NYT Report Links Federal Court Breach to Russia, Cites Unnamed Sources
Published
- The claim: Citing internal sources, NYT says Russia may be involved in a breach of the U.S. court filing system.
- Sensitive cases: Sealed records were reportedly accessed, prompting warnings to remove certain files from the system.
- Potential exposure: Accessed case files may contain sensitive national security information and details on ongoing investigations.
A report by The New York Times speculated that Russia may be behind a breach of the U.S. federal court filing system. The newspaper cited unnamed internal sources who described sealed national security records as potentially compromised in the intrusion.
These sources also claimed the breach may be part of a years-long infiltration effort into the case management system. The case management system is the federal judiciary’s electronic platform for storing, managing, and controlling access to court records.
Speculated Case Exposure
The NYT reported, citing unnamed sources, that attackers accessed certain court case files, some involving Russian or Eastern European names. Officials allegedly warned courts to quickly remove the most sensitive files from the system.
Trey Ford, Chief Strategy and Trust Officer at Bugcrowd, addressed the warning saying, “Silent removal orders due to lack of confidence in a system are concerning and, in a corporate sense, would be ill advised.”
The report added that the Justice Department had issued security guidance in 2021 after an earlier infiltration. The Times noted that it remains uncertain whether Russia acted alone or if other nations or groups participated.
While the NYT report names Russia as a suspected actor, attribution in cyberattacks remains uncertain and could involve other state-sponsored groups. Commenting on the possible motivations, Ford said, “The idea of targeting sensitive court document systems makes a lot of sense on the international stage to understand the who, what, and why for diplomatic considerations.”
The breach activity appears consistent with a long-term, highly persistent access campaign. Suggesting a strategy, Ford said that to identify the actual culprits, cybersecurity experts confronting human adversaries may choose this approach to avoid alerting detection, allowing the threat actor to remain active while investigators collect more precise intelligence on users, actions, tools, means, and methods.
Related
Get expert insights on threats, breaches, scams, and security trends — delivered every Saturday.
Most Popular
Get expert insights on threats, breaches, scams, and security trends — delivered every Saturday.
Most Popular