meta
- Mexico
- Microsoft
- Minnesota
- Mobile App
- Mobile Device
- Montana
- Morocco
- MySpace
- Natascha Gerlach
- National Institute of Standards and Technology
- National Labor Relations Board
- National Science and Technology Council
- National Security
- National Security Agency
- National Telecommunications and Information Administration
- Nebraska
- NEDPA
- Netherlands
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- New Mexico
- New York
- New Zealand
- Nigeria
- Ninth Circuit
- North Carolina
- North Korea
- Norway
- Obama Administration
- OECD
- Office for Civil Rights
- Office of Foreign Assets Control
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Opt-In Consent
- Oregon
- Outsourcing
- Pakistan
- Parental Consent
- Payment Card
- PCI DSS
- Penalty
- Pennsylvania
- Personal Data
- Personal Health Information
- Personal Information
- Personally Identifiable Information
- Peru
- Philippines
- Phyllis Marcus
- Poland
- PRISM
- Privacy By Design
- Privacy Policy
- Privacy Rights
- Privacy Rule
- Privacy Shield
- Protected Health Information
- Ransomware
- Record Retention
- Red Flags Rule
- Regulation
- Rhode Island
- Richard Thomas
- Right to Be Forgotten
- Right to Privacy
- Risk-Based Approach
- Rosemary Jay
- Russia
- Safe Harbor
- Sanctions
- Schrems
- Scott H. Kimpel
- Scott Kimpel
- Securities and Exchange Commission
- Security Rule
- Senate
- Serbia
- Service Provider
- Singapore
- Smart Grid
- Smart Metering
- Social Media
- Social Security Number
- South Africa
- South Carolina
- South Dakota
- South Korea
- Spain
- Spyware
- Standard Contractual Clauses
- State Attorneys General
- Steven Haas
- Stick With Security Series
- Stored Communications Act
- Student Data
- Supreme Court
- Surveillance
- Sweden
- Switzerland
- Taiwan
- Targeted Advertising
- Telecommunications
- Telemarketing
- Telephone Consumer Protection Act
- Tennessee
- Terry McAuliffe
- Texas
- Text Message
- Thailand
- Transparency
- Transportation Security Administration
- Trump Administration
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States
- Unmanned Aircraft Systems
- Uruguay
- Utah
- Vermont
- Video Privacy Protection Act
- Video Surveillance
- Virginia
- Viviane Reding
- Washington
- Whistleblowing
- Wireless Network
- Wiretap
- ZIP Code