Due to the sophistication of cyber threats, cybercriminals target judicial systems more often, exposing significant vulnerabilities. Numerous attacks disrupt court operations and have broader implications, as they hurt employers who use public records to check their criminal records. Gaining a deeper understanding of the nature and impact of these cyberattacks reveals an urgent need to strengthen cybersecurity measures within the courts to safeguard sensitive information and maintain the public's trust in the system.
Fulton County, Georgia, which includes most of Atlanta, has also suffered a significant ransomware attack in late January and was similar in scope and impact to the one in California. It is claimed that the attack, which is attributed to the ransomware group LockBit, has caused a suspension of most government services, including the issuance of vehicle registrations, and marriage licenses, as well as the ability of the courts to process legal documents online.
As a consequence, if the hacker's demands were not met by the government, they threatened to release sensitive data, including potentially high-profile information related to ongoing criminal investigations. Although Fulton County officials were threatened with such threats, they refused to pay the ransom and have been constantly working to restore services and systems across the county. As of more than a month after the hacking attack, some services have not been restored, showing the long-term impact of attacks like these on the operations of local governments and courts for years to come.
In Georgia's largest county, hackers shut down office phone lines, left clerks unable to issue motor vehicle registrations or marriage licenses, and threatened to publically release sensitive data they claimed to have stolen if officials did not pay ransom. The county is currently in the process of repairing the damage that was inflicted on it a month ago by hackers.
This post is part of a series on the Ransomware syndicate LockBit, which took credit for a cyberattack that crippled the government services in Fulton County, which is the largest county in Atlanta and includes much of the city.
They started demanding payment from the residents, threatening to dump personal information as part of the data dump online if payment was not made. There is also a claim that the hackers were able to steal records relating to the criminal case against former President Donald Trump, which is pending at the moment.
Ransomware groups routinely steal data from victims before activating malware that encrypts networks before they activate it to maximize their chances of getting paid.
According to some cybersecurity analysts, it doesn't appear that the Fulton County hackers had actual access to files related to Donald Trump.
Kansas Court System Breach
During October, the Kansas Office of Judicial Administration detected some unauthorized activity on its computers and networks, and immediately took action to protect its systems and data from any further harm. It was determined by the office and cybersecurity experts that some files were stolen after they were involved in the investigation of the incident.
As a result of the complexity of the data, it took until May to be able to determine the specific personal information that was affected or identified impacted individuals based on a manual review of the relevant data. Kansas courts began notifying victims in May, and the courts offered credit monitoring and identity recovery services to those who were affected.
Although reported breaches have generally been detected fairly quickly, it should be noted that recovery efforts have not yet been completed. It is with great regret to inform you that Kansas courts have enhanced their security measures in response to this incident to protect their networks and information systems even better.
After the Kansas judicial system was knocked offline for weeks in October by a cyberattack that involved the theft of personal information from about 150,000 people, the Kansas judicial system may have been breached and may have had their personal information stolen.
As a result of an independent investigation conducted by a third party, the Office of Judicial Administration on Monday announced that it found evidence to support the cyberattack. Information that the office has accessed during this attack has been obtained through documents that have belonged to the office as a result of litigation appealed to the Kansas appellate court, applications made to the Kansas bar, and other documents.
There is a possibility that information from any number of sources, such as social security numbers, driving licenses, government identification cards, credit card information, tax ID numbers, passport numbers, and information about health insurance policies, could have been accessed.
Cybersecurity threats posed by the federal government
In recent years, cyberattacks have become more common in the judicial system, and this is not a new issue. It was disclosed recently that two federal judges have issued warnings before a committee of the U.S.
The committee noted that the ageing database systems of the judiciary could be vulnerable to attacks, making a case for the need to upgrade them and increase funding for security measures. U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy St. Eve, who chairs the Judicial Conference of the United States budget committee, has emphasized that the judiciary has suffered from a lack of investment for years, leaving it vulnerable as a result of continuing under-investment.
U.S. District Judge Roslynn Mauskopf, serving as the director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, has brought to attention a significant escalation in cyberattacks targeting the judiciary. Judge Mauskopf emphasized that these rising threats not only jeopardize the functioning of the justice system but also pose a broader danger to the integrity of democracy itself.
In response to this growing menace, the federal judiciary has sought $8.6 billion in discretionary funding for the fiscal year 2023, representing a 7.2% increase from the previous year.
This budget request includes a substantial allocation of $403 million specifically designated for IT security and modernization, as well as $786 million earmarked for court security. These figures underscore the heightened concerns regarding the safety of federal judges and courthouses. As cyber threats continue to advance in sophistication and frequency, it is anticipated that funding requests will persistently rise, particularly in critical areas such as IT security and court protection, to address ongoing challenges and support essential modernization initiatives.
While the federal judiciary can request significant funds to bolster its cybersecurity measures, state and local courts often operate under considerably tighter financial constraints. These courts, which are responsible for handling the majority of everyday legal proceedings, contain vast repositories of sensitive personal information. However, due to limited budgets, they may struggle to implement robust cybersecurity defences. This disparity highlights a critical issue: as cyber threats grow increasingly sophisticated, the need for cybersecurity investment is not confined to the federal level alone.
State and local courts face substantial risks if they are unable to adequately protect their data, a vulnerability that could have far-reaching consequences for the justice system and undermine public trust.
The judiciary's role as custodian of some of the nation's most sensitive information makes cybersecurity an essential and urgent priority.
The testimonies of Judges St. Eve and Mauskopf underscore the critical need to modernize and safeguard vital judicial data. As cyberattacks continue to evolve, both federal and state judicial systems must prioritize cybersecurity measures to ensure the integrity of their operations and to maintain public confidence in the judicial process. Without adequate investment, particularly at the state and local levels, the judicial system may remain exposed to increasingly sophisticated cyber threats, thereby endangering not only individual court cases but also the broader principles of justice and democracy.
