← Back to context

Comment by sehugg

13 hours ago

They had written authorization from the state court and verbal confirmation from state court officials. They didn't know there would be a pissing match between the judicial branch and the sheriff.

But afaik this wasn't a state courthouse; it's a county courthouse. Legally, obviously, the state has authority and they were in the right, but functionally this is really good advice: if you're doing a penetration test of a space, you functionally need to clear it with the people who are responsible for the security of that space, and whom you might encounter defending it.

Frankly, I would not have taken this gig unless you had verbal confirmation that the Sheriff knows about it and has signed off. If you're entering a red team situation where the State wants to assess the security of their county courthouses, but doesn't want the local authorities to know its happening because they don't trust them: That is not a situation you want to be in the middle of, they gotta sort that out.

  • This really depends on how a state structures this, but “county courthouse” is not necessarily a meaningful statement. The judiciary is a state function and it has been delegated to county for purposes of logistics. In larger states, each county gets to set its own court rules, fee schedules, etc. because it would be maddening otherwise. They still ultimately answer to the state judiciary.

    Iowa is small enough that it looks like the Iowa Judicial Branch just runs everything directly. Every county seat in Iowa has a courthouse, but the county probably doesn’t really have any control of it.

    My guess is that the sheriff had an ego and may not have wanted a finding against him.

  • If the goal is to test for vulnerabilities under real-world conditions, they probably should have bribed the sheriff to stay away.

  • Legally, obviously, the state has authority

    That’s not legally obvious. State v county control over courthouses creates fights over everything from Aesbestos to parking to security. The legal answers lie in state constitutional provisions that nobody ever reads and aren’t particularly helpful.