Suffolk County Cyberattack: A Case Study in Systemic Cybersecurity Failures

Suffolk County Cyberattack: A Case Study in Systemic Cybersecurity Failures

The 2021-2022 cyberattack on Suffolk County, New York, serves as a stark reminder of the devastating consequences that can arise from inadequate cybersecurity planning and preparedness. While no organization is entirely immune to cyber threats, the Suffolk County case highlights how a confluence of systemic failures, missed opportunities, and disregarded warnings can transform a manageable risk into a full-blown crisis. This article, drawing upon a recent report from a special legislative committee assembled to investigate the attack, examines the key vulnerabilities that enabled the attack, the cascading failures that exacerbated its impact, and the crucial lessons learned.

A Fragmented System Ripe for Exploitation

At the heart of Suffolk County’s vulnerability lay a deeply fragmented IT infrastructure. Like many large organizations, particularly those with decentralized structures like county governments, Suffolk County's IT systems had evolved over time into a collection of independent silos. This fragmented approach, while potentially reflecting the separate authorities of various departments, created significant blind spots and hindered effective communication and coordination across the County's IT landscape.

This lack of a unified security posture was exacerbated by the absence of a clear leadership role responsible for overseeing cybersecurity across all departments. A 2020 IT risk assessment report explicitly recommended the creation of a Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) position to provide strategic direction and ensure consistent security practices across the County. However, this recommendation went unheeded, leaving Suffolk County without a central figure to champion cybersecurity initiatives or enforce compliance with essential security protocols.

A Cascade of Missed Opportunities and Disregarded Warnings

The Suffolk County cyberattack was not merely a consequence of underlying vulnerabilities; it was also the result of a series of missed opportunities and disregarded warnings that spanned several years.

  • 2017: A Microsoft security assessment of the County's Active Directory system, which controls access to critical computer systems and files, revealed a "critical risk of compromise," including "minimal protection against lateral movement" – meaning a hacker could easily gain widespread access once inside the system. Despite this alarming assessment, the necessary actions to address these weaknesses were not taken.
  • 2019: Suffolk County engaged cybersecurity firms to conduct a simulated cyberattack. Ironically, this exercise mirrored the very attack that would later cripple the County’s systems. The simulation highlighted the absence of a formal cybersecurity incident response plan and exposed the dangers of the County's fragmented IT infrastructure. Yet, crucially, this exercise overlooked key departments like the Clerk’s Office, and no comprehensive response plan was developed despite the clear need.
  • 2020: The Suffolk County Department of Information Technology (DoIT) issued an IT risk assessment report that again emphasized the urgent need for a CISO and a unified cybersecurity response plan. This report explicitly acknowledged that a lack of coordination and a cohesive response strategy would likely lead to a more severe impact in the event of a cyberattack. Sadly, these recommendations were not implemented.
  • February 2022: A cybersecurity report by CyberDefenses, commissioned in response to the discovery of unauthorized Bitcoin mining within the Clerk's Office, painted a stark picture of the County's overall cybersecurity posture. The report noted a heightened concern that any successful breach could inflict significant damage due to pervasive vulnerabilities. Alarmingly, this critical report, which included detailed findings and recommendations, was never shared outside a small circle within DoIT, leaving even the County Executive unaware of the true extent of the risks.

This pattern of identifying security gaps but failing to implement necessary safeguards set the stage for the disaster that would unfold.

The "Pass Through" Flaw: An Open Invitation for Attackers

Among the most egregious security lapses was a “pass-through” flaw in Suffolk County’s firewall system. This flaw, which stemmed from a decision to allow internet traffic destined for the Clerk's Office to bypass the County's primary firewall, created a gaping hole in the County's defenses. This decision was particularly concerning given that the Clerk’s Office was known to be operating with an outdated and unsupported firewall – a fact acknowledged by both DoIT and the Clerk’s Office.

While there is conflicting testimony regarding who ultimately authorized the "pass through" – DoIT personnel claim it was done at the request of the Clerk’s Office, while the Clerk's Office denies making such a request – the responsibility for this critical vulnerability ultimately rests with those entrusted with safeguarding the County’s systems.

The decision to implement the “pass through," regardless of who requested it, directly contradicted the warnings issued in the February 2022 CyberDefenses report. The report specifically cautioned against allowing direct connections to internal departmental firewalls, warning that such configurations posed a significant risk of lateral movement within the network, enabling attackers to spread undetected.

This “pass through” flaw proved to be a crucial point of failure, likely providing the attackers with an unimpeded entry point into the County’s network.

The Warnings Ignored: A Symphony of Red Flags

In the months preceding the September 2022 ransomware attack, a chorus of warning signs indicated that Suffolk County’s systems were in imminent danger. The County had deployed Cortex, an endpoint detection software designed to identify and flag suspicious activity, but the sheer volume of alerts generated overwhelmed the understaffed and under-trained DoIT security team.

Cortex, in essence, became a victim of its own success, sending out so many alerts that the team struggled to distinguish genuine threats from false positives. This phenomenon, known as alert fatigue, is a common challenge in cybersecurity, particularly for organizations lacking the resources or expertise to manage a high volume of security alerts effectively.

Compounding this issue was the decision to provide the Clerk’s Office with access to Cortex alerts without equipping them with the necessary training or resources to interpret and respond to those alerts. This further fragmented the County’s already disjointed security posture and created a false sense of security within the Clerk's Office, who, despite receiving the alerts, lacked the expertise to take meaningful action.

The situation reached a fever pitch in June 2022 when an FBI agent contacted the head of DoIT security, warning of suspicious ransomware activity within the County’s network. Despite the severity of this warning, coming directly from the FBI, it was not escalated beyond a small group within DoIT.

In the weeks leading up to the attack, the frequency and severity of alerts spiked dramatically. Cortex detected remote connection attempts, attempts to steal account credentials, and suspicious file downloads, all originating from within the Clerk’s Office network. Despite the escalating red flags, no coordinated action was taken, and the attackers were allowed to operate within the County's systems undetected, ultimately leading to the devastating ransomware attack on September 8, 2022.

The Aftermath: Chaos, Disruption, and a Long Road to Recovery

The consequences of the Suffolk County cyberattack were immediate and far-reaching. The attack crippled essential County services, leaving residents unable to access vital resources, pay bills, or obtain necessary documents. The County’s email system, its primary mode of communication, was rendered unusable, forcing employees to rely on personal devices and insecure communication channels.

Recovering from the attack proved to be a costly and arduous process. Millions of taxpayer dollars were spent on remediation efforts, including rebuilding critical systems from scratch and hiring outside cybersecurity experts. The attack also eroded public trust, leaving residents and businesses questioning the County's ability to safeguard their sensitive data.

The Lessons Learned: A Call for Systemic Change

The Suffolk County cyberattack provides a sobering case study in the importance of robust cybersecurity practices and the dire consequences of complacency. While technology plays a crucial role in mitigating cyber threats, the human element – from individual actions to organizational culture – is paramount.

The investigation into the attack yielded a series of key findings and recommendations aimed at preventing a similar event from occurring in the future. These include:

  • Establish a Centralized Cybersecurity Leadership Role: Appoint a CISO with the authority and resources to oversee and coordinate cybersecurity efforts across all County departments.
  • Develop and Implement a Comprehensive Cyber Incident Response and Recovery Plan: Create a detailed plan, tailored specifically to Suffolk County's unique IT environment and risk profile, that outlines clear roles, responsibilities, and procedures for responding to and recovering from cyberattacks.
  • Prioritize Communication and Collaboration: Break down silos between IT teams and foster a culture of open communication and collaboration across departments. Establish clear escalation paths and ensure that all personnel understand their roles in responding to security incidents.
  • Invest in Cybersecurity Training and Awareness: Provide regular, comprehensive cybersecurity training to all employees, emphasizing the importance of strong passwords, phishing awareness, and responsible data handling practices. Empower employees to identify and report potential threats.
  • Continuously Monitor and Update Systems: Implement robust security monitoring and vulnerability management programs. Proactively patch systems, update software, and address security vulnerabilities promptly.
  • Secure Cyber Liability Insurance: Obtain insurance coverage to help mitigate the financial impact of future cyberattacks. The process of obtaining such insurance can also help identify and address security gaps.

Factors Contributing to Poor IT Coordination

Several factors contributed to the lack of coordination among Suffolk County's IT teams, which ultimately weakened the County’s overall cybersecurity posture. These factors are discussed below.

  • Decentralized IT Structure: The County's IT infrastructure was highly decentralized, with multiple independent IT teams operating under different elected officials. While this structure aimed to cater to the unique technological requirements of each department, it led to fragmented cybersecurity practices and hindered communication between these teams.
  • Lack of Centralized Authority: Despite DoIT's responsibility for overseeing the County's cybersecurity, it lacked clear authority over other IT teams, particularly those operating under different elected officials. This lack of a central authority hindered DoIT's ability to enforce cybersecurity protocols and fostered a siloed approach to cybersecurity across departments.
  • Lack of a CISO: The absence of a Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) to provide strategic leadership and coordination further exacerbated these challenges. Although DoIT recognized the need for a CISO in 2020, the position remained unfilled until May 2023, well after the ransomware attack.
  • Communication Barriers and Mistrust: The Special Committee's investigation, which included interviews with IT personnel from different departments, highlighted instances of communication breakdowns and a lack of trust between DoIT and other IT teams. These issues often stemmed from DoIT's desire to centralize control over technology issues and a corresponding reluctance from other teams to relinquish control over their domains.
  • Insufficient Information Sharing: The investigation also revealed inadequate sharing of crucial information regarding potential security threats. For instance, despite receiving a warning from the FBI in June 2022 about potential ransomware activity, DoIT did not escalate this information to higher authorities or take adequate steps to address the threat. Similarly, the concerning number of Cortex malware alerts received by both DoIT and the Clerk’s Office in the months leading up to the attack were not effectively addressed. While both teams received these alerts, DoIT had sole access to the Cortex Management Console, which provided more detailed information about the alerts. The Clerk’s Office requested access to the console but was denied due to concerns about data privacy and potential misuse of information. This lack of transparency and information sharing created an environment of mistrust and hindered effective threat response.
  • "Pass Through" Rule: The creation of a “pass through” rule in the County’s perimeter firewalls for internet traffic destined for the Clerk's Office created a significant vulnerability. This "pass through," which bypassed scrutiny by the County's primary line of defense, further increased the risk to the entire County IT system, especially since the Clerk’s Office was operating with an end-of-life departmental firewall. Although DoIT and the Clerk’s Office offered conflicting accounts about the origins of this “pass through” rule, its existence significantly compromised the County’s cybersecurity.

These combined factors underscore a systemic lack of coordination between IT teams in Suffolk County. This lack of coordination created an environment where crucial information was not shared, potential threats were not adequately addressed, and ultimately, the County was left vulnerable to a major cyberattack.

Lack of Cyberattack Response Plan Increased Recovery Time

The lack of a comprehensive cyberattack response and recovery plan significantly hindered Suffolk County’s ability to respond to the September 2022 ransomware attack, which increased both the time it took to resume operations and the overall recovery costs.

  • Although Suffolk County took steps to bolster its cybersecurity posture — including efforts to upgrade firewalls and deploy Cortex — the DoIT Security Team remained understaffed and undertrained.
  • The county was not utilizing the full potential of the Cortex alerts, which provided warnings, and relied heavily on cyber vendors. Some County IT teams lacked direct access to vendor support.
  • The 2019 Red Land and Palo Alto assessment found that Suffolk County did not have formal plans to respond to a cybersecurity incident.
  • The January 2020 Information Technology Risk Assessment Report, prepared by DoIT, also highlighted the absence of a formal plan to respond to such incidents.
  • The February 2022 CyberDefenses Report also recommended that Suffolk County implement an incident response plan and train staff to respond to an attack.
  • Despite consistent recommendations from these cybersecurity assessments, DoIT failed to draft a cyber-attack response and recovery plan.
  • The absence of such a plan meant there was no established protocol for departments and vendors to follow in the event of an attack, which significantly impeded the County's response.

Here is a comprehensive response to your query about the key failures in Suffolk County's cybersecurity planning and preparedness that led to the 2021-2022 cyberattack, based on the information provided in the sources you supplied:

  • Insufficient coordination between different IT teams within Suffolk County negatively impacted cybersecurity readiness and posture. The County's IT infrastructure was fragmented, reflecting the separate authorities and departments within the County government. While this structure allows the County to meet residents' needs, it resulted in divided authority and responsibility across different IT teams, leaving Suffolk County susceptible to a cyberattack. The 2006 amendment to the Suffolk County Charter empowered the Department of Information Technology (DoIT) to require information from other IT teams to ensure the smooth flow of information within the County. However, in practice, IT teams outside the County Executive's authority, though coordinating with DoIT, are supervised by their respective Elected Officials. This structure, while reflecting the separation of powers in Suffolk County government, created challenges for cooperation and coordination among IT teams and their supervising Elected Officials.
  • The lack of a cyberattack response and recovery plan significantly hindered the County's ability to respond to the September 2022 ransomware attack. Despite a 2019 cybersecurity assessment highlighting the absence of a formal plan to respond to such incidents, DoIT did not draft one. Although Suffolk County Resolution No. 94-2018 mandated DoIT to collaborate with other departmental IT units in developing cybersecurity strategies and submitting an annual IT Risk Assessment Report outlining cybersecurity policies, protocols, and changes, DoIT did not consistently comply. DoIT cited challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic as the reason for not filing subsequent IT Risk Assessment Reports after an initial, but inadequate, report in January 2020. A subsequent draft report in July 2022, shared with one legislator, acknowledged ongoing discussions about creating a cybersecurity response plan but confirmed none had been produced.
  • The creation of a "pass through" in Suffolk County's perimeter firewalls for data traffic intended for the Suffolk County Clerk's Office before the attack constituted a major vulnerability, placing the entire County at risk. Despite being aware of the end-of-life status of the Clerk's Office departmental firewall, DoIT implemented this "pass through," allowing internet traffic destined for this outdated firewall to bypass inspection by the County's perimeter firewall. This action directly contradicted the warnings in a February 2022 cybersecurity report that such bypasses posed significant risks to the entire County. The "pass through" likely facilitated the undetected entry of malware into the Clerk’s Office environment.
  • Suffolk County's overall cybersecurity posture before the September 2022 ransomware attack was neither robust nor resilient enough to effectively defend against it. The February 2022 CyberDefenses report, issued before the ransomware attack, explicitly cautioned about the inadequacy of the County’s cybersecurity posture and the serious risk it posed. Though efforts to enhance security were underway, the DoIT Security Team remained understaffed, insufficiently trained, and overly reliant on vendors, with some County IT teams lacking direct vendor support.
  • The continued use of outdated firewalls, some having reached end-of-life and others even end-of-support, created significant vulnerabilities that put the County at risk. Despite acknowledging the risks associated with using such outdated firewalls, DoIT and County leaders did not replace them in a timely manner.
  • The absence of a Chief Information Security Officer (CISO) before the attack significantly hindered the County's preparedness for and defense against the ransomware attack. A 2020 risk assessment report highlighted the need for a CISO to provide strategic leadership and coordination across the County's IT systems. The lack of such a role contributed to fragmented decision-making and a lack of accountability, ultimately weakening the County's cybersecurity preparedness.
  • Insufficient staffing and training negatively affected Suffolk County’s cybersecurity posture. DoIT leadership believed its cybersecurity staff’s training, which primarily consisted of “knowledge transfer” instead of “formal classroom training,” was sufficient. However, lower-ranking personnel in DoIT and the Clerk’s Office believed that their security IT teams were understaffed and inadequately trained.
  • Suffolk County personnel did not adequately respond to numerous warning signs of an impending cyberattack in the months preceding the September 8, 2022, event. Despite a surge in the frequency and severity of Cortex malware and behavioral threat alerts reported to DoIT and the Suffolk County Clerk's Office in the months leading up to the ransomware attack, personnel across departments failed to take adequate action. The lack of proper and timely response to these alerts allowed the perpetrators to establish a presence within the Suffolk County IT environment and move freely between departments.
  • DoIT did not fulfill its legal obligation to provide annual reports on Suffolk County's IT security posture, including cybersecurity risks, to the Suffolk County Legislature via an IT Risk Assessment report. Despite a legal requirement to submit these reports, DoIT has only issued one such report since 2019.
  • Although numerous DoIT employees were aware of the Bitcoin mining operation in the Clerk’s Office portion of the Riverhead data center before the District Attorney's investigation, no evidence directly links this operation to the cyberattack. However, allowing such activity, which should have been immediately reported to the appropriate authorities, reflects a lapse in judgment and security protocols.

In conclusion, the 2021-2022 cyberattack on Suffolk County was a significant event with lasting consequences. The attack was possible due to a confluence of factors, including insufficient coordination between IT teams, the absence of a cyberattack response and recovery plan, the use of outdated firewalls, and the lack of a CISO. Additionally, warning signs were not adequately heeded, highlighting a need for improved cybersecurity awareness and training across all County departments. These findings underscore the critical importance of robust cybersecurity measures, including a well-defined incident response plan, adequate staffing and training, and proactive monitoring and response to potential threats.

The document, "Cybersecurity Special Committee Report" details the events and findings related to a ransomware attack that occurred in September 2022 on Suffolk County's IT systems.

Timeline of Events

  • Prior to 2017: The County developed a fragmented IT infrastructure with inconsistent security protocols across departments, leaving it vulnerable to cyberattacks.
  • 2017: A Microsoft assessment revealed critical risks in the County's Active Directory environment.
  • 2019: Following several cyberattacks on municipalities across the US, Suffolk County hired a cybersecurity firm to assess and recommend improvements. The assessment's scope was limited, and a plan for a unified cybersecurity response was never developed.
  • August 2021: Evidence emerges that an employee in the Suffolk County Clerk’s Office was conducting Bitcoin mining on County servers.
  • February 2022: A cybersecurity firm hired by the county issues a report highlighting serious vulnerabilities, including ineffective network segmentation, outdated firewalls, and unsanctioned internet connections. The report is not shared with Suffolk County Legislature.
  • Spring/Summer 2022: The Clerk's Office repeatedly requests a firewall upgrade but is denied. Numerous red flags, including alerts from the County's endpoint detection system, are ignored or missed by IT personnel in both the Clerk's Office and DoIT.
  • June 21, 2022: The FBI alerts the County to suspicious activity indicative of ransomware in their system. The warning is not escalated beyond the DoIT Security Team, and no action is taken.
  • September 2022: Ransomware attack cripples County systems.

Key Findings of the Report

  • Decentralized IT Infrastructure and Lack of a Unified Cybersecurity Plan: The County's fragmented IT systems, coupled with inconsistent security practices and the lack of a cohesive response plan, created an environment ripe for exploitation.
  • Failure to Address Known Vulnerabilities: Despite multiple reports highlighting critical weaknesses, including outdated firewalls and ineffective network segmentation, the County failed to address these issues adequately.
  • Lack of Communication and Coordination: Communication breakdowns between the DoIT Security Team, the DoIT leadership team, and other County departments hindered the County's ability to respond to the attack effectively.
  • Failure to Report Cybersecurity Risks: DoIT leadership failed to comply with County law requiring them to report cybersecurity risks to the Suffolk County Legislature, leaving the Legislature in the dark about the severity of the problem.

Recommendations

The report stresses the urgent need for a cultural shift within the County regarding cybersecurity. It advocates for a centralized cybersecurity approach, headed by a qualified and empowered Chief Information Security Officer (CISO), and emphasizes the importance of:

  • Improved Communication and Collaboration: Between IT teams, department heads, elected officials, and external partners.
  • Implementation of a Comprehensive Cybersecurity Plan: This plan should include a detailed incident response and recovery strategy.
  • Regular Security Assessments and Training: To identify and address vulnerabilities proactively and ensure all personnel are equipped to handle security incidents.

Conclusion

The 2021-2022 cyberattack on Suffolk County stands as a stark reminder that cybersecurity is not merely an IT issue but a critical component of good governance and responsible leadership. Addressing cybersecurity threats requires a proactive, multifaceted approach that combines technological safeguards with a strong security culture, effective communication, and a commitment to continuous improvement. By heeding the lessons learned from this devastating attack, Suffolk County, and other organizations like it, can strengthen their defenses, enhance their resilience, and better protect their citizens, data, and operations from the ever-evolving threat landscape.

Read more