Mass. defense contractor Morse Corp. agrees to settle cybersecurity fraud case for $4.6 million
Cambridge-based defense contractor Morse Corp. has agreed to pay $4.6 million to resolve allegations that it failed to comply with cybersecurity requirements in its contracts with the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force.
The settlement resolves allegations that Morse Corp. submitted fraudulent claims for payment on contracts with the Army and Air Force, and that those claims were fraudulent because Morse knew it had not complied with those contracts' cybersecurity requirements, the U.S. Attorney said.
'Federal contractors must fulfill their obligations to protect sensitive government information from cyber threats,' U.S. Attorney Leah Foley said in a statement on Tuesday.
'We will continue to hold contractors to their commitments to follow cybersecurity standards to ensure that federal agencies and taxpayers get what they paid for, and make sure that contractors who follow the rules are not at a competitive disadvantage,' Foley said.
As part of the settlement, Morse admitted and accepted responsibility for the following, Foley said:
From January 2018 to September 2022, Morse used a third-party company to host the company's emails without requiring and ensuring that the third party met security requirements equivalent to the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program Moderate baseline and complied with the Department of Defense's requirements for cyber incident reporting, malicious software, media preservation and protection, access to additional information and equipment necessary for forensic analysis and cyber incident damage assessment;
The contracts required that Morse implement all cybersecurity controls in National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication (SP) 800-171, but from January 2018 to February 2023, Morse had not fully implemented all those controls, including controls that, if not implemented, could lead to significant exploitation of the network or exfiltration of controlled defense information and controls that could have a specific and confined effect on the security of the network and its data;
From January 2018 to January 2021, despite the contracts' system security plan requirement, Morse did not have a consolidated written plan for each of its covered information systems describing system boundaries, system environments of operation, how security requirements are implemented and the relationships with or connections to other systems;
In January 2021, Morse submitted to the Department of Defense a score of 104 for its implementation of the NIST SP 800-171 security controls. That score was near the top of the possible score range from -203 to 110. In July 2022, a third-party cybersecurity consultant notified Morse that its score was actually -142. Morse did not update its score in the Department of Defense reporting system until June 2023 — three months after the United States served Morse with a subpoena concerning its cybersecurity practices.
'We are pleased with today's settlement, which further demonstrates the resolve of the Department of the Army Criminal Investigation Division and our law enforcement partners to protect and defend the assets of the United States Army and Department of Defense,' Special Agent in Charge Keith Kelly, Department of the Army Criminal Investigation Division Fraud Field Office, said in a statement.
'We're committed to protecting the warfighter and maintaining the Army's operational readiness while holding those who engage in such acts accountable,' Kelly said.
'Failure to implement cybersecurity requirements can have devastating consequences, leaving sensitive DoD data vulnerable to cyber threats and malicious actors,' Special Agent in Charge William Richards of the Air Force Office of Special Investigations said in a statement.
Richards said his office 'alongside our investigative partners and the Department of Justice, will continue to combat fraud affecting the Department of the Air Force and hold those accountable that fail to properly safeguard sensitive defense information.'
'Protecting the integrity of Department of Defense procurement activities is a top priority for the DoD Office of Inspector General's Defense Criminal Investigative Service,' said Special Agent in Charge Patrick Hegarty, DCIS Northeast Field Office.
'Failing to comply with DoD contract specifications and cybersecurity requirements puts DoD information and programs at risk,' Hegarty said. 'We will continue to work with our law enforcement partners and the Department of Justice to investigate allegations of false claims on DoD contracts.'
The settlement resolves a lawsuit filed under the whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act, which permit private parties to sue on behalf of the government when they believe that a defendant has submitted false claims for government funds and receive a share of any recovery.
The settlement in this case provides for the whistleblower to receive an $851,000 share of the settlement amount, Foley said.
This is a developing story. Check back for updates as more information becomes available.
Download the FREE Boston 25 News app for breaking news alerts.
Follow Boston 25 News on Facebook and Twitter. | Watch Boston 25 News NOW
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
No Supreme Court win, but Mexico pressures U.S. on southbound guns
MEXICO CITY — More than a decade ago, Mexican authorities erected a billboard along the border in Ciudad Juárez, across the Rio Grande from El Paso. 'No More Weapons,' was the stark message, written in English and crafted from 3 tons of firearms that had been seized and crushed. It was a desperate entreaty to U.S. officials to stanch the so-called Iron River, the southbound flow of arms that was fueling record levels of carnage in Mexico. But the guns kept coming — and the bloodletting and mayhem grew. Finally, with homicides soaring to record levels, exasperated authorities pivoted to a novel strategy: Mexico filed a $10-billion suit in U.S. federal court seeking to have Smith & Wesson and other signature manufacturers held accountable for the country's epidemic of shooting deaths. The uphill battle against the powerful gun lobby survived an appeals court challenge, but last week the U.S. Supreme Court threw out Mexico's lawsuit, ruling unanimously that federal law shields gunmakers from nearly all liability. Although the litigation stalled, advocates say the high-profile gambit did notch a significant achievement: Dramatizing the role of Made-in-U.S.A. arms in Mexico's daily drumbeat of assassinations, massacres and disappearances. 'Notwithstanding the Supreme Court ruling, Mexico's lawsuit has accomplished a great deal,' said Jonathan Lowy, president of Global Action on Gun Violence, a Washington-based advocacy group. 'It has put the issue of gun trafficking — and the industry's role in facilitating the gun pipeline — on the bilateral and international agenda,' said Lowy, who was co-counsel in Mexico's lawsuit. A few hours after the high court decision, Ronald Johnson, the U.S. ambassador in Mexico City, wrote on X that the White House was intent on working with Mexico 'to stop southbound arms trafficking and dismantle networks fueling cartel violence.' The comments mark the first time that Washington — which has strong-armed Mexico to cut down on the northbound traffic of fentanyl and other illicit drugs — has acknowledged a reciprocal responsibility to clamp down on southbound guns, said President Claudia Sheinbaum. She hailed it as a breakthrough, years in the making. 'This is not just about the passage of narcotics from Mexico to the United States,' Sheinbaum said Friday. 'But that there [must] also be no passage of arms from the United States to Mexico.' Mexico is mulling options after the Supreme Court rebuff, Sheinbaum said. Still pending is a separate lawsuit by Mexico in U.S. federal court accusing five gun dealers in Arizona of trafficking weapons and ammunition to the cartels. Meanwhile, U.S. officials say that the Trump administration's recent designation of six Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations means that weapons traffickers may face terrorism-related charges. 'In essence, the cartels that operate within Mexico and threaten the state are armed from weapons that are bought in the United States and shipped there,' U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told a congressional panel last month. 'We want to help stop that flow.' On Monday, federal agents gathered at an international bridge in Laredo, Texas, before an array of seized arms — from snub-nosed revolvers to mounted machine guns — to demonstrate what they insist is a newfound resolve to stop the illicit gun commerce. 'This isn't a weapon just going to Mexico,' Craig Larrabee, special agent in charge of Homeland Security Investigations in San Antonio, told reporters. 'It's going to arm the cartels. It's going to fight police officers and create terror throughout Mexico.' In documents submitted to the Supreme Court, Mexican authorities charged that it defied credibility that U.S. gunmakers were unaware that their products were destined for Mexican cartels — a charge denied by manufacturers. The gun industry also disputed Mexico's argument that manufacturers deliberately produce military-style assault rifles and other weapons that, for both practical and aesthetic reasons, appeal to mobsters. Mexico cited several .38-caliber Colt offerings, including a gold-plated, Jefe de Jefes ('Boss of Bosses') pistol; and a handgun dubbed the 'Emiliano Zapata,' emblazoned with an image of the revered Mexican revolutionary hero and his celebrated motto: 'It is better to die standing than to live on your knees.' Compared with the United States, Mexico has a much more stringent approach to firearms. Like the 2nd Amendment, Mexico's Constitution guarantees the right to bear arms. But it also stipulates that federal law 'will determine the cases, conditions, requirements and places' of gun ownership. There are just two stores nationwide, both run by the military, where people can legally purchase guns. At the bigger store, in Mexico City, fewer than 50 guns are sold on average each day. Buyers are required to provide names, addresses and fingerprints in a process that can drag on for months. And unlike the United States, Mexico maintains a national registry. But the vast availability of U.S.-origin, black-market weapons undermines Mexico's strict guidelines. According to Mexican officials, an estimated 200,000 to half a million guns are smuggled annually into Mexico. Data collected by the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives illustrate where criminals in Mexico are obtaining their firepower. Of the 132,823 guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico from 2009 to 2018, fully 70% were found to have originated in the U.S. — mostly in Texas and other Southwest border states. In their lawsuit, Mexican authorities cited even higher numbers: Almost 90% of guns seized at crime scenes came from north of the border. Experts say most firearms in Mexico are bought legally at U.S. gun shows or retail outlets by so-called straw purchasers,who smuggle the weapons across the border. It's a surprisingly easy task: More than a million people and about $1.8 billion in goods cross the border legally each day, and Mexico rarely inspects vehicles heading south. In recent years, the flood of weapons from the United States has accelerated, fueling record levels of violence. Mexican organized crime groups have expanded their turf and moved into rackets beyond drug trafficking, including extortion, fuel-smuggling and the exploitation of timber, minerals and other natural resources. In 2004, guns accounted for one-quarter of Mexico's homicides. Today, guns are used in roughly three-quarters of killings. Mexican leaders have long been sounding alarms. Former President Felipe Calderón, who, with U.S. backing, launched what is now widely viewed as a catastrophic 'war' on Mexican drug traffickers in late 2006, personally pleaded with U.S. lawmakers to reinstate a congressional prohibition on purchases of high-powered assault rifles. The expiration of the ban in 2004 meant that any adult with a clean record could enter a store in most states and walk out with weapons that, in much of the world, are legally reserved for military use. 'Many of these guns are not going to honest American hands,' Calderon said in a 2010 address to the U.S. Congress. 'Instead, thousands are ending up in the hands of criminals.' It was Calderón who, near the end of his term, ventured to the northern border to unveil the massive billboard urging U.S. authorities to stop the weapons flow. His appeals, and those of subsequent Mexican leaders, went largely unheeded. The verdict is still out on whether Washington will follow up on its latest vows to throttle the gun traffic. 'The Trump administration has said very clearly that it wants to go after Mexican organized crime groups,' said David Shirk, a political scientist at San Diego University who studies violence in Mexico. 'And, if you're going to get serious about Mexican cartels, you have to take away their guns.' Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed to this report.
San Francisco Chronicle
3 hours ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Nordstrom is coming back to San Francisco — but not how you remember it
The move comes nearly two years after the retailer's dramatic departure from downtown San Francisco, where it closed both its flagship store at Westfield Mall and a nearby Nordstrom Rack in 2023. Unlike its full-scale department stores, the upcoming 1,648-square-foot Nordstrom Local, set to open at 1919 Fillmore St., will not carry traditional retail inventory. Instead, it will function as a neighborhood hub offering online order pickups, returns, tailoring and personal styling appointments. The space will feature eight dressing rooms, a styling suite, and customer amenities including same-day delivery — and even a glass of wine or beer during visits. 'We're welcoming Nordstrom back,' said Planning Commission President Lydia So during the hearing. 'And we're welcoming whoever else wants to come back — or those who never considered coming here because things are hard.' After months of debate and outreach, the commission approved the proposal in a 5–2 vote. Still, the decision was not without controversy. Several residents and small business owners voiced concern that the store would worsen traffic congestion and fail to align with the neighborhood's character. 'This will increase traffic and hurt small businesses,' wrote Sharon Esker, who has lived in the neighborhood since 1969. 'It is not a retail store and I would like a better alternative to this space.' Neighbor Ditka Reiner criticized the landlord's decision to lease to a national retailer, noting that 'chain stores typically contribute to rising rents that push out small, local, independent businesses that are the backbone of a city.' The storefront, previously home to Minted, has been vacant since the early days of the pandemic and has become a symbol of the city's broader commercial vacancy crisis. But support for the project also came from a number of Fillmore Street merchants. 'Nordstrom has long been a responsible and engaged member of San Francisco's business landscape,' wrote Molly Leonetti, president of local boutique Clare V. 'Their presence will not only bring new energy to Fillmore Street but also support the success of neighboring businesses, including ours.' Andrew Graham, vice president of sales at San Francisco-based Marine Layer, agreed. 'Their convenient services, from order pickups to alterations, will attract customers who are likely to explore and shop at nearby stores, further strengthening the local economy,' he wrote. The debate around Nordstrom's return underscores ongoing tensions in San Francisco's recovery, between attracting commercial tenants to fill empty storefronts and preserving the unique character of neighborhood retail corridors.
Business Insider
3 hours ago
- Business Insider
Real estate investors say mid-term rentals are the 'sweet spot,' offering a way around Airbnb red tape and more cash flow than long-term rentals
When the COVID pandemic erased virtually all of Zeona McIntyre's Airbnb bookings, she found a solution in mid-term rentals. "I was really open to doing whatever I needed to get my properties rented," the Colorado-based property investor told Business Insider. She started listing her properties on Furnished Finder, which is geared toward traveling professionals and specializes in 30-day plus stays, and was surprised by the hit rate and relative ease of the process. "I realized there are tons of people looking all the time for longer stays — and longer stays are kind of awesome because people don't need as much from you. They're OK to go buy their own toilet paper and change the batteries because they're living there." What started as an attempt to combat Airbnb vacancies evolved into her preferred rental strategy. "My bread-and-butter is these mid-term rentals," said McIntyre, who is the author of " 30-Day Stay." "I want a longer tenant in there, and I don't want to have to think about it for three months." Massachusetts-based investor Dana Bull also pivoted to mid-term rentals, but for a different reason: to withstand rising interest rates. The average 30-year fixed mortgage rate surged to 8% in 2023 and lingered in the 6s and 7s in 2024. Higher interest rates mean higher monthly payments, which can eat into an investor's cash flow. Bull has been renting to long-term tenants for more than a decade, but to make the numbers work on her most recent acquisition, a charming single-family home she found in 2023 and couldn't pass up, she turned to mid-term rentals, which she says are more time-intensive, but also more profitable. The 'sweet spot' of rentals Real estate investors tend to agree that, while long-term rentals can produce consistent, relatively passive income, these leases generate less revenue a month compared to short-term rentals. However, short-term rental properties present unique challenges, such as constant tenant turnover, managing multiple bookings, and ever-evolving country-specific rules and regulations. Then, there are mid-term rentals — or, the "sweet spot" of real-estate investing, according to McIntyre — which are properties listed for longer than 30 days but less than a year. In her experience, they're "a whole different vibe from short-term rentals and way less stressful." One major stressor she faced in hosting on Airbnb and VRBO was the evolving rules around permits and licenses. "Short-term rentals have been under scrutiny, and the ever-tightening regulations are constantly changing," she said. "But there is sort of this magic number that, as soon as a listing is over 30 days, these rentals get classified into a long-term rental bucket and then you don't have the extra taxes or have to have a short-term rental permit." That was a contributing factor in Manny Reyna's decision to incorporate mid-term rentals into his overall strategy. "Within San Antonio, you need an STR permit through the city," said Reyna, who rents two single-family homes and two tiny homes in the San Antonio metro. "The permit is $450 just to apply, and you have to pay county taxes and city taxes on the revenue. It's called a hotel tax, and it's really high." However, if you're listing a 30-day stay, "you don't necessarily have to worry about the STR taxes," said Reyna. "It's a little bit of a loophole, if you will. It's also a good middle ground, because the cash flow is higher than long-term rentals." That said, hosting mid-term stays will require upfront work. You're catering to a completely different customer, and leasing can be a challenge because mid-term rentals are less mainstream, explained Bull. "If you want a long-term rental, you know you're going to be on Zillow or work with a real-estate agent. If you want a short-term rental, you also have set channels: You have Airbnb, Vrbo." The equivalent for mid-term rentals is Furnished Finder, "but it's not very well known, and it's not nearly as big as something like Airbnb," she said. A hybrid approach While Reyna prefers mid-term tenants, he wants to cater to a broad customer base and still lists his properties on Airbnb, VRBO, Hipcamp, and Facebook Marketplace when there's a gap between mid-term tenants. "I try to do a shotgun approach to see who's going to bite first," he said. Seattle-based investor Peter Keane-Rivera also uses a hybrid model for his 70s-themed " Groovy Guest House," which he initially listed exclusively as a short-term vacation rental. He enjoys the work that goes into managing a short-term rental — "it does allow you to provide a unique service and really to have control over the quality of that service," he said — but offering 30-plus day stays will generate more consistent revenue during the slow season when people are traveling less. "In the summertime, it pulls in a lot — in June and July, I made almost $5,000 on a one-bedroom in the outskirts of Seattle," he said, referring to the Airbnb income. "But in the wintertime, there are lower margins. I'd rather get something closer to market rent rates, not have to worry about it for four to five months during the slowest seasons, and then spin it back up for spring, summer, and fall to maximize the return." Toggling between short- and mid-term rentals is "a real asset," he said, adding that if he expands to a second Airbnb unit, he'd use the same strategy. "For eight months out of the year, I'd run it as an Airbnb and then during the low season, run it as a mid-term rental."
