PHIPA Decision 284: when your IT provider is attacked, the responsibility stays with you
Root cause: administrator accounts without strong protection, at a shared IT providerThe short version: attackers got into a shared IT provider through three administrator accounts, copied patient records and locked servers. Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner found that weak protection on those accounts likely contributed, the clinic's IT agreement lacked key protections, and patients were only partly told.
How it happened
- One shared providerTransForm Shared Service Organization ran the network for five hospitals and a clinic, including the clinic's email and shared drives.
- Admin accounts takenAn attacker entered through three compromised administrator accounts. The commissioner found these lacked privileged account controls, including multi-factor authentication.
- Data copied and lockedRecords of hundreds of thousands of patients were copied out, and many servers were encrypted.
- Published onlineThe attackers later posted the stolen information on the dark web.
- Incomplete noticePatient notices left out that data had been locked. The commissioner found locking is itself a breach that requires notice.
What the Information and Privacy Commissioner found
The commissioner's investigator reviewed both IT service agreements. The hospitals' agreement was comprehensive and in keeping with their obligations under PHIPA. The clinic's agreement covered technical support well, but it lacked key privacy and security protections. According to the decision, these four were missing:
- Ownership and controlConfirmation that the clinic keeps ownership and control of its patients' health information.
- Limits on useClear limits on how the provider could collect, use and share that information.
- Staff trainingPrivacy and security training requirements for the provider's staff.
- Proof of complianceA requirement to follow PHIPA, and a way for the provider to show that it does.
The investigator referred the clinic to the contract terms the commissioner's office recommends, and the clinic has since revised its agreement to match.
What the Information and Privacy Commissioner expects
Your IT provider secures the network. They do not carry your accountability. The commissioner's summary of the decision lists these safeguards:
- Due diligence on providersCheck that your IT provider protects patient information well.
- A complete service agreementPrivacy and security terms in writing, and monitoring that they are followed.
- Strong loginsPassword management and multi-factor authentication.
- Watching admin accountsMonitoring administrator accounts and logging access.
- Protected backups and early warningBackups kept safe from tampering, and systems that spot suspicious activity early.
- Regular team trainingOngoing privacy and cybersecurity training for staff.
What your practice can take from this
- Pull out your IT provider agreement this month and check it for the four protections the clinic's agreement was missing. Ask for any gaps to be added.
- Ask your IT provider two questions: do administrator accounts use multi-factor authentication, and who watches them?
- Make training a regular habit for the whole team, and keep a record of who completed it and when.
- If ransomware ever locks patient records, check your duty to notify. In Ontario, patients must be told even if nothing appears to have been stolen. Check the rules for your province.
Build this with Myla: Myla Essentials team training includes certificates and an admin dashboard, so you always have a record of who completed what. For owners and office managers, the Myla SAFE Leadershipā„¢ Program builds the written policies, access controls and responsibility matrix this decision points to.
Sources: Information and Privacy Commissioner case of note, Decision summary, PHIPA Decision 284 (full text)