1Password A.I CyberSecurity Scoring
1Password
Company Information
Website:https://1password.com/
Employees number:2,903
Number of followers:107,946
NAICS:541514
Industry Type:Computer and Network Security
Homepage:1password.com
1Password Risk Score (AI oriented)
Between 650 and 699
1PasswordComputer and Network Security
Updated:
14/05/2026
14/05/2026
670/1000
Weak
B
1Password Global Score (TPRM)
xxxx
1PasswordComputer and Network Security
Score locked

1PasswordWeak
Current Score
670B (WEAK)
01000
6 incidents
-15.75 avg impact
Incident timeline with MITRE ATT&CK tactics, techniques, and mitigations.
JUNE 2026
673
MAY 2026
688
Cyber Attack
01 May 2026 • 1Password
GitHub, PyPI and 1Password: 170 npm Packages Hijacked to Steal GitHub, AWS & Kubernetes Secrets
Large-Scale Supply Chain Attack Compromises 170+ npm Packages and PyPI Libraries
669
CRITICAL-19
PYPGIT1PA1778761827
Large-Scale Supply Chain Attack Compromises 170+ npm Packages and PyPI Libraries
Hackers have executed a sophisticated supply chain attack by infiltrating over 170 npm packages and two PyPI libraries, collectively downloaded more than 200 million times per week. The campaign, attributed to the resurfaced "Shai-Hulud" malware, steals developer and cloud credentials while exhibiting worm-like propagation across development ecosystems.
### Attack Mechanics
The malicious npm packages contain a hidden preinstall script that executes during installation, deploying a loader to fetch an obfuscated JavaScript payload. Unlike typical credential stealers, this malware modifies legitimate package code, injects malicious components, and republishes infected versions, turning compromised environments into new attack vectors.
The PyPI variant embeds a downloader in the import process, fetching a remote Python payload that targets cloud platforms, local systems, and developer tools. Both variants employ multi-layered obfuscation, including PBKDF2-SHA256 encryption and AES-256 runtime decryption, to evade detection.
### Initial Compromise & Propagation
The attack originated from a misconfigured GitHub Actions workflow, where attackers exploited untrusted forked code to execute within a privileged environment. Once inside CI/CD pipelines, the malware extracts GitHub Actions tokens, OIDC identity data, and npm publishing credentials, enabling large-scale package hijacking.
### Credential Theft & Exfiltration
The payload targets a broad range of sensitive data, including:
- GitHub tokens, Actions secrets, and npm credentials
- AWS, GCP, and Azure credentials (via environment variables, files, and metadata services)
- Kubernetes service account tokens and HashiCorp Vault secrets
- SSH keys, .npmrc files, shell history, and API keys
- Password manager data (1Password, Bitwarden)
Stolen data is exfiltrated through encrypted uploads to attacker-controlled servers, GitHub repositories, and decentralized networks (e.g., Session/Oxen). A notable indicator is commits authored by "[email protected]."
### Destructive Capabilities
The malware includes a "dead-man switch" a persistent service that monitors stolen GitHub tokens. If a token is revoked, the malware may trigger destructive actions, such as wiping the infected system. The PyPI variant can also deploy a second-stage payload capable of deleting entire Linux systems under certain conditions.
### Detection & Response
Security researchers at JFrog detected and blocked all malicious packages within 24 hours, but the incident highlights vulnerabilities in CI/CD trust mechanisms. The attack demonstrates how compromised build processes can turn verified pipelines into malware distribution channels, underscoring the need for stricter runtime monitoring and credential hygiene.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
MOTIVATION
IMPACT
DATA BREACH
REFERENCES
APRIL 2026
688
MARCH 2026
687
FEBRUARY 2026
702
Cyber Attack
01 Feb 2026 • 1Password
OpenClaw, Coinbase, MetaMask, 1Password and Ledger Live: Hackers Use Fake OpenClaw Installer to Steal Crypto Wallet and Password Manager Credentials
Hologram Infostealer Campaign Targets Crypto Wallets and Password Managers via Fake OpenClaw Installer
683
CRITICAL-19
METLED1PACOIOPE1778262200
New "Hologram" Infostealer Campaign Targets Crypto Wallets and Password Managers via Fake OpenClaw Installer
A sophisticated infostealer campaign, dubbed "Hologram," has been active since at least February 2026, targeting sensitive data stored in 250+ browser extensions tied to crypto wallets and password managers. The malware spreads via a fake installer for OpenClaw, a legitimate open-source AI assistant, hosted on a convincing typosquat domain (openclaw-installer[.]com), registered on March 9, 2026.
### How the Attack Works
1. Initial Infection
- Victims download OpenClaw_x64[.]7z, a 130MB Rust-based executable padded with fake documentation to evade antivirus scans and bypass sandbox upload limits.
- The dropper, named "Hologram" in its manifest, performs anti-analysis checks, including:
- Scanning for virtual machine BIOS strings and suspicious software libraries.
- Waiting for real mouse movement (automated sandboxes don’t trigger this).
- If checks pass, it disables Windows Defender, opens firewall ports, and downloads six modular components from an attacker-controlled Azure DevOps repository.
2. Credential Theft & Persistence
- The malware fetches a dynamic targeting list (hosted on Azure DevOps) covering:
- 201 crypto wallets (MetaMask, Phantom, Coinbase, Ledger Live, etc.).
- 49 password managers/authenticators (Bitwarden, LastPass, 1Password, Google Authenticator, etc.).
- The list is remotely updatable, allowing attackers to expand targets without recompiling the malware.
- Persistence mechanisms include:
- Registry autoruns.
- Windows logon hijacking.
- Scheduled tasks.
- Telegram-based droppers that survive even if the main implant is removed.
3. Evasive Infrastructure
- Command-and-control (C2) servers are never hardcoded instead, the malware retrieves them from Telegram channel descriptions, allowing rapid rotation if domains are blocked.
- Victim data (usernames, IPs, timestamps) is routed through Hookdeck, a legitimate webhook relay service, obscuring the attacker’s backend.
- Researchers observed infrastructure rotation during analysis, with domains and IPs changing before findings were published.
### Key Indicators of Compromise (IoCs)
- File Hashes: Multiple Rust-based droppers (e.g., `OpenClaw_x64[.]exe`, `svc_service[.]exe`) and secondary payloads (e.g., `onedrive_sync[.]exe`, `WinHealhCare[.]exe`).
- Domains:
- `openclaw-installer[.]com` (delivery).
- `hkdk.events` (C2 relay via Hookdeck).
- `dev.azure.com/sagonbretzpr` (payload staging).
- Hijacked Brazilian law firm domain (`frr.rubensbruno.adv.br`) and others.
- IPs: `193.202.84.14`, `45.55.35.48`, `188.114.97.3` (C2 beacons).
- Registry Keys & Paths:
- `HKLM\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon\Userinit` (logon hijack).
- `C:\Users\Public\` (stage-2 binary drop location).
- `%APPDATA%\Ledger Live` (targeted for wallet theft).
### Why This Campaign Stands Out
- Advanced Evasion: Uses Rust-based malware, in-memory .NET assembly loading (via `clroxide`), and Telegram for C2 rotation.
- Dynamic Targeting: The remote Git repository allows attackers to silently expand their target list without detection.
- Persistence: Multiple layers of registry, scheduled tasks, and Telegram-based backdoors ensure long-term access.
Researchers at Netskope Threat Labs identified this as a second, more advanced iteration of the campaign, following an earlier variant. The attack highlights the growing sophistication of infostealers, particularly in crypto and credential theft.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
MOTIVATION
IMPACT
DATA BREACH
REFERENCES
JANUARY 2026
702
DECEMBER 2025
703
NOVEMBER 2025
703
Vulnerability
18 Nov 2025 • 1Password
Perplexity
HashJack: Indirect Prompt Injection Exploit in AI-Powered Browsers
698
CRITICAL-5
PER3034930112625
Perplexity’s AI-powered browser Comet was exposed to HashJack, a critical indirect prompt injection vulnerability exploiting URL fragments (after the ‘#’ symbol) to execute hidden malicious instructions. The flaw allowed threat actors to bypass traditional security systems—such as server logs, network monitoring, and content security policies—by embedding deceptive prompts (e.g., callback phishing, data exfiltration, misinformation, malware guidance, medical harm, and credential theft) that appeared as legitimate AI-generated responses. Users were tricked into divulging sensitive financial/personal data, installing backdoors, or following harmful medical advice, all while the attack remained undetected due to client-side processing of URL fragments.Perplexity initially dismissed the report but later classified it as critical severity (P1), deploying fixes by November 18, 2025. The incident highlights systemic risks in AI browsers, where LLM susceptibility to prompt injection and flawed URL-handling design enable large-scale deception, financial fraud, and operational disruptions. The attack’s stealth and automation potential—particularly in agentic browsers—posed severe reputational, financial, and trust-based damages, with long-term implications for user safety and regulatory compliance.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
MOTIVATION
IMPACT
DATA BREACH
REFERENCES
OCTOBER 2025
721
Cyber Attack
07 Oct 2025 • 1Password
1Password
Phishing Campaign Targeting 1Password Users via Fake Breach Notifications
701
HIGH-20
1PA4132141100725
A sophisticated phishing campaign targeted employees of 1Password by exploiting the company’s own breach notification system. Attackers sent deceptive emails mimicking 1Password’s Watchtower alerts, falsely claiming the recipient’s master password had been exposed in a data breach. The goal was to trick employees into surrendering their vault credentials, which would grant cybercriminals full access to all stored logins, passwords, and sensitive data within the password manager. The attack nearly succeeded, with at least one employee almost falling victim before recognizing the fraud. Had credentials been compromised, the consequences could have been severe, potentially exposing corporate and customer secrets, financial records, and proprietary information stored in the password manager. The incident highlights the risks of social engineering targeting security-conscious organizations, where even well-trained employees can be manipulated through convincing impersonation tactics. While no actual breach occurred, the attempt underscores vulnerabilities in human trust mechanisms, particularly when attackers weaponize legitimate security features like breach notifications. The potential fallout—if successful—could have included internal data leaks, reputational damage, and erosion of customer trust in 1Password’s security guarantees.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
MOTIVATION
IMPACT
REFERENCES
SEPTEMBER 2025
720
AUGUST 2025
720
JULY 2025
719
OCTOBER 2023
751
Breach
01 Oct 2023 • 1Password
1Password
1Password Security Breach
693
MEDIUM-58
1PA175317124
1Password, a widely used password management platform adopted by more than 100,000 businesses, experienced a security breach when unauthorized individuals gained entry into its Okta ID management system.
Following a comprehensive examination, the company determined that there was no unauthorized access to user data stored within 1Password.
Promptly addressing the issue, they terminated the unauthorized activity, conducted a thorough investigation, and confirmed the absence of any compromise in their data or other critical systems, whether employee-oriented or user-centric.
According to 1Password, threat actors infiltrated their Okta tenant by utilizing a pilfered session cookie belonging to an IT employee.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
IMPACT
REFERENCES
FEBRUARY 2017
764
Breach
01 Feb 2017 • 1Password
1Password
Cloudbleed Security Flaw
706
CRITICAL-58
1PA637191123
Cloudflare was disclosing a lot of private data, including login passwords and authentication cookies.
Uber, Fitbit, 1Password, and OKCupid are just a few of the big names affected by the Cloudbleed security flaw in Cloudflare servers.
Because mobile apps are created with the same backends as browsers for HTTPS (SSL/TLS) termination and content delivery, they are likewise impacted by Cloudbleed.
The fact that Cloudflare directed Ormandy to the company's bug bounty programme and offered the expert a t-shirt as payment in lieu of cash is highly unusual.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
IMPACT
DATA BREACH
REFERENCES
Frequently Asked Questions
?
What is the current A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score for 1Password ??
What was 1Password's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in May 2026 ??
What was 1Password's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in April 2026 ??
What was 1Password's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in March 2026 ??
What was 1Password's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in February 2026 ??
What was 1Password's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in January 2026 ??
What was 1Password's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in December 2025 ??
What was 1Password's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in November 2025 ??
What was 1Password's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in October 2025 ??
What was 1Password's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in September 2025 ??
What was 1Password's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in August 2025 ??
What was 1Password's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in July 2025 ??
What is the average per-incident point impact on 1Password's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score over the past 12 months ??
Where can I access detailed records of all cyber incidents associated with 1Password ??
Where can I find a summary of the A.I Rankiteo Risk Scoring methodology ??
Where can I view 1Password's profile page on Rankiteo ??
How accurate is the A.I Rankiteo Risk Scoring methodology ?