https://twitter.com/DecisionDeskHQ/status/1654910432279162880
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0yj6H8z61I
https://twitter.com/DecisionDeskHQ/status/1654910432279162880
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0yj6H8z61I
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/04/28/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-takes-action-during-second-chance-month-to-strengthen-public-safety-improve-rehabilitation-in-jails-and-prisons-and-support-successful-reentry/
This month, we celebrate the enduring heritage of Jewish Americans, whose values, culture, and contributions have shaped our character as a Nation. For generations, the story of the Jewish people — one of resilience, faith, and hope in the face of adversity, prejudice and persecution — has been woven into the fabric of our Nation’s story. It has driven us forward in our ongoing march for justice, equality, and freedom as we recommit to upholding the principles of our Nation’s founding and realizing the promise of America for all Americans.
For centuries, Jewish refugees fleeing oppression and discrimination abroad have sailed to our shores in search of sanctuary. Early on, they fought for religious freedom, helping define one of the bedrock principles upon which America was built. Union soldiers celebrated Passover in the midst of the Civil War. Jewish suffragists fought to expand freedom and justice. And Jewish faith leaders linked arms with giants of the Civil Rights Movement to demand equal rights for all.
Jewish Americans continue to enrich every part of American life as educators and entrepreneurs, athletes and artists, scientists and entertainers, public officials and activists, labor and community leaders, diplomats and military service members, public health heroes, and more. Last year, I was proud to host the White House’s first-ever Jewish New Year reception. During our Hanukkah celebration, I was also proud to unveil the first-ever permanent menorah at the White House — reinforcing the permanency of Jewish culture in America. In my own life, the Jewish community has been a tremendous source of friendship, guidance, and strength through seasons of pain and seasons of joy.
But there is also a dark side to the celebrated history of the Jewish people — a history marked by genocide, pogrom, and persecution — with a through line that continues in the record rise of antisemitism today. We have witnessed violent attacks on synagogues, bricks thrown through windows of Jewish businesses, swastikas defacing cars and cemeteries, Jewish students harassed on college campuses, and Jews wearing religious attire beaten and shot on streets. Antisemitic conspiracy theories are rampant online, and celebrities are spouting antisemitic hate.
These acts are unconscionable and despicable. They carry with them terrifying echoes of the worst chapters in human history. Not only are they a strike against Jews, but they are also a threat to other minority communities and a stain on the soul of our Nation. I decided to run for President after I saw this hatred on display during the rally in Charlottesville, when neo-Nazis marched from the shadows spewing the same antisemitic bile that was heard in Germany in the 1930s. These incidents remind us that hate never truly goes away — it only hides until it is given just a little oxygen. It is our obligation to ensure that hate can have no safe harbor in America and to protect the sacred ideals enshrined in our Constitution: religious freedom, equality, dignity, and respect. That is the promise of America.
I have made clear that I will not remain silent in the face of this antisemitic venom, vitriol, and violence. During my first year in office, I signed the bipartisan COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act to help State and local law enforcement better identify and respond to hate crimes. I appointed Deborah Lipstadt, a historian of the Holocaust, as the first Ambassador-level Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Antisemitism. And my Administration also secured the largest increase in funding ever for the physical security of nonprofits, including synagogues, Jewish Community Centers, and Jewish day schools.
At my direction, we are also developing the first national strategy to counter antisemitism that outlines comprehensive actions the Federal Government will undertake and that reflects input from over a thousand Jewish community stakeholders, faith and civil rights leaders, State and local officials, and more. This strategy will help combat antisemitism online and offline, including in schools and on campuses; improve security to prevent antisemitic incidents and attacks; and build cross-community solidarity against antisemitism and other forms of hate.
But governance alone cannot root out antisemitism and hate. All Americans — including business and community leaders, educators, students, athletes, entertainers, and influencers — must help confront bigotry in all its forms. We must each do our part to put an end to antisemitism and hatred and create a culture of respect in our workplaces, schools, and homes and across social media.
This Jewish American Heritage Month, let us join hands across faiths, races, and backgrounds to make clear that evil, hate, and antisemitism will not prevail. Let us honor the timeless values, contributions, and culture of Jewish Americans, who carry our Nation forward each and every day. And let us rededicate ourselves to the sacred work of creating a more inclusive tomorrow, protecting the diversity that defines who we are as a Nation, and preserving the dignity of every human being — here at home and around the world.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim May 2023 as Jewish American Heritage Month. I call upon all Americans to learn more about the heritage and contributions of Jewish Americans and to observe this month with appropriate programs, activities, and ceremonies.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this
twenty-eighth day of April, in the year two thousand twenty‑three, and
of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and
forty-seventh.
JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/05/02/state-fact-sheets-maga-house-republicans-default-on-america-act-would-have-devastating-impacts-across-america/
Extreme bill would cut veterans’ health care, jeopardize public safety, and raise costs for families—even as House Republicans separately push for trillions in tax cuts skewed to the wealthy and big corporations
Congressional Republicans are holding the nation’s full faith and
credit hostage in an effort to impose devastating cuts that would hurt
veterans, raise costs for hardworking families, and hinder economic
growth. The Default on America Act would cut veterans’ health care,
education, Meals on Wheels, and public safety, take away health care
from millions of Americans, and send manufacturing jobs overseas. Outside economists say
that if enacted, the Default on America Act would “increase the
likelihood” of a recession and result in 780,000 fewer jobs by the end
of 2024. And House Republicans are demanding these cuts while separately
advancing proposals to add over $3 trillion to deficits through tax
cuts and giveaways skewed to the wealthy and big corporations.
The Default on America Act stands in sharp contrast with President Biden’s Budget, which invests in America, lowers costs for families, protects and strengthens Medicare and Social Security, and reduces the deficit by nearly $3 trillion over 10 years, while ensuring no one making less than $400,000 per year pays a penny more in new taxes.
Today,
the White House released 51 fact sheets highlighting the devastating
impacts of the Default on America Act on states and the District of
Columbia. Nationally, the Default on America Act would have devastating impacts on the American people. It would:
Jeopardize Transportation Safety and Infrastructure
Raise Costs for Families
Harm Seniors, Older People, and Veterans
Hurt Children and Students and Undermine Education and Job Training
State Fact Sheets:
This analysis assumes an across-the-board reduction of roughly
22% compared to currently enacted FY 2023 levels for non-defense
discretionary accounts. That aligns with Congressional Republicans’
Default on America Act, which would return discretionary spending to FY
2022 levels on an ongoing basis while exempting defense spending.
###
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/03/books/review/homegrown-jeffrey-toobin.html
Tracing the Angry Path From Timothy McVeigh to Trumpism
“Homegrown,” by Jeffrey Toobin, revisits the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, finding ominous parallels between the bomber’s anti-government extremism and the views of Jan. 6 insurrectionists.
By Jennifer Szalai
May 3, 2023, 5:00 a.m. ET
HOMEGROWN: Timothy McVeigh and the Rise of Right-Wing Extremism, by Jeffrey Toobin
It was the dog whistle heard ’round the world. When Donald J. Trump decided to kick off his latest presidential campaign on March 25 with a rally at Waco, Texas, he was issuing a call to the far-right fringe that was earsplitting, even by his own standards. It wasn’t simply the location but also the timing: a month shy of the 30th anniversary of April 19, 1993 — a date that marked the fiery, deadly end of the 51-day standoff between the F.B.I. and David Koresh at his Branch Davidian compound near Waco.
Along with the standoff at Ruby Ridge, in 1992, Waco became a galvanizing moment for the radical right. Exactly two years later, on the morning of April 19, 1995, Timothy McVeigh drove a Ryder truck loaded with a 7,000-pound fertilizer bomb to the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City. He lit the fuse, parked the truck and walked to his getaway car in a nearby alley. The blast sheared off the front third of the building, killing 167 people, 19 of them children. (Another victim, a rescue worker, was killed by falling debris.) Among the dead were 15 preschoolers who had just started their morning at the day care center on the second floor.
After white nationalists helped put Trump in the White House, McVeigh’s attack was featured in books by Kathleen Belew and Spencer Ackerman, who have convincingly depicted Oklahoma City as both a culmination and a turning point. McVeigh was a decorated veteran of Operation Desert Storm who drew his bombing plans directly from “The Turner Diaries,” a 1978 novel by a neo-Nazi that narrated a lurid fantasy of race war. He referred to his attack as a “military action” and attended militia meetings. Contrary to media portrayals of him at the time, McVeigh wasn’t just some lone-wolf drifter or survivalist oddball. He was steeped in an ideology; he was motivated by a political movement.
Jeffrey Toobin’s “Homegrown” adds to this chorus, but where those other books contain a chapter on Oklahoma City, the entirety of Toobin’s book is given over to McVeigh and the ensuing trials. Toobin covered the legal proceedings for The New Yorker, and he admits that like other journalists he got caught up in “the trail of evidence presented in the courtroom,” instead of stepping back to grasp McVeigh’s “place in the broader slipstream of American history.”
Part of the reason, he suggests, lies with how the government decided to prosecute the case — or, more specifically, how Merrick Garland, the official sent by the Justice Department to supervise the case, decided to prosecute it. Garland was so intent on pruning away anything resembling “clutter” that “the idea took hold that the bombing was just about Tim McVeigh and Terry Nichols,” McVeigh’s co-conspirator.
The first half of the book recounts the events leading up to the bombing in Toobin’s unfussy prose. We read about McVeigh’s “troubled, but hardly extraordinary upbringing” near Buffalo — divorced parents (“his rage at his mother was intense”), a father whose job at a radiator plant became increasingly precarious. Toobin describes an arrogant, lonely kid who constantly deflected responsibility, loath to own up to his failures. By the time he met Nichols during basic training in 1988, McVeigh had already found the two things that would provoke in him a fanatical devotion: “The Turner Diaries” and guns.
McVeigh would go on to become a regular at gun shows, eventually cajoling Nichols into robbing a dealer so that they could fund their bombing plot. Oklahoma City would be their response to Ruby Ridge, to Waco, to the assault weapons ban of 1994. (McVeigh compared the ban to “the Cohen Act,” the gun control law in “The Turner Diaries.”) In other words, the federal government made them do it: McVeigh, who wanted to take credit for the attack while also wanting to be acquitted, at one point urged his legal team to pursue a “necessity defense” by arguing that the bombing was done to prevent greater harm.
“The argument was worse than nonsensical,” Toobin writes. “It was offensive.” McVeigh’s lawyers recognized as much. But all kinds of absurd ideas were entertained by the members of his legal team because they had an essentially unlimited budget, at government expense; the procedure-obsessed Garland wanted to pre-empt any criticism that McVeigh’s right to a robust defense had been compromised.
“Homegrown” repeatedly draws a “direct line” (as promised on the jacket copy) between the Oklahoma City bombing and the insurrection on Jan. 6; at multiple points Toobin interrupts his brisk narrative with some galumphing sentences reminding the reader of parallels that are glaringly obvious. The more intriguing parts of the book come from his descriptions of all the legal wrangling, much of it informed by 635 boxes of case files donated by Stephen Jones, McVeigh’s showboating attorney, to the University of Texas in 1999. Toobin describes how the lawyer and his client grew to dislike and mistrust each other. After McVeigh criticized Jones in “American Terrorist,” a book by two Buffalo News reporters, Jones claimed “a right to defend himself by disclosing his client’s confidences.”
Still, the lawyer who interests Toobin most is Garland — another point in the “direct line” between Oklahoma City and Jan. 6. Back then, Garland was a top official in the Justice Department; now, of course, he is the attorney general of the United States. Toobin, who interviewed Garland for the book, calls him “a reticent, cautious person” who was haunted by the “undignified spectacle” of the O.J. Simpson trial (which Toobin wrote a best-selling book about).
Vowing that the Oklahoma City trials would never devolve into silly theatrics, Garland wanted the case to hew as closely to McVeigh and Nichols as possible. So the prosecution “actively discouraged the idea that McVeigh and Nichols represented something broader — and more enduring — than just their own malevolent behavior,” Toobin writes. “This was a dangerously misleading impression.” It’s almost as if Toobin were addressing his book to Garland, as a cautionary tale, even if Garland’s legal strategy in Oklahoma ultimately proved successful: McVeigh was convicted on all counts and executed in June 2001; Nichols was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Besides, if Merrick Garland had sounded an alarm, would that really have had a transformative effect on the American public? Even Toobin has to concede that the 1990s felt like a very different time: “America was thriving, so how could McVeigh be anything except a regrettable oddity in this moment of national repose?” The fringe was still the fringe — it was too extreme, too weird, too atomized to coalesce into anything that could get its hands on actual power. Social media didn’t exist; Trump was still known primarily for his florid love life and gaudy casinos. Chilling what-ifs have since become routine facts in our warped reality: “McVeigh would talk about his belief that an ‘Army’ of fellow believers was somewhere out there, but he admitted that he never figured out how to reach them.”
HOMEGROWN: Timothy McVeigh and the Rise of Right-Wing Extremism | By Jeffrey Toobin | Illustrated | 418 pp. | Simon & Schuster | $29.99
https://www.thecity.nyc/housing/2023/5/3/23708172/signature-bank-mortgages-tenants-rent-stabilized-worst-landlords
How the Sale of Signature Bank’s Huge Mortgage Portfolio Could Change the Lives of NYC’s Tenants
As bidding goes on secretly, concerns grow over how new buyers will treat vulnerable rent-stabilized buildings.
By Rosalind Adams and Bianca Pallaro
May 3, 2023, 5:00am EDT
A building at 327 East 12th Street in the East Village where Signature Bank was a major lender — and conditions quickly deteriorated.
Late in March, Shanaya Ortiz, a 23-year-old student, woke up to the sound of a dozen fire trucks outside her apartment building in the Fordham section of the Bronx. Within minutes, 60 firefighters arrived, some charging up to the third floor to get the blaze under control.
While the Fire Department is still investigating the cause, it’s not surprising that she and other tenants suspected faulty wiring. The five-floor building has been cited for more than 2,400 housing code violations since 2010, a record so extreme it helped put the owner, Moshe Piller, on the New York City Public Advocate’s 100 worst landlords list.
“The apartment is full of roaches and mice. The radiator is leaking. The ceiling fell the other day,” Ortiz said, adding that her complaints were either ignored or led only to minor repairs that didn’t last. “It’s disgusting. It pisses me off,” she told THE CITY.
Who would lend money to a building like this, or to the landlord who owns it?
The answer will soon be revealed through a sale run by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation of the enormous mortgage portfolio of Signature Bank, which last month collapsed in the fourth largest bank failure in American history. The outcome is likely to influence the future of apartment buildings across the city.
On the auction block are loans covering nearly 3,000 buildings with more than 80,000 apartments — 80% of them containing units covered by the state’s rent-stabilization law, which regulates roughly 1 million mostly middle and working class apartments in New York City.
While the portfolio includes many stable, well-managed buildings that could emerge from the mortgage sale unaffected, it also includes hundreds of vulnerable properties like Piller’s at 4575 Park Avenue, and others whose value plummeted after a significant strengthening of the stabilization law in 2019 reduced the value of a key Signature investment strategy.
The bank was a go-to mortgagee for a third of the building owners on the New York City Public Advocate’s 100 worst landlords list, and their properties abound in housing violations and accumulated debt. Piller did not respond to THE CITY’s requests for comment.
An analysis by THE CITY shows that Piller and the other Signature landlords on the list own 411 buildings that had 15,299 open housing violations at the beginning of the year.
Likely to be at least as concerning for potential bidders are the scores of properties where the bank supported aggressive landlords who had aimed to remove apartments from rent stabilization restrictions and substantially increase their rents on the open market. The 2019 changes in the law closed off most of the routes for accomplishing this, depriving owners of the income they needed to profit, run their buildings and cover their mortgages.
“The building is not only not worth what they paid for it, but it might not even be worth the amount they owe the bank,” said Michael Weiser, president of GFI Realty, a real estate investment firm involved in the sale of billions of dollars of property around New York.
“Signature may have had a couple billion dollar problem. Now, the FDIC has a couple billion dollar problem.”
And tenants may have a problem as well. As the FDIC’s process unfolds, banking and real estate experts widely assume that the mortgages will sell at steep discounts and that the buyers are likely to profit handsomely from Signature’s misfortune.
But in the absence of any public detail about the process, speculation has been intense about almost every aspect of the sale, including its possible effects on tens of thousands of building residents. The winning bidders could be well-established banks interested in steady long-term returns from responsible landlords. But, given the bargain-bin possibilities, industry observers suggest that the auction could also attract buyers looking for faster and larger profits through landlords willing to squeeze already troubled buildings.
“Over the years, many buildings in The Bronx have suffered when mortgages fell into the wrong hands,” said Jim Buckley, the executive director of the University Neighborhood Housing Program (UNHP), a housing advocacy group, who cited the example of massive foreclosures in the late ‘80’s that negatively affected many buildings and families.
“That’s why so many of us are concerned about the future of the buildings in the Signature portfolio,” he added.
This leaves a fundamental question for government agencies: How hard should they press potential mortgage buyers to enforce basic housing standards in properties they finance? Tenant advocates want them to do so aggressively, but could that scare off prospective bidders wary of government intervention?
What the Numbers Say
To document the vast scope of Signature’s influence across New York’s four largest boroughs, THE CITY analyzed municipal property and financial records, visited a wide range of buildings with mortgages up for sale, and reviewed lawsuits and internal bank documents. The sale portfolio includes 2,939 multifamily buildings with an estimated listed market value of about $20 billion. More than half that value is in buildings with apartments covered by rent-stabilization.
The universe spans affluent neighborhoods like Greenwich Village, where one apartment in a Signature-financed building listed for nearly $13,000 a month, to communities in the South Bronx and central Brooklyn where tenants use government housing vouchers to pay for apartments that have fallen into extreme disrepair. The neighborhoods with the highest Signature presence are Bushwick and Williamsburg with more than 300 loans, Inwood and Washington Heights with 239, Central Brooklyn with 188 and Bronx Park and Fordham with 174.
THE CITY’s analysis also documents longstanding accusations that Signature repeatedly awarded loans to property owners notorious for long histories of violations and lawsuits. And it confirmed the bank’s well-known practice of basing mortgages not on a building’s current rent roll, but on what it could rise to if current tenants were replaced by higher paying ones. Removal of properties from rent regulation, though sharply curtailed in 2019, continues to be permissible under certain circumstances under the stabilization law.
THE CITY’s analysis of UNHP data detailed physical and financial indicators of distress in many of the Signature-financed buildings:
The portfolio racked up 63,787 open housing code violations as of Jan. 1. More than 80% of those were classified as “hazardous” or “immediately hazardous,” reflecting conditions required to be corrected quickly because they pose a threat to the life, health, or safety of tenants. Examples include the inadequate supply of heat and hot water, rodents, defective plumbing, or leak and mold affecting multiple apartments.
Forty-five Signature buildings were in such dire shape that over the last five years the city’s housing department included them on a list of the most severely distressed residential properties in the city. They were subjected to intense monitoring, and periodic inspections and fines, to force landlords to make repairs and address the unusually high number of violations per unit.
Almost 40% of Signature’s active loans were signed before 2019, when the state legislature tightened the provisions of the stabilization law in ways that undercut borrowers’ ability to repay the loans.
No change has hit the market — or Signature — as hard as the modifications made four years ago to New York’s rent regulations. In wealthier and gentrifying communities before 2019, Signature’s strategy often was to grant mortgages based not only on a building’s current rent roll, but on an estimate of what it could rise to if apartments were emptied, renovated and removed from stabilization. Landlords whose mortgages were based on anticipated rents often attempted to negotiate buyouts of longtime tenants. Sometimes they engaged in move-inducing harassment.
Contrasting the two banks that dominated the mortgage market for stabilized buildings — Signature and New York Community Bank — Weiser, of GFI Realty, said Signature leaned far more heavily toward higher mortgages based on anticipated turnover.
“New York Community was nowhere near as aggressive as Signature Bank,” said Weiser. “They were aggressive in their rate, but not necessarily in their proceeds,” he added, referring to the size of their mortgages.
Signature’s Strategy
When Signature Bank collapsed on March 12, it was in the shadow of the even bigger failure of Silicon Valley Bank. Both had lent to the crypto industry, and their depositors were fleeing in droves after the downfall of industry guru Sam Bankman-Fried. In a report released last Friday, the FDIC attributed Signature’s failure to a run on its deposits triggered by the collapse of SVB and an overreliance on uninsured deposits. (On Monday, a third bank, First Republic, collapsed and its assets were acquired by JP Morgan Chase.)
But at its heart, Signature’s business was rooted in lending to small- and medium-sized businesses, including landlords. Founded in 2001 by former executives of a bank that was acquired by HSBC, it sought to distinguish itself by emphasizing strong personal relationships with its clients.
“There was always one relationship that was unbreakable, and that was our banking relationship with Signature,” said Arak Lifshatz, a New York landlord and longtime client of the bank. “We would actually say no to certain loan deals that were advantageous to us because they required us to move the banking relationship” away from Signature.
The bank’s housing strategy was developed by George Klett, an executive at a competitor bank who was brought in to found Signature’s commercial real estate division in 2007 and went on to run the division for 10 years until his retirement.
Klett and his team built deep ties with landlords who owned large portfolios of buildings across New York, including rent-stabilized ones, he explained in an interview with THE CITY. In changing and more affluent neighborhoods, it was common for the bank to calculate the size of its mortgages on a building’s potential rent roll after apartments were vacated and renovated. Before the 2019 law, if the new rents topped $2,775 a month, that allowed the apartment to be removed from the stabilization program and opened the way for price hikes that in some neighborhoods doubled the old rent.
In poorer neighborhoods, like Fordham in The Bronx, where Piller’s Park Avenue building is, Klett said the strategy was similar, with an exception. Landlords could hike rents after a renovation, but often not enough for them to reach the threshold that would allow them to exit the stabilization program.
Klett said the bank would retain the portion of the mortgage based on the anticipated new rents until they were actually paid. “We would hold that money in reserve, and that wouldn’t be released until it was rented out,” he explained. “So we always had the cash flow to support the loan.”
From the bank’s perspective, landlords who renovated units improved the property and “created more value,” as Klett framed it. But the dynamic also created a natural incentive for landlords to empty out units and jack up rents in order to obtain larger mortgages — and they didn’t always use their loan money to make significant improvements.
Klett said there was no obligation to put mortgage money into the improvement of their buildings. “When they would refinance and take out the money, they could do whatever they want with it – often it was to buy another property,” he said.
That set up a dynamic where owners could use their mortgage money to buy new buildings rather than to fix up the one their loan was based on. They could also ignore repairs for another reason — to drive tenants to move.
The FDIC was aware of these practices. For a March 2022 performance evaluation of Signature Bank, examiners contacted community development organizations and took note of concerns about “bad landlords” who own deteriorating buildings and still are able to secure financing to purchase additional properties. “Such bad landlords also appear to engage in various forms of harassment tactics to encourage current tenants to move out, in order to move the properties to full market rent rates,” evaluators wrote in the report.
Mortgaging Mayhem
In one notorious instance in September 2015, Signature helped finance a deal with Rafael Toledano to acquire 16 rent-stabilized buildings in the East Village and Lower East Side. A plucky 25-year old at the time, Toledano bought the buildings for $97 million with $124 million of financing from Madison Realty Capital, a real estate private equity firm. Signature Bank acquired $70 million of the debt a year later, betting on Toledano and Madison Realty raising rents across the portfolio.
Georgia Christ, who had been living on East 12th Street for more than four decades before her building was snapped up in the deal, noticed the change in management immediately. Toledano offered buyouts to incentivize tenants to move out. But he wasn’t making any necessary repairs for the tenants who remained in the building, Christ alleged.
First, a sewer line cracked causing leaks in some apartments, she said. Then, there was a bedbug infestation. THE CITY substantiated Christ’s account of the conditions based on photos and complaint records.
“We went through some pretty horrific times with Rafael Toledano, with his gutting and getting rid of tenants,” said Christ.
Reached by phone, Toledano declined to comment.
According to the terms of the loan, Toledano had to repay the mortgages within just two years, rather than the usual five to 10 years. As Signature deliberated whether to buy a majority of the debt in the spring of 2016, an internal Signature memo filed in a court proceeding revealed that Toledano “intends to execute buyouts with as many rent regulated tenants as possible to bring the units to market.”
Exhibits in the case showed that Signature Bank estimated the rent roll of the portfolio could increase from $3.42 million to $4.78 million — about 40% higher. And if Toledano couldn’t make the mortgage payments and defaulted on his loans, this seemed safe to Signature, too — Madison Realty Capital “would have no problem foreclosing and or owning these assets,” a Signature Bank executive wrote in an email in April 2016.
While it’s legal for landlords to offer buyout deals to tenants, the aggressive terms of the loan meant that Toledano had to push out tenants as fast as possible in order to increase the rent roll and make his mortgage payments.
Tenants across his newly acquired buildings protested and collected evidence of neglect and harassment.
In March 2017, East Village Properties, LLC, the Toledano entity that managed the buildings, filed for bankruptcy, prompting the court case in which the internal Signature documents were revealed. Madison Realty Group took possession of the properties and one arm of the company, Silverstone Property Group, began managing the buildings.
While Silverstone submitted a plan to fix the property violations as part of the bankruptcy proceedings, it moved forward with plans to bring the units to market rate. Soon there was lots of construction to combine units into larger apartments, creating a cacophony of noise and dust and other problems, Christ recalled. Requests for comment left at Madison Realty Group offices went unanswered.
One positive seemed to come out of the experience. Following the outcries of tenants in Toledano’s buildings and in others around the city with similar problems, Signature agreed to follow a best practices protocol put forward by the nonprofit Association for Neighborhood & Housing Development (ANHD).
“Signature Bank’s policies discourage the extension of credit to overleveraged or highly speculative properties where economic viability is highly dependent on fostering tenant displacement,” the bank posted on its website at the time.
In practice, though, tenant organizers said, the bank did not fully comply. Signature “never went forward with implementing their commitment and pledge,” said Barika Williams, the executive director of ANHD.
Toledano, however, was sanctioned. Last January, state Attorney General Letitia James’s office secured a court victory banning him from engaging in real estate activity in New York for at least five years. Her investigation concluded that Toledano engaged in a pattern of fraudulent and illegal conduct that included harassing hundreds of tenants through coercive buyouts and illegal construction practices, and misrepresenting himself as a lawyer.
While tenants were wrestling with Signature over Toledano downtown, a landlord named Shaul Kopelowitz signed another Signature mortgage on a six-story building at 570 West 156th Street in Manhattan.
Today, the 56-unit building is among Signature-financed buildings that, according to a metric developed by UNHP, exhibit strong indications of physical and financial distress. At the end of last year, Kopelowitz’s property had 109 open housing code violations, including ones for leaks, visible mold, broken and defective plastered surfaces, and paint and mice infestations. More than half of these are classified by the city as hazardous or immediately hazardous. On top of that, as of Jan. 1, Kopelowitz owed the city nearly $300,000 in water bills for the building, according to a UNHP analysis of city liens and water and sewer charges.
It’s hard to see how he will pay this off. The annual net operating income of the building is only $338,835, according to landlord-provided expense figures filed with the city Department of Finance. Kopelowitz did not respond to several emails requesting comment.
Leaks drive up water consumption, and the 113-year-old building on West 156th St. is awash in them. “There has been leaking in my kitchen and a part of the ceiling came down because of the water piling up, and now there’s mold everywhere,” the first-floor tenant of a two-bedroom apartment, who declined to be named out of fear of retaliation, told THE CITY.
At best, another building tenant said, the repairs have been Band-Aids. “They just tried using mold-killer paint, and the leaking continued,” he said. “My fiance always describes the building as ‘putting makeup on a pig’.”
Kopelowitz owns 13 additional properties with Signature mortgages. Four of those have also been identified as in grave physical and financial distress by UNHP.
A Tough Environment
Before the bank collapse, filings with the FDIC showed that less than half of 1% of Signature’s apartment building mortgages had past due payments. But the sale of the portfolio comes as factors beyond the 2019 tightening of the law have thrown the rent-stabilized world into turbulence.
As part of the current landlord-tenant battle over how much rents will be allowed to rise in the next year, the city Rent Guidelines Board released a study using the most recent available data that found that building income declined by 9% between 2020 and 2021. Expenses increased more than 3% during that period, it concluded.
But tenants were encountering their own considerable financial squeeze at the same time. According to board research, 39.5% of rent-stabilized tenants spent more than half their income on rent, a figure that has increased over the years. Many other factors add to the swirl of economic pressure: Government payments to landlords that covered rental losses during the height of the COVID pandemic expired last year. Meanwhile, interest rates on new mortgages and loans have ballooned over the past year.
As the FDIC sale, which is being managed by the Newmark Group, a real estate giant, moves along behind closed doors, real estate professionals look for indications of how deep a discount the portfolio may sell for. Their thoughts often turn to the quality of Signature’s mortgages.
Some found significance in the fact that New York Community Bank, Signature’s chief competitor in the multifamily residential market, chose not to snap it up as it purchased billions in other Signature’s assets days after the collapse. In comments made at the time, Tom Cangemi, Community Bank’s CEO, said its decision was based on wanting to diversify its portfolio, but observers wondered whether there wasn’t more to it than that.
“The fact that a certain type of loan was left out of this deal creates a signal to the market that there’s something suspicious going on,” said Sehwa Kim, a professor at Columbia Business School who researches the regulations and standards of financial institutions. “Any reasonable market participant would suspect that these loans will possibly become troubled in the future.”
For Samuel Stein, a housing policy analyst at the Community Service Society, the place to look is in the repercussions on the pre-2019 Signature loans of the tightening of the stabilization law. “The loans were based on the idea that they would destabilize the properties,” he told THE CITY. “You can’t gamble on ever-rising rents and on the idea that the legislature will forever allow them to subvert rent stabilization.”
Still, that doesn’t mean that, if the price is right, the portfolio doesn’t offer attractive investment opportunities, real estate professionals agreed.
“Signature Bank focused on the stabilized market because it’s seen as a safe investment, there is high demand and not a lot of supply. They are not going to make billions, but they are not going to lose money either,” said Jay Martin, Executive Director of the Community Housing Improvement Program, a trade association for owners of rent-stabilized rental properties.
And they might do better than that. While the 2019 law boosted tenant protections, landlords still have at least one loophole that can be used to destabilize units: Vacant apartments that are refurbished and combined into larger apartments can be rented for market prices because they are considered new units.
Debbie Ciraolo watched her building at 220 W. 13th St. in Greenwich Village change after Leor Sabet bought it in January 2020, backed with financing from Signature Bank. In a similar playbook to Toledano’s, Sabet offered buyouts to longtime rent-stabilized tenants in a bid to combine units, Ciraolo, who has lived in the building since 1980, recalled.
Construction soon began to combine smaller apartments into larger apartments. But debris wasn’t properly contained, and electrical wiring was left exposed in the hallway, according to photos taken at the time and Department of Buildings records. The landlord was fined $850 in an administrative proceeding for doing electrical work without a permit.
Ciraolo wasn’t offered a buyout for her one-bedroom apartment but felt the pressure to leave. Her heat stopped working for days over the holidays in the winter, she said. She was frequently coughing from the dust and debris of the construction as workers tore down thick layers of drywall in the midst of the pandemic. And for months, she’s been unable to get her hot water fixed, records show.
“It’s gone from day to night,” she said, adding that under prior management, “Anything that needed to be fixed got fixed immediately.” With building management often unresponsive, she’s made nearly two dozen calls to 311 over the past years in a plea to get the basics fixed, records show.
Sabet did not reply to repeated requests for comment by THE CITY.
One of the recently reconfigured units in her building was listed for rent as high as nearly $13,000 a month, according to StreetEasy.
What Happens Next?
In a best-case scenario for tenants, some real estate professionals said, if the portfolio is sold at a big enough discount, the new owner of a Signature loan could pass off some of that markdown to property owners who owe them money. That would mean the landlord could pay off his debt at a lower price and wind up with more cash-on-hand that could be used on maintenance.
But the motivations of the possible mortgage buyers are a matter of speculation, as are concerns about whether an economic recession looms nationally and locally. Kim, the Columbia professor, pointed out that layoffs caused by any recession make it more difficult for people to pay their mortgages, which can lead to foreclosures.
“One major concern we should keep in mind is whether the real economy will be fine and whether layoffs will begin,” Kim said, adding that right now, “no one really knows whether that will happen or not.”
Public officials say they are watching how the sale develops closely.
“We are concerned that an irresponsible or untrusted buyer of this debt could prioritize displacement and disinvestment, further jeopardizing the stability of residents and their properties,” Rep. Ritchie Torres. (D-The Bronx) told THE CITY after he pressed the FDIC at a hearing of the House Committee on Financial Services to bar this kind of investor.
The FDIC subsequently released a statement saying that it planned to reach out to state and local government agencies as well as community-based organizations.
What this will mean in practice is also uncertain.
“We are monitoring this unfolding situation closely and investigating all tools, options and possibilities to ensure the best outcome for all New Yorkers,” said Ilana Meier, a spokesperson for the city Department of Housing Preservation and Development.
“While decisions regarding Signature Bank’s loans will ultimately be made by the FDIC, we will continue our ongoing conversations with them, as well as the State and the housing advocacy community.”
The housing agency did not respond to questions about how it will conduct a review of proposed buyers and whether it will retain industry experts to evaluate them, their business plans and the likely effect on the mortgaged buildings. The FDIC also did not answer specific questions about the process and directed reporters to its press releases.
Advocacy groups like ANHD are pressing to be included in the process. “We don’t want the portfolio to end up in the hands of people who are not invested in maintaining affordable and habitable homes,” said Williams, the executive director of the organization.
Among tenants who’ve locked horns with Signature landlords there’s a concern that goes a step further. If no one buys the Signature loans, “those buildings may go into foreclosure and then it might create another feeding frenzy of LLCs to purchase those properties,” said Georgia Christ, the longtime resident of one of the East Village buildings purchased by Toledano. “That breaks my heart.”
Several real estate experts interviewed by THE CITY said that for the right price everything ought to sell. Weiser, the president of GFI Reality put it succinctly:
“These loans will get sold and someone is going to make a lot of money on them.”
https://19thnews.org/2023/05/hillary-scholten-democrats-religious-white-christian-voters/
Rep. Hillary Scholten wants Democrats to reclaim faith, freedom and ‘compassionate conservatism’
The Michigan Democrat belongs to a Protestant denomination that’s part of a broader evangelical movement and thinks her 2022 win can be a blueprint as the share of Democrats who are Christians has dropped.
Grace Panetta
May 2, 2023, 11:43 a.m. ET
Shortly after being sworn in into Congress, first-term Rep. Hillary Scholten of Michigan took to the House floor. Republicans were trying to get through a bill they had promised to vote on quickly, one that would set new regulations for medical care for “a child who survives an abortion or an attempted abortion.“
Scholten introduced herself as a “pro-choice Christian who chose life,” referencing her personal experience with a “complex miscarriage.”
“I believe life is precious, but I reject the idea that if I embrace the sanctity of life, I also must be forced to invite the federal government to regulate it.” She quoted a Bible verse, Jeremiah 1:5, that conservatives frequently cite to argue against abortion.
“So often Christians will rely on that verse to say this means life begins at conception and therefore as a policy matter, abortion should be illegal,” Scholten said. “But what is often so missed about that is the emphasis on placing an individual in the care of the mother, and the elevation of the mother in that role.”
Scholten, a 41-year-old former immigration attorney, was elected to Michigan’s 3rd District on her second try in the 2022 midterms, making her the second woman and the first mother to represent Western Michigan in Congress.
She’s also a devout Christian and a member of the Christian Reformed Church, a Protestant denomination that falls within the broader evangelical Christian movement, at a time when White evangelicals overwhelmingly back the Republican Party and are playing a powerful role in driving the GOP’s agenda. But Scholten says that Democrats shouldn’t give the right a monopoly on faith and concede religious voters to the GOP ahead of 2024. She wants her party to take religious voters seriously, and thinks her district and her win in 2022 can provide a blueprint.
Scholten defeated Republican John Gibbs, an ex-Trump administration official who in the primary beat former Rep. Peter Meijer, who had voted for Trump’s impeachment. The race received national attention mainly due to Gibbs’ espousal of 2020 election denialism, embrace of conspiracy theories and history of inflammatory comments, including on abortion and women’s rights. But Scholten says her 13-point victory wasn’t just a rebuke of Republican extremism but a result of a “strong formula for success” for Democrats in historically conservative areas.
“You don’t win by that margin just because people are rejecting something on the other side,” she said in an interview. “We built something that attracted people to our message that they wanted to be a part of. If people were disgusted by what they saw in the Republican Party and didn’t see a good alternative on the other side, they would have just stayed home. But they didn’t.”
The United States enters the 2024 election cycle ever more polarized along religious lines, with White Christians making up a declining but powerful share of the GOP and the Democratic Party taking in much of the rising population of religiously unaffiliated voters. While many religious voters of color are staunch Democrats, Scholten still wants to carve out another path for her party of appealing to religious voters who may be traditionally conservative but are disillusioned with the modern Republican Party.
Scholten says many of the voters in her district fall into that category. The Christian Reformed Church has a strong foothold in West Michigan and Grand Rapids, making for a “fairly religious district” with higher-than-average shares of both White evangelical and mainline Protestants, said Corwin Smidt, a senior fellow at the Paul Henry Institute at Calvin University, a university and ministry of the Christian Reformed Church which is located in the district.
Western Michigan has long sent moderate Republican men to Congress who embodied “a tradition of compassionate conservatism,” as Scholten describes it, exemplified by former President Gerald Ford. After her first, unsuccessful run, the 3rd District was redrawn to take in more of Grand Rapids, making it friendlier territory for Democrats. And the Republican Party’s dramatic shift toward former President Donald Trump, embodied by Gibbs’ candidacy, gave many voters pause — and gave Scholten an opening.
“Over time, Republicans here have seen the Republican Party completely lose sight of the compassionate portion of that,” Scholten said. “In my district, my openness about my faith has been refreshing to a lot of people. They see what has happened to faith in politics on the other side, and they’ve been really really eager to see something new and different.”
Scholten is pushing her party to take devoutly religious voters seriously and not concede the faith and freedom lane to Republicans. She says her perspective as a devout person of faith is “deeply missing from the Democratic Party today.”
“Our biggest mistake has been completely giving up that lane of faith,” Scholten said. “That’s why I joke so often, ‘Just a reminder, people go to church.’ When I go to the prayer breakfast, it’s basically me, Lucy McBath and Ted Lieu who are the only ones there on the Democratic side. We just need to be engaging more on this issue — faith and freedom are so inextricably linked.”
Christians of color now constitute the largest subgroups within the Democratic Party. Black Protestants overwhelmingly vote Democratic and have far different views and priorities than White Protestants. But while the share of Americans overall identifying as White Christians has steadily declined, the fall has been particularly stark within the Democratic Party: Between 2006 and 2022, Christians went from making up 85 percent to 62 of the Democratic Party coalition, a 23-point drop, compared with just a nine-point decrease within the GOP, from 94 to 85 percent, according to the Pew Research Center and the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI).
The share of White evangelical Protestants within the Democratic coalition has plummeted from 17 percent in 2006 to 4 percent in 2022, making Scholten part of a shrinking minority.
Though just 14 percent of Americans identify as White evangelicals, they remain a powerful interest group “punching above their weight” in conservative politics in shaping both the political discourse and policy on LGBTQ+ issues and abortion rights, said Melissa Deckman, the CEO of PRRI.
Deckman said Democrats will face “strong headwinds” trying to win back White evangelicals at the national level but could gain ground among what she called the “neglected middle” of White non-evangelical Protestants and Catholics.
“I think you could pull off some religious voters who maybe are more of the swing constituency in presidential elections,” she said. “I just don’t see it happening with White evangelicals anytime soon.”
President Joe Biden, a practicing Catholic, has framed his reelection campaign on a message of bolstering economic and personal freedom. Religious Latinx voters are also a critical swing constituency in 2024. Both political parties will fight to win over Hispanic Catholics and Protestants, most of whom identify as independents or Democrats.
The state of Michigan, which Biden carried in 2020, will again be crucial to his chances of winning a second term. Both Scholten’s youth and population shifts within Michigan from the East to the West side of the state, Smidt said, could make her a key figure in Democratic politics for years to come.
“There’s a lot of opportunities for her — she could be a fairly unifying figure,” Smidt said. “I think she has a potentially bright future ahead of her.”
Scholten has linked faith and freedom with her advocacy for gun safety legislation and abortion rights in Congress, frequently invoking parental rights and the sanctity of life to argue against abortion restrictions.
Scholten believes above all, Democrats shouldn’t attempt to monopolize religious voters or to claim their political agenda best serves a particular religious end, but instead, make space within the party for all voters’ individual relationships with their faith.
“I think one way that Democrats have really gone astray is by responding to the Republican message of ‘this is what the Bible says we should do’ by saying, ‘no, this is what the Bible says we should do, it’s the exact opposite’ in trying to claim a political end for Jesus,” she said. “And I say all the time: Jesus was not a Republican or a Democrat. Nobody gets to claim him. He’s nobody’s Jesus, because he’s everybody’s.”
https://www.wired.com/story/the-untold-story-of-solarwinds-the-boldest-supply-chain-hack-ever/
By Kim Zetter
Backchannel
May 2, 2023 6:00 AM
The Untold Story of the Boldest Supply-Chain Hack Ever
The attackers were in thousands of corporate and government networks. They might still be there now. Behind the scenes of the SolarWinds investigation.
Steven Adair wasn’t too rattled at first.
It was late 2019, and Adair, the president of the security firm Volexity, was investigating a digital security breach at an American think tank. The intrusion was nothing special. Adair figured he and his team would rout the attackers quickly and be done with the case—until they noticed something strange. A second group of hackers was active in the think tank’s network. They were going after email, making copies and sending them to an outside server. These intruders were much more skilled, and they were returning to the network several times a week to siphon correspondence from specific executives, policy wonks, and IT staff.
Adair and his colleagues dubbed the second gang of thieves “Dark Halo” and booted them from the network. But soon they were back. As it turned out, the hackers had planted a backdoor on the network three years earlier—malicious code that opened a secret portal, allowing them to enter or communicate with infected machines. Now, for the first time, they were using it. “We shut down one door, and they quickly went to the other,” Adair says.
His team spent a week kicking the attackers out again and getting rid of the backdoor. But in late June 2020, the hackers somehow returned. And they were back to grabbing email from the same accounts. The investigators spent days trying to figure out how they had slipped back in. Volexity zeroed in on one of the think tank’s servers—a machine running a piece of software that helped the organization’s system admins manage their computer network. That software was made by a company that was well known to IT teams around the world, but likely to draw blank stares from pretty much everyone else—an Austin, Texas, firm called SolarWinds.
Adair and his team figured the hackers must have embedded another backdoor on the victim’s server. But after considerable sleuthing, they couldn’t find one. So they kicked the intruders out again and, to be safe, disconnected the server from the internet. Adair hoped that was the end of it. But the incident nagged at him. For days he woke up around 2 am with a sinking feeling that the team had missed something huge.
They had. And they weren’t the only ones. Around the time Adair’s team was kicking Dark Halo out of the think tank’s network, the US Department of Justice was also wrestling with an intrusion—one involving a server running a trial version of the same SolarWinds software. According to sources with knowledge of the incident, the DOJ discovered suspicious traffic passing from the server to the internet in late May, so they asked one of the foremost security and digital forensics firms in the world—Mandiant—to help them investigate. They also engaged Microsoft, though it’s not clear why. (A Justice Department spokesperson confirmed that this incident and investigation took place but declined to say whether Mandiant and Microsoft were involved. Neither company chose to comment on the investigation.)
According to the sources familiar with the incident, investigators suspected the hackers had breached the Justice Department server directly, possibly by exploiting a vulnerability in the SolarWinds software. The Justice Department team contacted the company, even referencing a specific file that they believed might be related to the issue, according to the sources, but SolarWinds’ engineers were unable to find a vulnerability in their code. After weeks of back and forth the mystery was still unresolved, and the communication between investigators and SolarWinds stopped. (SolarWinds declined to comment on this episode.) The department, of course, had no idea about Volexity’s uncannily similar hack.
As summer turned to fall, behind closed doors, suspicions began to grow among people across government and the security industry that something major was afoot. But the government, which had spent years trying to improve its communication with outside security experts, suddenly wasn’t talking. Over the next few months, “people who normally were very chatty were hush-hush,” a former government worker says. There was a rising fear among select individuals that a devastating cyber operation was unfolding, he says, and no one had a handle on it.
In fact, the Justice Department and Volexity had stumbled onto one of the most sophisticated cyberespionage campaigns of the decade. The perpetrators had indeed hacked SolarWinds’ software. Using techniques that investigators had never seen before, the hackers gained access to thousands of the company’s customers. Among the infected were at least eight other federal agencies, including the US Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and the Treasury Department, as well as top tech and security firms, including Intel, Cisco, and Palo Alto Networks—though none of them knew it yet. Even Microsoft and Mandiant were on the victims list.
After the Justice Department incident, the operation remained undiscovered for another six months. When investigators finally cracked it, they were blown away by the hack’s complexity and extreme premeditation. Two years on, however, the picture they’ve assembled—or at least what they’ve shared publicly—is still incomplete. A full accounting of the campaign’s impact on federal systems and what was stolen has never been provided to the public or to lawmakers on Capitol Hill. According to the former government source and others, many of the federal agencies that were affected didn’t maintain adequate network logs, and hence may not even know what all was taken. Worse: Some experts believe that SolarWinds was not the only vector—that other software makers were, or might still be, spreading malware. What follows is an account of the investigation that finally exposed the espionage operation—how it happened, and what we know. So far.
The Clue
0n November 10, 2020, an analyst at Mandiant named Henna Parviz responded to a routine security alert—the kind that got triggered anytime an employee enrolled a new phone in the firm’s multifactor authentication system. The system sent out one-time access codes to credentialed devices, allowing employees to sign in to the company’s virtual private network. But Parviz noticed something unusual about this Samsung device: It had no phone number associated with it.
She looked closely at the phone’s activity logs and saw another strange detail. The employee appeared to have used the phone to sign in to his VPN account from an IP address in Florida. But the person didn’t live in Florida, and he still had his old iPhone enrolled in the multifactor system. Then she noticed that the Samsung phone had been used to log in from the Florida IP address at the same time the employee had logged in with his iPhone from his home state. Mandiant had a problem.
The security team blocked the Samsung device, then spent a week investigating how the intruder had obtained the employee’s VPN username and password. They soon realized the issue transcended a single employee’s account. The attackers had pulled off a Golden SAML attack—a sophisticated technique for hijacking a company’s employee authentication system. They could seize control of a worker’s accounts, grant those accounts more privileges, even create new accounts with unlimited access. With this power, there was no telling how deep they had burrowed into the network.
On November 17, Scott Runnels and Eric Scales, senior members of Mandiant’s consulting division, quietly pulled together a top-tier investigative team of about 10, grabbing people from other projects without telling managers why, or even when the employees would return. Uncertain what the hunt would uncover, Runnels and Scales needed to control who knew about it. The group quickly realized that the hackers had been active for weeks but had evaded detection by “living off the land”—subverting administration tools already on the network to do their dirty deeds rather than bringing in their own. They also tried to avoid creating the patterns, in activity logs and elsewhere, that investigators usually look for.
The Mandiant team was facing a textbook example of a supply-chain hack—the nefarious alteration of trusted software at its source.
But in trying to outsmart Mandiant, the thieves inadvertently left behind different fingerprints. Within a few days, investigators picked up the trail and began to understand where the intruders had been and what they had stolen.
On Friday morning, November 20, Kevin Mandia, Mandiant’s founder and CEO, clicked out of an all-hands meeting with 3,000 employees and noticed that his assistant had added a new meeting to his calendar. “Security brief” was all it said. Mandia, a 52-year-old former Air Force intelligence officer who still sports taper-cut military hair two decades after leaving service, was planning to get an early start on the weekend, but he dialed into the call anyway. He expected a quick update of some kind. Five minutes into the conversation, he knew his weekend was shot.
Many of the highest-profile hacks of the past two decades have been investigated by Mandia’s firm, which he launched in 2004. Acquired by FireEye in 2013, and again last year by Google, the company has threat hunters working on more than 1,000 cases annually, which have included breaches at Google, Sony, Colonial Pipeline, and others. In all that time, Mandiant itself had never suffered a serious hack. Now the hunters were the hunted.
The intruders, Mandia learned, had swiped tools his company uses to find vulnerabilities in its clients’ networks. They had also viewed sensitive information identifying its government customers. As his team described how the intruders had concealed their activity, Mandia flashed back to incidents from the early days of his career. From 1995 to 2013, while in the Air Force Office of Special Investigations and in the private sector, he had observed Russian threat actors continuously testing systems, disappearing as soon as investigators got a lock on them. Their persistence and stealth made them the toughest adversaries he’d ever faced. Now, hearing about the activity inside his own network, he “started getting pattern recognition,” he later told a conference audience. The day after getting the unsettling news of the breach, he reached out to the National Security Agency (NSA) and other government contacts.
While Mandia conferred with the government, Charles Carmakal, the CTO of Mandiant Consulting, contacted some old friends. Many of the hackers’ tactics were unfamiliar, and he wanted to see whether two former Mandiant colleagues, Christopher Glyer and Nick Carr, had seen them before. Glyer and Carr had spent years investigating large, sophisticated campaigns and had tracked the notorious hackers of the SVR—Russia’s foreign intelligence agency—extensively. Now the two worked for Microsoft, where they had access to data from many more hacking campaigns than they had at Mandiant.
Carmakal told them the bare minimum—that he wanted help identifying some activity Mandiant was seeing. Employees of the two companies often shared notes on investigations, so Glyer thought nothing of the request. That evening, he spent a few hours digging into the data Carmakal sent him, then tapped Carr to take over. Carr was a night owl, so they often tag-teamed, with Carr passing work back to Glyer in the morning.
The two didn’t see any of the familiar tactics of known hacking groups, but as they followed trails they realized whatever Mandiant was tracking was significant. “Every time you pulled on a thread, there was a bigger piece of yarn,” Glyer recalls. They could see that multiple victims were communicating with the hackers Carmakal had asked them to trace. For each victim, the attackers set up a dedicated command-and-control server and gave that machine a name that partly mimicked the name a real system on the victim’s network might have, so it wouldn’t draw suspicion. When Glyer and Carr saw a list of those names, they realized they could use it to identify new victims. And in the process, they unearthed what Carmakal hadn’t revealed to them—that Mandiant itself had been hacked.
It was a “holy shit” moment, recalls John Lambert, head of Microsoft Threat Intelligence. The attackers weren’t only looking to steal data. They were conducting counterintelligence against one of their biggest foes. “Who do customers speed-dial the most when an incident happens?” he says. “It’s Mandiant.”
As Carr and Glyer connected more dots, they realized they had seen signs of this hack before, in unsolved intrusions from months earlier. More and more, the exceptional skill and care the hackers took to hide their tracks was reminding them of the SVR.
The Hunt
Back at mandiant, workers were frantically trying to address what to do about the tools the hackers had stolen that were designed to expose weak spots in clients’ defenses. Concerned that the intruders would use those products against Mandiant customers or distribute them on the dark web, Mandiant set one team to work devising a way to detect when they were being used out in the wild. Meanwhile, Runnels’ crew rushed to figure out how the hackers had slipped in undetected.
Because of the pandemic, the team was working from home, so they spent 18 hours a day connected through a conference call while they scoured logs and systems to map every step the hackers took. As days turned to weeks, they became familiar with the cadence of each other’s lives—the voices of children and partners in the background, the lulling sound of a snoring pit bull lying at Runnels’ feet. The work was so consuming that at one point Runnels took a call from a Mandiant executive while in the shower.
Runnels and Scales briefed Mandia daily. Each time the CEO asked the same question: How did the hackers get in? The investigators had no answer.
On December 8, when the detection tools were ready and the company felt it had enough information about the breach to go public, Mandiant broke its silence and released a blockbuster statement revealing that it had been hacked. It was sparse on details: Sophisticated hackers had stolen some of its security tools, but many of these were already public, and there was no evidence the attackers had used them. Carmakal, the CTO, worried that customers would lose confidence in the company. He was also anxious about how his colleagues would react to the news. “Are employees going to feel embarrassed?” he wondered. “Are people not going to want to be part of this team anymore?”
What Mandiant did not reveal was how the intruders got in or how long they had been in the company’s network. The firm says it still didn’t know. Those omissions created the impression that the breach was an isolated event with no other victims, and people wondered whether the company had made basic security errors that got it hacked. “We went out there and said that we got compromised by a top-tier adversary,” Carmakal says—something every victim claims. “We couldn’t show the proof yet.”
Mandiant isn’t clear about exactly when it made the first discovery that led it to the source of the breach. Runnels’ team fired off a barrage of hypotheses and spent weeks running down each one, only to turn up misses. They’d almost given up hope when they found a critical clue buried in traffic logs: Months earlier, a Mandiant server had communicated briefly with a mysterious system on the internet. And that server was running software from SolarWinds.
SolarWinds makes dozens of programs for IT administrators to monitor and manage their networks—helping them configure and patch a lot of systems at once, track performance of servers and applications, and analyze traffic. Mandiant was using one of the Texas company’s most popular products, a software suite called Orion. The software should have been communicating with SolarWinds’ network only to get occasional updates. Instead it was contacting an unknown system—likely the hackers’ command-and-control server.
Back in June, of course, Mandiant had been called in to help the Justice Department investigate an intrusion on a server running SolarWinds software. Why the pattern-matchers at one of the world’s preeminent security firms apparently didn’t recognize a similarity between the two cases is one of the lingering mysteries of the SolarWinds debacle. It’s likely that Runnels’ chosen few hadn’t worked on the Justice case, and internal secrecy prevented them from discovering the connection. (Mandiant declined to comment.)
Runnels’ team suspected the infiltrators had installed a backdoor on the Mandiant server, and they tasked Willi Ballenthin, a technical director on the team, and two others with finding it. The task before him was not a simple one. The Orion software suite consisted of more than 18,000 files and 14 gigabytes of code and data. Finding the rogue component responsible for the suspicious traffic, Ballenthin thought, would be like riffling through Moby-Dick for a specific sentence when you’d never read the book.
But they had been at it only 24 hours when they found the passage they’d been looking for: a single file that appeared to be responsible for the rogue traffic. Carmakal believes it was December 11 when they found it.
The file was a .dll, or dynamic-link library—code components shared by other programs. This .dll was large, containing about 46,000 lines of code that performed more than 4,000 legitimate actions, and—as they found after analyzing it for an hour—one illegitimate one.
The main job of the .dll was to tell SolarWinds about a customer’s Orion usage. But the hackers had embedded malicious code that made it transmit intelligence about the victim’s network to their command server instead. Ballenthin dubbed the rogue code “Sunburst”—a play on SolarWinds. They were ecstatic about the discovery. But now they had to figure out how the intruders had snuck it into the Orion .dll.
This was far from trivial. The Orion .dll file was signed with a SolarWinds digital certificate, which was supposed to verify that the file was legitimate company code. One possibility was that the attackers had stolen the digital certificate, created a corrupt version of the Orion file, signed the file to make it look authentic, then installed the corrupt .dll on Mandiant’s server. Or, more alarmingly, they might have breached SolarWinds’ network and altered the legitimate Orion .dll source code before SolarWinds compiled it—converting the code into software—and signed it. The second scenario seemed so far-fetched that the Mandiant crew didn’t really consider it—until an investigator downloaded an Orion software update from the SolarWinds website. The backdoor was in it.
The implication was staggering. The Orion software suite had about 33,000 customers, some of whom had started receiving the hacked software update in March. That meant some customers might have been compromised for eight months already. The Mandiant team was facing a textbook example of a software-supply-chain attack—the nefarious alteration of trusted software at its source. In a single stroke, attackers can infect thousands, potentially millions, of machines.
In 2017 hackers had sabotaged a software supply chain and delivered malware to more than 2 million users by compromising the computer security cleanup tool CCleaner. That same year, Russia distributed the malicious NotPetya worm in a software update to the Ukrainian equivalent of TurboTax, which then spread around the world. Not long after, Chinese hackers also used a software update to slip a backdoor to thousands of Asus customers. Even at this early stage in the investigation, the Mandiant team could tell that none of those other attacks would rival the SolarWinds campaign.
SolarWinds Joins the Chase
It was a Saturday morning, December 12, when Mandia called SolarWinds’ president and CEO on his cell phone. Kevin Thompson, a 14-year veteran of the Texas company, was stepping down as CEO at the end of the month. What he was about to hear from Mandia—that Orion was infected—was a hell of a way to wrap up his tenure. “We’re going public with this in 24 hours,” Mandia said. He promised to give SolarWinds a chance to publish an announcement first, but the timeline wasn’t negotiable. What Mandia didn’t mention was that he was under external pressure himself: A reporter had been tipped off about the backdoor and had contacted his company to confirm it. Mandia expected the story to break Sunday evening, and he wanted to get ahead of it.
Thompson started making calls, one of the first to Tim Brown, SolarWinds’ head of security architecture. Brown and his staff quickly confirmed the presence of the Sunburst backdoor in Orion software updates and figured out, with alarm, that it had been delivered to as many as 18,000 customers since the spring of 2020. (Not every Orion user had downloaded it.) Thompson and others spent most of Saturday frantically pulling together teams to oversee the technical, legal, and publicity challenges they faced. They also called the company’s outside legal counsel, DLA Piper, to oversee the investigation of the breach. Ron Plesco, an attorney at Piper and former prosecutor with forensic expertise, was in his backyard with friends when he got the call at around 10 pm.
Plesco beelined to his home office, arrayed with whiteboards, and started sketching out a plan. He set a timer for 20 hours, annoyed by what he felt was Mandia’s arbitrary deadline. A day was nowhere near enough to prepare affected customers. He worried that once SolarWinds went public, the attackers might do something destructive in customers’ networks before anyone could boot them out.
The attackers had infected thousands of networks but only dug deep into a tiny subset of them—about 100. The main goal appeared to be espionage.
The practice of placing legal teams in charge of breach investigations is a controversial one. It puts cases under attorney-client privilege in a manner that can help companies fend off regulatory inquiries and fight discovery requests in lawsuits. Plesco says SolarWinds was, from the start, committed to transparency, publishing everything it could about the incident. (In interviews, the company was mostly forthcoming, but both it and Mandiant withheld some answers on the advice of legal counsel or per government request—Mandiant more so than SolarWinds. Also, SolarWinds recently settled a class action with shareholders over the breach but still faces a possible enforcement action from the Securities and Exchange Commission, making it less open than it might otherwise be about events.)
In addition to DLA Piper, SolarWinds brought on the security firm CrowdStrike, and as soon as Plesco learned this, he knew he wanted his old friend, Adam Meyers, on the case. The two had known each other for decades, ever since they’d worked on incident response for a defense contractor. Meyers was now the head of CrowdStrike’s threat intelligence team and rarely worked investigations. But when Plesco texted him at 1 am to say “I need your help,” he was all in.
Later that Sunday morning, Meyers jumped on a briefing call with Mandiant. On the call was a Microsoft employee, who told the group that in some cases, the hackers were systematically compromising Microsoft Office 365 email accounts and Azure cloud accounts. The hackers were also able to bypass multifactor authentication protocols. With every detail Meyers heard, the scope and complexity of the breach grew. Like others, he also suspected the SVR.
After the call, Meyers sat down in his living room. Mandiant had sent him the Sunburst code—the segment of the .dll file that contained the backdoor—so now he bent over his laptop and began picking it apart. He would remain in this huddled position for most of the next six weeks.
A Second Backdoor
At solarwinds, shock, disbelief, and “controlled chaos” ruled those first days, says Tim Brown, the head of security architecture. Dozens of workers poured into the Austin office they hadn’t visited in months to set up war rooms. The hackers had compromised 71 SolarWinds email accounts—likely to monitor correspondence for any indication they’d been detected—so for the first few days, the teams communicated only by phone and outside accounts, until CrowdStrike cleared them to use their corporate email again.
Brown and his staff had to figure out how they had failed to prevent or detect the hack. Brown knew that whatever they found could cost him his job.
One of the team’s first tasks was to collect data and logs that might reveal the hackers’ activity. They quickly discovered that some logs they needed didn’t exist—SolarWinds didn’t track everything, and some logs had been wiped by the attackers or overwritten with new data as time passed. They also scrambled to see whether any of the company’s nearly 100 other products were compromised. (They only found evidence that Orion was hit.)
Around midmorning on Sunday, news of the hack began to leak. Reuters reported that whoever had struck Mandiant had also breached the Treasury Department. Then around 5 pm Eastern time, Washington Post reporter Ellen Nakashima tweeted that SolarWinds’ software was believed to be the source of the Mandiant breach. She added that the Commerce Department had also been hit. The severity of the campaign was growing by the minute, but SolarWinds was still several hours from publishing its announcement. The company was obsessing over every detail—a required filing to the Securities and Exchange Commission got so heavily lawyered that Thompson, the CEO, quipped at one point that adding a single comma would cost $20,000.
Around 8:30 that night, the company finally published a blog post announcing the compromise of its Orion software—and emailed customers with a preliminary fix. Mandiant and Microsoft followed with their own reports on the backdoor and the activity of the hackers once inside infected networks. Oddly, Mandiant didn’t identify itself as an Orion victim, nor did it explain how it discovered the backdoor in the first place. Reading Mandiant’s write-up, one would never know that the Orion compromise had anything to do with the announcement of its own breach five days earlier.
Monday morning, calls started cascading in to SolarWinds from journalists, federal lawmakers, customers, and government agencies in and outside the US, including president-elect Joe Biden’s transition team. Employees from across the company were pulled in to answer them, but the queue grew to more than 19,000 calls.
The US Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency wanted to know whether any research labs developing Covid vaccines had been hit. Foreign governments wanted lists of victims inside their borders. Industry groups for power and energy wanted to know whether nuclear facilities were breached.
As agencies scrambled to learn whether their networks used Orion software—many weren’t sure—CISA issued an emergency directive to federal agencies to disconnect their SolarWinds servers from the internet and hold off on installing any patch aimed at disabling the backdoor until the security agency approved it. The agency noted that it was up against a “patient, well-resourced, and focused adversary” and that removing them from networks would be “highly complex and challenging.” Adding to their problems, many of the federal agencies that had been compromised were lax about logging their network activity, which effectively gave cover to the hackers, according to the source familiar with the government’s response. The government “couldn’t tell how they got in and how far across the network they had gone,” the source says. It was also “really difficult to tell what they had taken.”
It should be noted that the Sunburst backdoor was useless to the hackers if a victim’s Orion server wasn’t connected to the internet. Luckily, for security reasons, most customers did not connect them—only 20 to 30 percent of all Orion servers were online, SolarWinds estimated. One reason to connect them was to send analytics to SolarWinds or to obtain software updates. According to standard practice, customers should have configured the servers to only communicate with SolarWinds, but many victims had failed to do this, including Mandiant and Microsoft. The Department of Homeland Security and other government agencies didn’t even put them behind firewalls, according to Chris Krebs, who at the time of the intrusions was in charge of CISA. Brown, SolarWinds’ security chief, notes that the hackers likely knew in advance whose servers were misconfigured.
But it soon became clear that although the attackers had infected thousands of servers, they had dug deep into only a tiny subset of those networks—about 100. The main goal appeared to be espionage.
The hackers handled their targets carefully. Once the Sunburst backdoor infected a victim’s Orion server, it remained inactive for 12 to 14 days to evade detection. Only then did it begin sending information about an infected system to the attackers’ command server. If the hackers decided the infected victim wasn’t of interest, they could disable Sunburst and move on. But if they liked what they saw, they installed a second backdoor, which came to be known as Teardrop. From then on, they used Teardrop instead of Sunburst. The breach of SolarWinds’ software was precious to the hackers—the technique they had employed to embed their backdoor in the code was unique, and they might have wanted to use it again in the future. But the more they used Sunburst, the more they risked exposing how they had compromised SolarWinds.
Through Teardrop, the hackers stole account credentials to get access to more sensitive systems and email. Many of the 100 victims that got Teardrop were technology companies—places such as Mimecast, a cloud-based service for securing email systems, or the antivirus firm Malwarebytes. Others were government agencies, defense contractors, and think tanks working on national security issues. The intruders even accessed Microsoft’s source code, though the company says they didn’t alter it.
In the Hot Seat
Victims might have made some missteps, but no one forgot where the breaches began. Anger against SolarWinds mounted quickly. A former employee claimed to reporters that he had warned SolarWinds executives in 2017 that their inattention to security made a breach inevitable. A researcher revealed that in 2018 someone had recklessly posted, in a public GitHub account, a password for an internal web page where SolarWinds software updates were temporarily stored. A bad actor could have used the password to upload malicious files to the update page, the researcher said (though this would not have allowed the Orion software itself to be compromised, and SolarWinds says that this password error was not a true threat). Far worse, two of the company’s primary investors—firms that owned about 75 percent of SolarWinds and held six board seats—sold $315 million in stock on December 7, six days before news of the hack broke, prompting an SEC investigation into whether they had known about the breach.
Government officials threatened to cancel their contracts with SolarWinds; lawmakers were talking about calling its executives into a hearing. The company hired Chris Krebs, CISA’s former head, who weeks earlier had been fired by President Donald Trump, to help navigate interactions with the government.
Meanwhile, Brown and his security team faced a mountain of work. The tainted Orion software was signed with the company’s digital certificate, which they now had to invalidate. But the same certificate had been used to sign many of the company’s other software products too. So the engineers had to recompile the source code for every affected product and sign those new programs with new certificates.
But they still didn’t know where the rogue code in Orion had come from. Malicious code could be lurking on their servers, which could embed a backdoor in any of the programs being compiled. So they ditched their old compilation process for a new one that allowed them to check the finished program for any unauthorized code. Brown says they were under so much stress to get the recompiled programs out to customers that he lost 25 pounds in three weeks.
While Brown’s team rebuilt the company’s products and CrowdStrike tried to figure out how the hackers got into SolarWinds’ network, SolarWinds brought on KPMG, an accounting firm with a computer forensics arm, to solve the mystery of how the hackers had slipped Sunburst into the Orion .dll file. David Cowen, who had more than 20 years of experience in digital forensics, led the KPMG team.
The infrastructure SolarWinds used to build its software was vast, and Cowen and his team worked with SolarWinds engineers through the holidays to solve the riddle. Finally, on January 5, he called Plesco, the DLA Piper attorney. A SolarWinds engineer had spotted something big: artifacts of an old virtual machine that had been active about a year earlier. That virtual machine—a set of software applications that takes the place of a physical computer—had been used to build the Orion software back in 2020. It was the critical puzzle piece they needed.
Forensic investigations are often a game of chance. If too much time has passed since a breach began, traces of a hacker’s activity can disappear. But sometimes the forensic gods are on your side and evidence that should be gone remains.
To build the Orion program, SolarWinds had used a software build-management tool called TeamCity, which acts like an orchestra conductor to turn source code into software. TeamCity spins up virtual machines—in this case about 100—to do its work. Ordinarily, the virtual machines are ephemeral and exist only as long as it takes to compile software. But if part of the build process fails for some reason, TeamCity creates a “memory dump”—a kind of snapshot—of the virtual machine where the failure occurred. The snapshot contains all of the virtual machine’s contents at the time of failure. That’s exactly what occurred during the February 2020 build. Ordinarily, SolarWinds engineers would delete these snapshots during post-build cleanup. But for some reason, they didn’t erase this one. If it hadn’t been for its improbable existence, Cowen says, “we would have nothing.”
In the snapshot, they found a malicious file that had been on the virtual machine. Investigators dubbed it “Sunspot.” The file had only 3,500 lines of code, but those lines turned out to be the key to understanding everything.
It was around 9 pm on January 5 when Cowen sent the file to Meyers at CrowdStrike. The CrowdStrike team got on a Zoom call with Cowen and Plesco, and Meyers put the Sunspot file into a decompiler, then shared his screen. Everyone grew quiet as the code scrolled down, its mysteries slowly revealed. This tiny little file, which should have disappeared, was responsible for injecting the backdoor into the Orion code and allowing the hackers to slip past the defenses of some of the most well-protected networks in the country.
Now the investigators could trace any activity related to Sunspot. They saw that the hackers had planted it on the build server on February 19 or 20. It lurked there until March, when SolarWinds developers began building an Orion software update through TeamCity, which created a fleet of virtual machines. Not knowing which virtual machine would compile the Orion .dll code, the hackers designed a tool that deployed Sunspot into each one.
At this point, the beauty and simplicity of the hack truly revealed itself. Once the .dll appeared on a virtual machine, Sunspot quickly and automatically renamed that legitimate file and gave its original name to the hackers’ rogue doppelgänger .dll. The latter was almost an exact replica of the legitimate file, except it contained Sunburst. The build system then grabbed the hackers’ .dll file and compiled it into the Orion software update. The operation was done in a matter of seconds.
Once the rogue .dll file was compiled, Sunspot restored the original name to the legitimate Orion file, then deleted itself from all of the virtual machines. It remained on the build server for months, however, to repeat the process the next two times Orion got built. But on June 4, the hackers abruptly shut down this part of their operation—removing Sunspot from the build server and erasing many of their tracks.
Cowen, Meyers, and the others couldn’t help but pause to admire the tradecraft. They’d never before seen a build process get compromised. “Sheer elegance,” Plesco called it. But then they realized something else: Nearly every other software maker in the world was vulnerable. Few had built-in defenses to prevent this type of attack. For all they knew, the hackers might have already infiltrated other popular software products. “It was this moment of fear among all of us,” Plesco says.
In the Government
The next day, January 6—the same day as the insurrection on Capitol Hill—Plesco and Cowen hopped on a conference call with the FBI to brief them on their gut-churning discovery. The reaction, Plesco says, was palpable. “If you can sense a virtual jaw drop, I think that’s what occurred.”
A day later they briefed the NSA. At first there were just two people from the agency on the video call—faceless phone numbers with identities obscured. But as the investigators relayed how Sunspot compromised the Orion build, Plesco says, more than a dozen phone numbers popped up onscreen, as word of what they’d found “rippled through the NSA.”
But the NSA was about to get another shock. Days later, members of the agency joined a conference call with 50 to 100 staffers from the Homeland Security and Justice Departments to discuss the SolarWinds hack. The people on the call were stumped by one thing: Why, when things had been going so well for them, had the attackers suddenly removed Sunspot from the build environment on June 4?
The response from an FBI participant stunned everyone.
The man revealed matter-of-factly that, back in the spring of 2020, people at the agency had discovered some rogue traffic emanating from a server running Orion and contacted SolarWinds to discuss it. The man conjectured that the attackers, who were monitoring SolarWinds’ email accounts at the time, must have gotten spooked and deleted Sunspot out of fear that the company was about to find it.
Callers from the NSA and CISA were suddenly livid, according to a person on the line—because for the first time, they were learning that Justice had detected the hackers months earlier. The FBI guy “phrased it like it was no big deal,” the attendee recalls. The Justice Department told WIRED it had informed CISA of its incident, but at least some CISA people on the call were responding as if it was news to them that Justice had been close to discovering the attack—half a year before anyone else. An NSA official told WIRED that the agency was indeed “frustrated” to learn about the incident on the January call. For the attendee and others on the call who hadn’t been aware of the DOJ breach, it was especially surprising, because, the source notes, in the months after the intrusion, people had been “freaking out” behind closed doors, sensing that a significant foreign spy operation was underway; better communication among agencies might have helped uncover it sooner.
Instead, says the person with knowledge of the Justice investigation, that agency, as well as Microsoft and Mandiant, surmised that the attackers must have infected the DOJ server in an isolated attack. While investigating it in June and July, Mandiant had unknowingly downloaded and installed tainted versions of the Orion software to its own network. (CISA declined to comment on the matter.)
The SVR Hackers
The discovery of the Sunspot code in January 2021 blew the investigation open. Knowing when the hackers deposited Sunspot on the build server allowed Meyers and his team to track their activity backward and forward from that time and reinforced their hunch that the SVR was behind the operation.
The SVR is a civilian intelligence agency, like the CIA, that conducts espionage outside the Russian Federation. Along with Russia’s military intelligence agency, the GRU, it hacked the US Democratic National Committee in 2015. But where the GRU tends to be noisy and aggressive—it publicly leaked information stolen from the DNC and Hilary Clinton’s presidential campaign—SVR hackers are more deft and quiet. Given various names by different security firms (APT29, Cozy Bear, the Dukes), SVR hackers are noted for their ability to remain undetected in networks for months or years. The group was very active between 2014 and 2016, Glyer says, but then seemed to go dark. Now he understood that they’d used that time to restrategize and develop new techniques, some of which they used in the SolarWinds campaign.
Investigators found that the intruders had first used an employee’s VPN account on January 30, 2019, a full year before the Orion code was compromised. The next day, they returned to siphon 129 source code repositories for various SolarWinds software products and grabbed customer information—presumably to see who used which products. They “knew where they were going, knew what they were doing,” Plesco says.
The hackers likely studied the source code and customer data to select their target. Orion was the perfect choice. The crown jewel of SolarWinds’ products, it accounted for about 45 percent of the company’s revenue and occupied a privileged place in customer networks—it connected to and communicated with a lot of other servers. The hackers could hijack those connections to jump to other systems without arousing suspicion.
Once they had the source code, the hackers disappeared from the SolarWinds network until March 12, when they returned and accessed the build environment. Then they went dark for six months. During that time they may have constructed a replica of the build environment to design and practice their attack, because when they returned on September 4, 2019, their movements showed expertise. The build environment was so complex that a newly hired engineer could take months to become proficient in it, but the hackers navigated it with agility. They also knew the Orion code so well that the doppelgänger .dll they created was stylistically indistinguishable from the legitimate SolarWinds file. They even improved on its code, making it cleaner and more efficient. Their work was so exceptional that investigators wondered whether an insider had helped the hackers, though they never found evidence of that.
Not long after the hackers returned, they dropped benign test code into an Orion software update, meant simply to see whether they could pull off their operation and escape notice. Then they sat back and waited. (SolarWinds wasn’t scheduled to release its next Orion software update for about five months.) During this time, they watched the email accounts of key executives and security staff for any sign their presence had been detected. Then, in February 2020, they dropped Sunspot into place.
On November 26, the intruders logged in to the SolarWinds VPN for the last time—while Mandiant was deep into its investigation. The hackers continued to monitor SolarWinds email accounts until December 12, the day Kevin Mandia called Kevin Thompson to report the backdoor. Nearly two years had passed since they had compromised SolarWinds.
The Legacy of the Hack
Steven adair, the Volexity CEO, says it was pure luck that, back in 2019, his team had stumbled on the attackers in a think tank’s network. They felt proud when their suspicion that SolarWinds was the source of the intrusion was finally confirmed. But Adair can’t help but rue his missed chance to halt the campaign earlier. “We were so close,” he says.
Mandiant’s Carmakal believes that if the hackers hadn’t compromised his employer, the operation might have gone undetected for much longer. Ultimately, he calls the SolarWinds hacking campaign “a hell of an expensive operation for very little yield”—at least in the case of its impact on Mandiant. “I believe we caught the attackers far earlier than they ever anticipated,” he says. “They were clearly shocked that we uncovered this … and then discovered SolarWinds’ supply chain attack.”
But given how little is still known publicly about the wider campaign, any conclusions about the success of the operation may be premature.
The US government has been fairly tight-lipped about what the hackers did inside its networks. News reports revealed that the hackers stole email, but how much correspondence was lost or what it contained has never been disclosed. And the hackers likely made off with more than email. From targeting the Departments of Homeland Security, Energy, and Justice, they could plausibly have accessed highly sensitive information—perhaps details on planned sanctions against Russia, US nuclear facilities and weapons stockpiles, the security of election systems, and other critical infrastructure. From the federal court’s electronic case-files system, they could have siphoned off sealed documents, including indictments, wiretap orders, and other nonpublic material. Given the logging deficiencies on government computers noted by one source, it’s possible the government still doesn’t have a full view of what was taken. From technology companies and security firms, they could have nabbed intelligence about software vulnerabilities.
More concerning: Among the 100 or so entities that the hackers focused on were other makers of widely used software products. Any one of those could potentially have become a vehicle for another supply chain attack of similar scale, targeting the customers of those companies. But few of those other companies have revealed what, if anything, the hackers did inside their networks. Why haven’t they gone public, as Mandiant and SolarWinds did? Is it to protect their reputations, or did the government ask them to keep quiet for national security reasons or to protect an investigation? Carmakal feels strongly that the SolarWinds hackers intended to compromise other software, and he said recently in a call with the press that his team had seen the hackers “poking around in source code and build environments for a number of other technology companies.”
What’s more, Microsoft’s John Lambert says that judging by the attackers’ tradecraft, he suspects the SolarWinds operation wasn’t their first supply chain hack. Some have even wondered whether SolarWinds itself got breached through a different company’s infected software. SolarWinds still doesn’t know how the hackers first got into its network or whether January 2019 was their first time—the company’s logs don’t go back far enough to determine.
Krebs, the former head of CISA, condemns the lack of transparency. “This was not a one-off attack by the SVR. This is a broader global-listening infrastructure and framework,” he says, “and the Orion platform was just one piece of that. There were absolutely other companies involved.” He says, however, that he doesn’t know specifics.
Krebs takes responsibility for the breach of government networks that happened on his watch. “I was the leader of CISA while this happened,” he says. “There were many people in positions of authority and responsibility that share the weight here of not detecting this.” He faults the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies for not putting their Orion servers behind firewalls. But as for detecting and halting the broader campaign, he notes that “CISA is really the last line of defense … and many other layers failed.”
The government has tried to address the risks of another Orion-style attack—through presidential directives, guidelines, initiatives, and other security-boosting actions. But it may take years for any of these measures to have impact. In 2021, President Biden issued an executive order calling on the Department of Homeland Security to set up a Cyber Safety Review Board to thoroughly assess “cyber incidents” that threaten national security. Its first priority: to investigate the SolarWinds campaign. But in 2022 the board focused on a different topic, and its second investigation will also not be about SolarWinds. Some have suggested the government wants to avoid a deep assessment of the campaign because it could expose industry and government failures in preventing the attack or detecting it earlier.
“SolarWinds was the largest intrusion into the federal government in the history of the US, and yet there was not so much as a report of what went wrong from the federal government,” says US representative Ritchie Torres, who in 2021 was vice-chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security. “It’s as inexcusable as it is inexplicable.”
At a recent conference, CISA and the US’s Cyber National Mission Force, a division of Cyber Command, revealed new details about their response to the campaign. They said that after investigators identified Mandiant’s Orion server as the source of that firm’s breach, they gleaned details from Mandiant’s server that allowed them to hunt down the attackers. The two government teams implied that they even penetrated a system belonging to the hackers. The investigators were able to collect 18 samples of malware belonging to the attackers—useful for hunting for their presence in infected networks.
Speaking to conference attendees, Eric Goldstein, the leader for cybersecurity at CISA, said the teams were confident that they had fully booted these intruders from US government networks.
But the source familiar with the government’s response to the campaign says it would have been very difficult to have such certainty. The source also said that around the time of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine last year, the prevailing fear was that the Russians might still be lurking in those networks, waiting to use that access to undermine the US and further their military efforts.
Meanwhile, software-supply-chain hacks are only getting more ominous. A recent report found that in the past three years, such attacks increased more than 700 percent.
This article appears in the June 2023 issue. Subscribe now.
Let us know what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor at mail@wired.com.