Photo of Ashden Fein

Ashden Fein

Ashden Fein is co-chair of Covington’s Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Practice. He advises clients on cybersecurity and national security matters, including crisis management and incident response, risk management and governance, government and internal investigations, and regulatory compliance. Ashden also serves as lead counsel in criminal, civil, and internal investigations involving cybersecurity, insider risk, and U.S. national security issues.

Ashden regularly counsels clients on preparing for and responding to cyber-based attacks, assessing security controls and practices for the protection of data and systems, developing and implementing cybersecurity risk management and governance programs, and complying with federal and state regulatory requirements. Ashden frequently supports clients as the lead investigator and crisis manager for global cyber and data security incidents, including data breaches involving personal data, advanced persistent threats targeting intellectual property across industries, state-sponsored theft of sensitive U.S. government information, extortion and ransomware, and destructive attacks.

Ashden also assists clients from across industries with leading internal investigations and responding to government inquiries related to U.S. national security and insider risks. He frequently represents government contractors in False Claims Act matters involving cybersecurity and national security. Additionally, he advises aerospace, defense, and intelligence contractors on security compliance under U.S. national security laws and regulations including, among others, the National Industrial Security Program (NISPOM), U.S. government cybersecurity regulations, FedRAMP, and requirements related to supply chain security.

Before joining Covington, Ashden served on active duty in the U.S. Army as a Military Intelligence officer and prosecutor specializing in cybercrime and national security investigations and prosecutions -- to include serving as the lead trial lawyer in the prosecution of Private Chelsea (Bradley) Manning for the unlawful disclosure of classified information to Wikileaks. Ashden is a retired U.S. Army officer.

Contact:Read more about Ashden FeinEmail

This is the fifth blog in a series of Covington blogs on cybersecurity policies, executive orders (“EOs”), and other actions of the Trump Administration.  The fourth blog is available here and our initial blog is available here.  This blog describes key cybersecurity developments that took place in June 2025. 

White House Issues New Cybersecurity Executive Order

On June 6, President Trump issued an Executive Order (“Sustaining Select Efforts to Strengthen the Nation’s Cybersecurity and Amending Executive Order 13694 and Executive Order 14144”) (the Order) that modifies certain initiatives in prior Executive Orders issued by Presidents Obama and Biden and highlights key cybersecurity priorities for the current Administration.  We wrote about the Order in additional detail here.

At a high level, the Order: (i) directs that existing federal government regulations and policy be revised to focus on securing third-party software supply chains, quantum cryptography, artificial intelligence, and Internet of Things (IoT) devices; and (ii) more expressly focuses cybersecurity-related sanctions authorities on “foreign” persons.  Although the Order makes certain changes to prior cybersecurity related Executive Orders issued under previous administrations, it generally leaves the framework of those Executive Orders in place.  For example, the Order removes certain requirements relating to the form of attestations (i.e., removing the requirement for machine readable format), as well as the directive for centralized validation of software attestations by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA).  Likewise, the associated directive to the Federal Acquisition Regulatory Council to amend the Federal Acquisition Regulation to incorporate those requirements has also been eliminated.  However, the Order appears to leave the core program in place.  Further, it does not appear to modify other cybersecurity Executive Orders beyond those specified.  To that end, although the Order highlights some areas where the Trump administration has taken a different approach than prior administrations, it also signals a more general alignment between administrations on core cybersecurity principles. 

Continue Reading June 2025 Cybersecurity Developments Under the Trump Administration

On June 30, 2025, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency (CISA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the Department of Defense Cyber Crime Center (DC3), and the National Security Agency (NSA) warned U.S. critical infrastructure organizations and other companies that the threat of cyber attacks from Iran-affiliated cyber actors is heightened…

Continue Reading U.S. Government Issues Cybersecurity Warning to Critical Infrastructure Operators and Others

This is the third blog in a series of Covington blogs on cybersecurity policies, executive orders (“EOs”), and other actions of the new Trump Administration.  This blog describes key cybersecurity developments that took place in April 2025. 

NIST Publishes Initial Draft of Guidance for High Performance Computing Systems

U.S. National…

Continue Reading April 2025 Cybersecurity Developments Under the Trump Administration

On December 24, 2024, New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed into law an amendment to New York General Business Law § 899-aa modifying the state’s data breach notification requirements.  The amended law, which is effective immediately, imposes new requirements businesses must follow when providing notifications following a data breach…

Continue Reading New York Adopts Amendment to the State Data Breach Notification Law

This is part of a series of Covington blogs on the implementation of Executive Order 14028, “Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity,” issued by President Biden on May 12, 2021 (the “Cyber EO”).  The first blog summarized the Cyber EO’s key provisions and timelines, and the subsequent blogs described the actions taken by various government agencies to implement the Cyber EO from June 2021 through October 2024.  This blog describes key actions taken to implement the Cyber EO, the U.S. National Cybersecurity Strategy, and other actions taken that support their general principles during November 2024. 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) Publishes Draft “Enhanced Security Requirements for Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information”

On November 13, 2024, NIST published a draft of Special Publication (“SP”) 800-172 Rev. 3 that “provides recommended security requirements to protect the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of [Controlled Unclassified Information] when it is resident in a nonfederal system and organization and is associated with a high value asset or critical program.”  In particular, the draft requirements “give organizations the capability to achieve a multidimensional, defense-in-depth protection strategy against advanced persistent threats . . . and help to ensure the resiliency of systems and organizations.”  The draft requirements “are intended for use by federal agencies in contractual vehicles or other agreements between those agencies and nonfederal organizations.”  In the publication, NIST stated that it does not expect that all requirements are needed “universally.”  Instead, the draft requirements are intended to be “selected by federal agencies based on specific mission needs and risks.”

These requirements serve as a supplement to NIST SP 800-171, and apply to particular high-risk entities.  To that end, the current version of this NIST SP 800-172 (i.e., Rev. 2) is used by the U.S. Department of Defense (“DoD”) for its forthcoming Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (“CMMC”) program, which we discussed in more detail here.  Specifically, contractors must implement twenty-four controls that DoD selected from SP 800-172 Rev. 2 in order to obtain the highest level of certification – Level 3.  Just as the CMMC Final Rule incorporated Rev. 2 of SP 800-171 (rather than Rev. 3), the CMMC program will not immediately incorporate SP 800-172 Rev. 3 requirements.  However, the draft requirements provide insight into how CMMC could evolve.

Continue Reading November 2024 Developments Under President Biden’s Cybersecurity Executive Order and National Cybersecurity Strategy

On November 15, 2024, the Department of Defense (“DoD”) published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Proposed Rule”) entitled “Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement: Disclosure of Information Regarding Foreign Obligations.”  The Proposed Rule would impose new disclosure obligations on “Offeror[s]” (pre-award) and “Contractor[s]” (post-award) that are triggered in certain circumstances by review or by an obligation to allow review of their source or computer code either by a foreign government or a foreign person.  If the Proposed Rule takes effect, the obligations would apply to any “prospective contractor” or any existing contractor.  The Proposed Rule also does not distinguish between companies based in or outside the United States.

The Proposed Rule would implement the requirement of National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019 (“NDAA”) section 1655 which states that “[DoD] may not use a product, service, or system procured or acquired after the date of the enactment of this Act relating to information or operational technology, cybersecurity, an industrial control system, or weapons system provided by a person unless that person” makes certain disclosures related to: (1) foreign government or foreign person access to computer or source code, and (2) the person’s Export Administration Regulations (“EAR”) or International Traffic in Arms Regulations (“ITAR”) applications or licenses.  Importantly, per the NDAA, these disclosure obligations include activities dating back to August 13, 2013.

A summary of the obligations and key definitions as described by the Proposed Rule are below.

Disclosure Obligations

Disclosure of Source or Computer Code

The Proposed Rule would require any “Offeror” or “Contractor” for defense contracts to disclose in the Catalog Data Standard in the Electronic Data Access (“EDA”) system (https://piee.eb.mil) “[w]hether, and if so, when, at any time after August 12, 2013,” they (1) “allowed a foreign person or foreign government to review” or (2) “[are] under any obligation to allow a foreign person or foreign government to review, as a condition of entering into an agreement for sale or other transaction with a foreign government or with a foreign person on behalf of such a government”:

  • “The source code for any product, system, or service that DoD is using or intends to use; or
  • The computer code for any other than commercial product, system, or service developed for DoD.”

When this clause is included in a solicitation, by submitting its offer to the government or higher tier contractor, an “Offeror” is representing that it “has completed the foreign obligation disclosures in EDA and the disclosures are current, accurate, and complete.”  For post-award disclosures, the requirements would most likely first be added in new task orders, delivery orders, and options. 

Continue Reading Department of Defense Publishes Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Disclosure of Computer and Source Code to Foreign Entities

On October 16, 2024, the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) published guidance on Product Security Bad Practices (the “Guidance”) that identifies “exceptionally risky” product security practices for software manufacturers.  The Guidance states that the ten identified practices—categorized as (1) Product Properties, (2) Security Features, or (3) Organizational Processes and Policies—are “dangerous and significantly elevate[] risk to national security, national economic security, and national public health and safety.”

The Guidance offers recommendations to remediate each of the identified practices and states that adoption of the recommendations indicates software manufacturers “are taking ownership of customer security outcomes.”  Provided below are the ten practices and associated recommendations.

I.               Product Properties

  • Development Not in Memory Safe Languages – The Guidance recommends software manufacturers protect against “memory safety vulnerabilities,” such as through the use of a memory safe language or protective hardware.
  • Inclusion of User-Provided Input in SQL Query Strings – The Guidance encourages product designs “that systematically prevent the introduction of SQL injection vulnerabilities, such as by consistently enforcing the use of parametrized queries.”
  • Inclusion of User-Provided Input in Operating System Command Strings – The Guidance recommends product designs “that systematically prevent[] command injection vulnerabilities, such as by consistently ensuring that command inputs are clearly delineated from the contents of a command itself.”
  • Presence of Default Passwords – The Guidance suggests the use of (among others) “instance-unique initial passwords,” requiring users to create new passwords during installation, and “time-limited setup passwords.”
  • Presence of Known Exploited Vulnerabilities – The Guidance states that known exploited vulnerabilities (“KEV”) should be patched before a product is deployed.  The Guidance also recommends that software manufacturers should offer a free and timely patch to customers when CISA’s catalog introduces a new KEV and advise customers “of the associated risks of not installing the patch.”
  • Presence of Open Source Software with Known Exploitable Vulnerabilities – The Guidance encourages software manufacturers to make “a reasonable effort to evaluate and secure their open source software dependencies.”  In particular, the Guidance recommends to conduct security scans on the initial and subsequent versions of open source software that are incorporated into the product and “[r]outinely monitor for Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVEs) or other security-relevant alerts . . . in all open source software dependencies and update them as necessary,” among other recommended steps.  The Guidance further encourages the use of “a software bill of materials” to offer to customers.
Continue Reading CISA and FBI Publish Product Security Bad Practices

On Tuesday, October 22, 2024, Pennsylvania State University (“Penn State”) reached a settlement with the Department of Justice (“DoJ”), agreeing to pay the US Government (“USG”) $1.25M for alleged cybersecurity compliance violations under the False Claims Act (“FCA”).  This settlement follows a qui tam action filed by a whistleblower and former employee of Penn State’s Applied Research Laboratory.  The settlement agreement provides some additional insight into the priorities of DoJ’s Civil Cyber Fraud Initiative (“CFI”) and the types of cybersecurity issues of interest to the Department.  It also highlights the extent to which DoJ is focusing on the full range of cybersecurity compliance obligations that exist in a company’s contract in enforcement actions.

DoJ’s Civil Cyber-Fraud Initiative

On October 6, 2021, following a series of ransomware and other cyberattacks on government contractors and other public and private entities, DoJ announced the CFI.  We covered the CFI as it was first announced in more detail here, and in a comprehensive separately published article here.  As explained by Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco and other DoJ officials, DoJ is using the civil FCA to pursue government contractors and grantees that fail to comply with mandatory cyber incident reporting requirements and other regulatory or contractual cybersecurity requirements.  Moreover, depending on the facts, DoJ Criminal likely will be interested in some of these cases.

About the Settlement

On October 5, 2022, a relator – the former chief information officer for Penn State’s Applied Research Laboratory – filed a qui tam action in the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.  The relator alleged in an amended complaint from 2023 that he discovered and raised non-compliance issues, which Penn State management did not address, and that Penn State falsified compliance documentation.  On October 23, 2024, DoJ formally intervened and notified the court that it reached a settlement agreement with Penn State.  The settlement agreement alleges that Penn State violated the FCA by failing to implement adequate safeguards and to meet cybersecurity requirements set forth under National Institute of Standards and Technology (“NIST”) Special Publication (“SP”) 800-171, “Protecting Controlled Unclassified Information in Nonfederal Information Systems and Organizations.”  As set forth in the settlement agreement, these issues related to fifteen contracts and subcontracts involving the Department of Defense (“DoD”) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (“NASA”) between January 2018 and November 2023. 

Continue Reading Penn State Agrees to Pay $1.25M in Settlement for Cybersecurity Non-Compliance False Claims Act Allegations

On September 17, 2024, the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (“CISA”) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) published a Secure by Design Alert, cautioning senior executives and business leaders to be aware of and work to eliminate cross-site scripting (“XSS”) vulnerabilities in their products (the “Alert”).  XSS…

Continue Reading CISA and FBI Publish a Secure by Design Alert to Eliminate Cross-Site Scripting Vulnerabilities

This is part of a series of Covington blogs on implementation of Executive Order 14028, “Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity,” issued by President Biden on May 12, 2021 (the “Cyber EO”).  The first blog summarized the Cyber EO’s key provisions and timelines, and the subsequent blogs  described the actions taken by…

Continue Reading March 2024 Developments Under President Biden’s Cybersecurity Executive Order, National Cybersecurity Strategy, and AI Executive Order