Maze Hackers Publish Texas Law Firm's Confidential Data
A spate of recent cyberattacks has targeted at least five small law firms in three states.
February 11, 2020 at 09:44 AM
4 minute read
UPDATE: The hacker group Maze has re-listed the Texas law firm Baker Wotring on its site under the heading "full dump" and has now released the firm's data. The data includes pain diaries from personal injury cases, fee agreements, HIPPA consent forms and more. Baker Wotring once again declined to return requests for comment. Maze had taken Baker Wotring's name off its list late last week, leading to the conclusion that the firm paid the hacker's ransom. The republishing of the firm name and the data dump suggest otherwise.
Maze, the ransomware software and hacking group, has removed Texas law firm Baker Wotring from its "client" site, signaling that the 10-lawyer litigation firm may have opted to pay cybercriminals to halt publication of potentially sensitive data.
The firm was put on Maze's public target list on Nov. 29 and had remained there until late last week. Baker Wotring did not respond to multiple requests for comment, though it previously acknowledged a breach.
Maze's willingness to expose its targets' data has alarmed cybersecurity experts. After using its ransomware to gain control of a target's data, the group publishes the name of the company or law firm to a hosted site. At least five small law firms appear to have fallen victim to the group since last month.
If a target doesn't concede to the group's demands—previous victims were asked to pay in the $1-2 million range—Maze may release a sample of stolen data as proof of the hack and a further incentive. If the mark does pay, the hackers say they will then release the data and take the company's name off the public site.
Brett Callow, a cybersecurity specialist who has been tracking Maze, said that, while a payment may lead to a target being delisted, there is no way to know for certain if the hackers will stick to their word and not release the data at another date.
It's not clear whether Houston-based Baker Wotring firm paid to have its name removed from the site or whether the hack was formally reported.
"I see Baker Wotring is no longer named on the website, which probably means they paid to be delisted and for a pinky promise that the group's copies of the stolen data would be deleted," Callow said in an email. "In a previous case, the group asked for two amounts: $1 million for decrypting the victims' data and $1 million for destroying the data they had stolen."
An ALM investigation last year reviewing state-reported law firm breaches showed that hundreds of firms, large and small, had quietly reported breaches of varying magnitudes in recent years. Callow estimates that only 10-20% percent of breaches are reported.
According to Callow and Michael Maschke, CEO of Virginia-based digital forensics firm Sensei Enterprises, many hacking victims will avoid disclosing breaches in order to sidestep the potential fallout from clients.
Maschke said that his firm advises clients not to pay the ransom, but added that Maze brings a new calculus into the ransomware game.
"Maze is one of the first that exfiltrates the data," Maschke said. "Before, you had a 50/50 shot of getting the encryption key and freeing the data, but now that they are taking the data offsite, there are more concerns."
Maschke said that he couldn't think of any reason Maze would have taken Baker Wotring's name off its list unless it was paid to do it.
Texas, like many other states, has relatively weak data breach reporting requirements, and it is often at the discretion of the hacked entity as to whether to disclose an incident.
Another Texas firm, Irving-based Schachter & Harris, informed the Office of the Attorney General of Maryland as well as the Office of Consumer Affairs and Business Regulation of Massachusetts of an attack in 2017. The firm sent a letter describing the incident as well as the demands the hackers made around its data. In this instance, the hackers held the data hostage and demanded payment for its release.
The firm stated at that time that it had not paid the hackers. Representatives did not respond to a request for comment.
|Read More
Law Firm Cybersecurity: See Which Firms Reported a Data Breach
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Path in the Multiverse: Rethinking Client Engagement Through Gamification
6 minute readFrom ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute read‘What’s Up With Morgan & Morgan?’ Law, Advertising and a Calculated Rise
10 minute readChicago Midsize Firm Will Combine With Miami Boutique To Form Antitrust Powerhouse
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Growing PFAS Morass: Why Insurance Should Cover These Products Liability Claims
- 2Dallas Jury Awards $98.65M in Botham Jean Killing by Dallas Officer
- 3In Talc Bankruptcy, Andy Birchfield Skipped His Deposition. Could He Face Sanctions?
- 4Pharmaceutical Patents: Benefits and Challenges
- 5Where Do Web-Tracking Class Actions Belong? 8th Circuit Weighs the Issue
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250