Cyber Incident Victim: Gateley Plc
Date:
Jun 2021
Location:
United Kingdom
Summary
A UK-based law firm experienced a cyberattack resulting in unauthorized access to a limited portion of its data, including some client information. The organization promptly identified and deleted the compromised data from the external location where it had been transferred, with no current evidence of broader dissemination. Impacted clients were slated for notification pending further investigation, while the firm emphasized the breach affected only a minimal fraction of its total data holdings.
| CIA Posture | Motives | Tactics, Techniques & Procedures |
|---|---|---|
| Available to members | 1 motive | 1 technique |
| Threat Actors | Type | Location |
|---|---|---|
| 0 actors | Available to members | Available to members |
Description
On June 16, 2021, UK-based law firm Gateley Holdings Plc disclosed a cyber security incident through a filing with the London Stock Exchange. The firm confirmed unauthorized access to its systems resulted in a data breach, though specific technical details regarding the attack vector or intrusion method were not publicly released. Gateley's incident response team swiftly identified and isolated the compromised data, which had been downloaded to an external location. The firm executed deletion of this data from the unauthorized repository and stated no evidence existed at the time to suggest further dissemination of the stolen information. Immediate containment actions focused on securing systems and preventing additional exfiltration.
The breached data included confidential client information, though Gateley characterized the scope as affecting only a "very small percentage" of its total data holdings. The firm deferred direct client notifications pending completion of internal investigations to verify the exact nature and extent of compromised records. No operational disruptions or system downtime were reported in conjunction with the incident. Gateley's disclosure emphasized procedural adherence through regulatory channels without specifying whether law enforcement was engaged. The filing did not address potential financial repercussions, forensic findings regarding attacker identity, or confirmation of data deletion methodologies employed.