The City of Baltimore was hit with a ransomware attackin May of this year. Criminals using remodeled and rebrandedNSA exploits(EternalBlue) knocked out a “majority” of the city’s servers and crippled many of its applications. More details didn’t surface until September when the city’s government beganreshuffling the budget to cover the expensesof recovering from the attack.
The person in charge of the city’s systems was Frank Johnson, who went on leave (presumably permanently) after a post-attack auditfound the IT director hadn’t done much IT directing.
Johnson, who also serves as the city’s chief digital officer, received significant criticism from local authorities for the response to the May 7 attack. City council membersalleged a lack of transparency and communication in the wake of the incident, as well as an inability tomaintain a functional organization“during an emergency event.” He also also never drafted a continuity of operations plan for an IT attack of the kind that occurred.
It looks like the list of stuff Johnson was being paid to do that he never did. Hence the catastrophic outcome when the city refused to pay the $ 76, 000 ransom. Given the fact that $ 6 million has already been pulled from parks and public utilities funds to “harden” city systems, the $ 76, 000 demand now seems like a bargain.
City residents should be asking WTF their tax dollars are being spent on. The city’s audit of its compromised system rolls on,delivering even more embarrassing details about the city’s IT skill set. (viaArs Technica)
A new audit of Baltimore’s information technology department says the agency lost key data during May’s ransomware attack because some in the agency used an outdated method for storing files: the hard drives on their individual computers.
“Performance measures data were saved electronically in responsible personnel’s hard drives,” [Baltimore City Auditor Josh] Pasch reported. “One of the responsible personnel’s hard drive was confiscated and the other responsible personnel’s selected files were removed due to the May 2019 ransomware incident. “
Bureaucracies are prone to understatement and the assessment of the ghastly state of affairs by Pasch was no exception. According to Pasch, the permanently-missing data resulted in a “loss of confidence” in the city’s IT department’s ability to do its job.
This understatement brought the hearing to a halt as council members expressed their disbelief that city data was not being backed up. Their comments were less understated.
Hearing that, City Councilman Eric T. Costello, a former government IT auditor himself, stopped the hearing.
“That can’t be right? That’s real? ”Costello asked.
It’s apparently real. City data needed for an audit cannot be recovered because the IT department never made an effort to express the dangers of storing the only copy of data locally. It also apparently never made a push to create cloud backups of important files. When the ransomware struck, the stuff locked up was – in far too many cases – to only copy of that stuff.
The tragically hilarious postscript to this is the city’s response toArs Technica’s request for infoon the city’s cyberattack recovery plans.
Ars has requested information from the city regarding the contracting details for the recovery, but the city has thus far provided no data. Requests for data on the status of patches and disaster recovery plans were refused because the documents do not exist as a result of the ransomware attack.
It’s easy to mock governments for their inability to properly handle the massive amounts of data they collect, create, and retain. And so we shall. The city figures it will cost $ 18 million to recover from a rejected $ 76, 000 ransom demand. I guess if you’re going to play chicken with extortionists, you might want to make sure your backup plans at least meet min spec.