23andMe Breach Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (23A4894348111825)

In this Rankiteo incident briefing, we review the 23andMe breach identified under incident ID 23A4894348111825.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of 23andMe's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/23andme, the number of followers: 80552, the industry type: Biotechnology Research and the number of employees: 633 employees

After the initial compromise, the video explains how Rankiteo's incident engine converts technical details into a normalized incident score. The incident score before the incident was 685 and after the incident was 291 with a difference of -394 which is could be a good indicator of the severity and impact of the incident.

In the next step of the video, we will analyze in more details the incident and the impact it had on 23andMe and their customers.

23andMe recently reported "23andMe Data Breach (2023)", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

23andMe was involved in a data breach in 2023 that compromised highly sensitive ancestry and genetic information of nearly 7 million users.

The disruption is felt across the environment, and exposing Ancestry Information, Chromosomal Haplogroups and Family Tree Uploads, with nearly 7,000,000 records at risk, plus an estimated financial loss of ['Class-Action Lawsuit Costs', 'Reputational Damage (Significant)'].

In response, teams activated the incident response plan, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Public Disclosure (Delayed) and Legal Defense Preparation, and stakeholders are being briefed through Initial Blame on Users and Later Acknowledgment of Breach Severity.

The case underscores how Ongoing (Class-Action Lawsuit in Progress), teams are taking away lessons such as Ethical data stewardship is critical for sensitive information like genetic data, Blame-shifting to users undermines trust and exacerbates reputational damage and Proactive cybersecurity measures (e.g., MFA, encryption) are essential for high-risk data, and recommending next steps like Implement robust authentication mechanisms (e.g., MFA) for user accounts, Enhance encryption for genetic and PII data storage/transmission and Establish clear ethical guidelines for data handling and ancillary use (e.g., research), with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Legal Teams, Regulatory Bodies and Ethics Review Boards.

Finally, we try to match the incident with the MITRE ATT&CK framework to see if there is any correlation between the incident and the MITRE ATT&CK framework.

The MITRE ATT&CK framework is a knowledge base of techniques and sub-techniques that are used to describe the tactics and procedures of cyber adversaries. It is a powerful tool for understanding the threat landscape and for developing effective defense strategies.

Rankiteo's analysis has identified several MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques associated with this incident, each with varying levels of confidence based on available evidence. Under the Initial Access tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts (T1078.004) with high confidence (95%), with evidence including compromised User Credentials (Credential Stuffing) under initial_access_broker.entry_point, and weak User Authentication listed as vulnerability_exploited and Brute Force: Password Guessing (T1110.001) with moderate to high confidence (85%), supported by evidence indicating credential Stuffing and Poor Password Practices listed under attack_vector. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (T1552.001) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating lack of Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) and Weak User Authentication vulnerabilities and Credentials from Password Stores: Credentials from Web Browsers (T1555.003) with moderate to high confidence (75%), supported by evidence indicating credential Stuffing attack vector implies reused credentials from other breaches. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating genetic Data, Ancestry Information, and Family Tree Data listed as compromised and Data from Information Repositories: Confluence (T1213.002) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating user Uploads and Family Tree Data suggest structured repository targeting. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Unencrypted/Obfuscated Non-C2 Protocol (T1048.003) with moderate to high confidence (85%), with evidence including dark Web Sales and Curated Lists by Ancestry under data_exfiltration, and data Exfiltration listed as motivation and Automated Exfiltration: Traffic Duplication (T1020.001) with moderate to high confidence (75%), supported by evidence indicating 7 million records exfiltrated suggests automated bulk data extraction. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating no direct evidence, but Reputational Damage and Legal Liabilities imply intentional harm, Data Encrypted for Impact (T1486) with lower confidence (10%), supported by evidence indicating no ransomware mentioned, but Extremely High Sensitivity of data suggests potential leverage, and Data Manipulation (T1659) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating curated Lists by Ancestry (Jewish, Chinese, etc.) suggests selective data organization for malicious use. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts (T1078.004) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating reused from Initial Access; Unauthorized Access via legitimate user credentials and Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (T1562.001) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating inadequate Data Protection Measures and delayed detection imply evasion of monitoring. Under the Reconnaissance tactic, the analysis identified Gather Victim Identity Information: Credentials (T1590.005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating credential Stuffing suggests prior reconnaissance for valid credentials and Gather Victim Host Information: Software (T1592.002) with moderate confidence (65%), supported by evidence indicating targeting of User Uploads and Genetic Reports implies knowledge of 23andMe’s data structure. Under the Lateral Movement tactic, the analysis identified Account Discovery: Domain Account (T1087.002) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating access to 7M records suggests movement beyond initial compromised accounts. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.