SolarWinds – whose community monitoring software program was backdoored by Russian spies in order that the biz’s clients may very well be spied upon – has accused America’s monetary watchdog of in search of to “revictimise the sufferer” after the company sued it over the 2020 assault.
In a movement to dismiss [PDF] the SEC’s lawsuit, the embattled developer described the fraud fees leveled in opposition to it, and its CISO Tim Brown, “as unfounded as they’re unprecedented.”
In an announcement to The Register, Serrin Turner, an lawyer at Latham and Watkins, which is representing SolarWinds, railed in opposition to the SEC’s fees.
“SolarWinds made correct, correct disclosures each earlier than and after the unprecedented SUNBURST cyberattack, which is why this case must be dismissed,” Turner stated. “The SEC is making an attempt to maneuver the goalposts and drive firms to reveal inner particulars about their cybersecurity applications, which might be each impractical and harmful.”
In late October, the SEC filed the authorized grievance in opposition to SolarWinds alleging that the corporate and its CISO misled traders about its safety practices way back to October 2018. This all culminated within the agency’s December 2020 disclosure that its Orion networking software had been backdoored and private and non-private clients had been compromised because of deploying the malicious code. It was later decided by the US authorities that the culprits had been Russian state-sponsored spies.
Round 18,000 organizations downloaded the poisoned software program, though the quantity that had been hacked by Russia’s Cozy Bear was about 100. These include Microsoft, Intel, FireEye and Cisco, in addition to US authorities companies together with Treasury, Justice and Power departments, and the Pentagon.
In a really prolonged doc [PDF] filed on Friday, SolarWinds’ attorneys argue that the SEC’s claims fail throughout the board and that administration didn’t make any materially deceptive statements:
It additionally calls the fee’s case in opposition to Brown “not solely unwarranted however inexplicable.” Brown did not play a task in SolarWind’s danger disclosures, and he did not do something to deceive traders, the court docket paperwork declare.
“Mr Brown is an skilled and well-respected skilled who merely did his job throughout the occasions in query (and did it effectively),” they are saying. “The SEC’s gratuitous fees in opposition to him must be rejected.”
The SEC didn’t reply to The Register‘s request for remark. ®