Analyzing the Sanxenxo Ransomware Attack

Level 1: Surface

How Did the Breach Become Possible?

Key question:

What exposed the organization to initial compromise?

At the time of writing, public information has not confirmed the exact entry point used by the attackers. This uncertainty is important and should be documented rather than glossed over.

Based on well established ransomware patterns affecting municipalities, the likely exposure surfaces include:

• Phishing or social engineering emails targeting municipal staff
• Exposed remote access services such as RDP
• Weak or missing multi factor authentication
• Unpatched vulnerabilities in internet facing systems
• Misconfigured internal services reachable from user workstations

What matters at this level is not who the attacker was, but what made entry possible.

Avoiding vague explanations like “a cyberattack occurred” forces organizations to confront concrete exposure risks.

Level 2: Intrusion

How Was Access Gained and Expanded?

Key question:

Once inside, how did the attacker move?

The ransomware successfully encrypted internal municipal files, which tells us several things:

• The attacker gained execution capability inside the network
• Access was sufficient to reach shared resources or servers
• Some level of privilege escalation or credential reuse likely occurred

What remains unknown publicly:

• Whether stolen credentials were used
• Whether administrative privileges were obtained
• How much lateral movement occurred before encryption

Intrusion analysis focuses on capability, not just presence. Ransomware does not encrypt files accidentally. It requires preparation, access, and coordination.

Level 3: Persistence

Why Was the Attacker Not Removed?

Key question:

What allowed the attacker to remain undetected until damage occurred?

In this case, detection appears to have happened after encryption, when systems became unavailable.

This suggests potential defensive blind spots such as:

• Limited endpoint detection or behavioral monitoring
• Logging gaps that failed to highlight unusual access patterns
• Alerts that were not generated, noticed, or acted upon

Duration matters. The longer an attacker operates undetected, the more damage they can inflict.

Level 4: Impact

What Was Actually Compromised?

Key question:

What was lost, altered, or disrupted in reality?

Confirmed impacts include:

• Encryption of internal municipal documentation
• Disruption of administrative operations
• Temporary unavailability of certain internal systems

Not all services were affected. Some systems remained operational due to network separation, demonstrating that impact was limited rather than total.

Still unclear:

• Whether sensitive personal data was exfiltrated
• The full scope of affected systems
• The number of users or departments impacted

This level separates headline impact from technical reality.

Level 5: Response

How Did the Organization React?

Key question:

How was the breach detected, handled, and disclosed?

Publicly reported response actions include:

• Refusal to pay the ransom demand
• Engagement with law enforcement
• Coordination with national cybersecurity entities
• Recovery through backups rather than decryption keys

From a maturity perspective:

• Positive signals include existing backups and refusal to pay
• Open questions remain around speed of detection and internal response playbooks

Response quality often reveals more about an organization’s security posture than the breach itself.

Level 6: Root Cause

Why Was This Breach Inevitable?

Key question:

What systemic failure made this possible?

Root cause analysis goes beyond blaming a phishing email or a missing patch.

Likely contributing systemic factors include:

• Chronic underinvestment in municipal cybersecurity
• Legacy systems with limited security controls
• Inconsistent enforcement of authentication standards
• Security treated as an operational cost rather than critical infrastructure

Most ransomware incidents are symptoms, not surprises. They reflect accumulated technical debt and governance decisions made over years.

Level 7: Lessons and Patterns

What Does This Predict?

Key question:

What does this breach teach beyond itself?

From this incident, several broader patterns emerge:

• Municipalities remain prime ransomware targets due to constrained resources
• Network segmentation and backups reduce blast radius when implemented properly
• Detection still lags prevention in many public organizations

Looking forward, this breach reinforces a predictable trend. Unless cybersecurity maturity improves at the local government level, similar incidents will continue.

Why This Framework Matters

Breaches are often reported as isolated failures. They are not.

The CyberLeveling model treats incidents as progressions, enabling:

• Cross breach comparison
• Pattern recognition over time
• Institutional memory rather than one off reporting

By documenting uncertainty and updating analysis as new facts emerge, organizations move from reactive storytelling to structured understanding.

Final Thought

The Sanxenxo ransomware incident is not unique. What can be unique is what we learn from it.

When breaches are analyzed systematically, from surface exposure to long term lessons, they stop being just bad news and start becoming shared security knowledge.