You are using an outdated browser and your browsing experience will not be optimal. Please update to the latest version of Microsoft Edge, Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox. Install Microsoft Edge

June 13, 2025

Compliance-Driven Cybersecurity: Cyberattack Prevention, Response, and Recovery

In today’s digital age, cyberattacks have become a real threat to organizations worldwide. These attacks can range from phishing and malware to ransomware and distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks. As the frequency and sophistication of these attacks increase, so does the importance of cybersecurity compliance.

In the corporate world, compliance refers to the process of ensuring that a company and its employees adhere to all relevant laws, regulations, standards, and ethical practices—but it should not stop there. Compliance should also encompass asset recovery and disciplinary measures, which can both help organizations address incidents effectively and promote good governance.

Cyberattacks are malicious attempts to access or damage a computer system or network, often carried out for financial gain, for political activism, or simply to cause disruption. For instance, a successful attack might involve an attacker creating an email address that closely resembles a legitimate one, perhaps by changing only one or two characters. That email address is then inserted into an existing conversation thread, making it appear as if the user with this email address was already part of the discussion. This tactic can easily deceive a recipient into believing the email was sent from a trusted source, thereby leading them to click on malicious links, provide sensitive information, or even make payments in accordance with the attacker’s request or instructions. Phishing attacks like these are particularly dangerous and can have a serious impact on the ongoing business of a corporation because they exploit the trust and familiarity established in the original email chain.

Effective Mitigation Approaches

Mechanisms for addressing the aftermath of a crisis provide important recourse to affected organizations, but effective compliance mechanisms can minimize the risk of such crises ever occurring. Companies should therefore prioritize preventative measures and implementation of effective crisis management schemes.

Various legal and regulatory frameworks govern cybersecurity and data compliance in Thailand. For example, the Cybersecurity Act B.E. 2562 (2019) categorizes cyber threats into three levels: noncritical, critical, and crisis, each requiring specific measures. The Personal Data Protection Committee under the Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) provides guidelines on handling personal data breaches and emphasizes assessing and mitigating risks to individuals.

With respect to minimizing the risks posed by cyberattacks, compliance is essential for several reasons. First, it helps organizations avoid legal penalties and fines associated with noncompliance. Second, it enhances an organization’s reputation by demonstrating a commitment to protecting sensitive information and assets. Third, compliance helps mitigate the risk of cyberattacks, thereby protecting an organization’s financial standing and operational efficiency.

Providing adequate training on these issues gives companies the opportunity to demonstrate to their employees that they support them by providing them with the knowledge to protect themselves with cyber-safety awareness. This approach benefits both the employees and the company and is also an easily overlooked tool for building morale. For instance, during one cybersecurity training session, participants learned about various types of scams and social engineering strategies used by cybercriminals. The training emphasized the importance of being cautious and mindful of cybersecurity to protect both organizational and personal information. Additionally, fake email addresses can lead to financial payments being made to the wrong entity’s account, necessitating actions from corporations to maintain good governance and compliance. Providing employees with the necessary knowledge to identify attacks and take appropriate initial steps could be a crucial measure for an organization to prevent potential damage such as this.

Financial staff and risk management teams are typically the first responders to an attack, halting payments or deliveries and establishing preliminary measures to prevent future occurrences. However, actions taken after an incident are equally important. These include reporting to authorities and attempting asset recovery to mitigate financial losses. Regardless of the likelihood of recovery, such actions promote good governance and are essential for continuous smooth operations of the organization.

Periodic reviews of past activities, along with disciplinary actions for the employees involved, are integral to compliance mechanisms that account for the dynamics of a business. Regular reviews should monitor the company’s cyber health and employee awareness to ensure improvements and sustained vigilance, and when employees have made payments to culprits, the company’s actions speak louder than words. Balancing the maintenance of morale with good governance can be challenging, but human resources knowledge and morale complement each other. A thorough understanding of corporate consciousness and the law enables comprehensive measures tailored to a corporation’s needs.

Having a clear cybersecurity policy and protocols, along with proper training, ensures that employees understand the consequences of failing to follow those protocols. Employees can be held accountable and disciplined based on the facts of the case and company rules, especially if evidence confirms gross negligence or misconduct.

Outlook

The intersection of cyberattacks and comprehensive compliance is critical for any organization operating in today’s digital landscape. By understanding the nature of cyberattacks and adhering to cybersecurity compliance standards, organizations can better protect themselves from potential threats and ensure the security of their information.

Organizations should also remember they are not alone, and they can readily enlist the services of specialists. At Tilleke & Gibbins, we not only provide asset recovery and litigation services but also offer specialized training on compliance, providing comprehensive advice on employment law. Our expert team is dedicated to ensuring organizations are well equipped to navigate the complexities of cybersecurity regulations and employment law.

RELATED INSIGHTS​ 

August 4, 2026
Thailand’s Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) could soon see some important changes, as a draft bill to amend the PDPA has been introduced in the House of Representatives. The draft amendment is currently in the public consultation phase, with comments accepted from July 16 to August 15, 2026. If enacted in its current form, the amendment would make three key changes: expanding the government exemption to cover anticorruption operations, introducing a statutory definition of “government agency,” and restructuring the lawful bases for personal data processing to align with international standards. Background The PDPA has encountered several enforcement challenges since its implementation, including three core problems identified by the bill’s sponsors: (1) the current exemptions for government agencies do not cover anticorruption and misconduct-prevention operations; (2) the PDPA lacks a clear statutory definition of “government agency,” causing legal uncertainty as to which entities are covered; and (3) the existing framework for lawful bases of data processing does not align with international standards—particularly the multiple-lawful-bases system in the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)—making compliance inflexible for both government and private sector entities. Expanded Government Exemption The current PDPA exempts government agencies performing duties related to national security (including fiscal security), public safety, anti-money laundering, forensic science, and cybersecurity. The proposed amendment adds “prevention and suppression of corruption and misconduct” to this list of exempted functions. This would allow anticorruption bodies—most notably the National Anti-Corruption Commission (NACC), which is identified as a directly affected party—to collect, use, and disclose personal data without being subject to PDPA requirements when carrying out their duties. New Statutory Definition of “Government Agency” Notably, while the current PDPA use the term “government agency” in several provisions, the term is not comprehensively defined, creating potential uncertainty as to its scope. The draft bill therefore
August 3, 2026
On July 23, 2026, the Bank of Thailand (BOT) released for public comment its draft Notification on Digital Channel Security, which would significantly expand the scope and stringency of Thailand’s existing mobile banking security framework. If finalized in its current form, the draft notification would extend mandatory security requirements to credit card providers and credit providers, cover internet banking in addition to mobile applications, phase out SMS one-time passwords (OTPs) for transaction authentication, and introduce biometric verification requirements for high-value transactions. The public comment period is open through August 24, 2026. Background The BOT’s existing Mobile Banking Security Notification, issued in 2024, sets minimum security standards for financial institutions, specialized financial institutions (SFIs), and e-money providers, significantly reducing “money-draining app” fraud. However, fraudsters have since shifted to nonbank providers and internet banking channels, prompting the BOT to propose broader security requirements. Expanded Scope of Regulated Entities and Channels The existing Mobile Banking Security Notification covers only financial institutions, SFIs, and e-money providers offering mobile banking services. The draft expands coverage in two key areas: entities and channels. On the entity side, it adds credit card providers and credit providers that offer fund transfers to third parties at other financial service providers or that provide cash withdrawal services to individual retail customers. On the channel side, it broadens coverage to include internet banking in addition to mobile banking. Strengthened Customer Authentication The draft introduces enhanced authentication requirements in three areas: Service enrollment and device changes. Providers must implement rigorous identity verification, notify customers of enrollment results through out-of-band communication channels, and adopt risk-mitigation measures such as cooling-off periods and temporary transaction limits. Transaction-level authentication. Providers must use two-factor authentication for fund transfers, cardless ATM withdrawals, and transaction limit increases. Secure authentication factors. Key requirements include the following: “What-you-know” factors must
July 28, 2026
Data protection officers (DPOs) have become a fixture of Thailand’s privacy compliance landscape since the Personal Data Protection Act B.E. 2562 (2019) (PDPA) took full effect and the Office of the Personal Data Protection Committee (PDPC) began requiring certain organizations to appoint them. On July 7, 2026, the Office of the PDPC presented draft guidance on DPOs as part of a public consultation on a series of draft personal data protection manuals and recommendations. The draft offers the clearest indication yet of how the regulator expects the DPO role to work in practice, addressing recurring implementation issues under the PDPA—including when an organization must appoint a DPO, how the DPO should operate independently, how to manage conflicts of interest, and how data subjects and regulators should be able to contact the DPO. Because it remains in draft, organizations have an opportunity to weigh the practical implications now before the guidance is finalized. When a DPO Must Be Appointed The draft guidance clarifies the triggers for mandatory DPO appointment, including: Regular and systematic monitoring of personal data or systems on a large scale, such as tracking, analyzing, or predicting behavior, attitudes, or individual characteristics. Core activities involving large-scale processing of sensitive personal data, such as health data, biometric data, or criminal records. Certain foreign-organization representative arrangements. Public-sector coverage under relevant notifications identifying government entities that must appoint a DPO. Processing involving 100,000 or more data subjects may be considered large-scale. The guidance also contemplates voluntary DPO appointment for organizations that wish to raise their privacy governance standards, and such organizations should still comply with the standards applicable to DPOs under the law. Independence and Reporting Lines The draft guidance identifies lack of DPO independence as a core risk because an ineffective or constrained DPO may be unable to raise deficiencies
July 27, 2026
Vietnam’s new E-Commerce Law, which took effect on 1 July 2026 along with its implementing Decree No. 248/2026/ND-CP (Decree 248), marks a significant development in the country’s approach to online intellectual property (IP) enforcement, reflecting a clear shift from a reactive model of intermediary liability to one that expects platforms to play a more active role in preventing infringement. From notice-and-takedown to platform responsibility The most significant change introduced by the E-Commerce Law is the transformation of the legal role of e-commerce platforms. The existing safe harbor provisions under the IP Law and the copyright notice-and-takedown regime established by Decree 17/2023/ND-CP (Decree 17) largely required intermediaries to act only after receiving notice of infringement. Once infringing content had been removed, the platform’s legal obligation was generally considered fulfilled. The new legislation adopts a fundamentally different approach. Article 17 of the E-Commerce Law requires intermediary platforms to screen information relating to goods and services before publication in order to prevent listings involving counterfeit or IP-infringing goods, and goods of unknown origin. Rather than relying exclusively on complaints from rights holders, platforms are now expected to implement preventive measures before infringing listings become publicly available. Decree 248 further requires platforms to update keyword filters based on recommendations issued by competent authorities. These filtering mechanisms are intended to prevent prohibited listings from appearing on the platform and represent a further move away from a purely complaint-driven enforcement model. The legislation also introduces Vietnam’s first statutory stay-down obligation. Under the E-Commerce Law and Decree 248, major digital platforms must maintain automated systems capable of reviewing, warning against, and removing unlawful listings while also implementing measures to prevent repeat violations, defined under Decree 248 as conduct that has previously been identified and handled by the platform, but continues to recur. This obligation addresses one