Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » adidas » NIKADIUND1769229125

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (NIKADIUND1769229125)

The details regarding individual company incidents & reports gives you full view from every side.

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-99
Company Score Before Incident797 / 1000
Company Score After Incident698 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERNIKADIUND1769229125
Type of Cyber IncidentRansomware
ATTACK VECTORNA
DATA EXPOSEDCustomer details such as names,...
INCIDENT DATE31/10/2023
STATUSOngoing (Nike); Under Armour assessing impact

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of adidas's Ransomware and lateral movement inside company's environment.
  • Overview of affected data sets, including SSNs and PHI, and why they materially increase incident severity.
  • How Rankiteo’s incident engine converts technical details into a normalized incident score.
  • How this cyber incident impacts adidas Rankiteo cyber scoring and cyber rating.
  • Rankiteo’s MITRE ATT&CK correlation analysis for this incident, with associated confidence level.

Full Incident Analysis Transcript

In this Rankiteo incident briefing, we review the adidas breach identified under incident ID NIKADIUND1769229125.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of adidas's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/adidas, the number of followers: 4419566, the industry type: Sporting Goods and the number of employees: 89336 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 797 and after the incident was 698 with a difference of -99 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 adidas and their customers.

Nike recently reported "Nike and Under Armour Hit by Ransomware Attacks", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

Nike and Under Armour have become the latest high-profile victims of ransomware attacks, with cybercriminals leveraging extortion tactics to demand payments.

The disruption is felt across the environment, and exposing Customer details such as names, emails, and birthdates (Nike); email addresses (Under Armour), with nearly 72 million (disputed, likely a fraction) records at risk.

Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.

The case underscores how Ongoing (Nike); Under Armour assessing impact, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Nike: 'We always take consumer privacy and data security very seriously.' Under Armour: Confirmed breach but emphasized UA.com and payment systems remain unaffected.

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.

MITRE ATT&CK® Correlation Analysis

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 Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating adidas confirmed a breach via a third-party customer service provider, Trusted Relationship (T1199) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating adidas breach via third-party customer service provider, and Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating the North Face faced a credential-stuffing attack. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified User Execution: Malicious File (T1204.002) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating ransomware attacks typically involve extortion tactics. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Brute Force: Password Spraying (T1110.003) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating the North Face faced a credential-stuffing attack and Credentials from Password Stores (T1555) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating credential-stuffing attack implies reused credentials. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating customer details such as names, emails, and birthdates compromised. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating worldLeaks threatened to release stolen data unless ransom is paid and Exfiltration Over Web Service (T1567) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating ransomware groups pressure victims with public leaks. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Encrypted for Impact (T1486) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating ransomware attacks typically involve extortion tactics and Defacement: Internal Defacement (T1491.001) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating ransomware groups threaten to release stolen data. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Obfuscated Files or Information (T1027) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating ransomware attacks often involve encrypted payloads and Virtualization/Sandbox Evasion (T1497) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating ransomware groups leverage sophisticated evasion tactics. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Exploit Public-Facing Application (50%)
Trusted Relationship (60%)
Valid Accounts (70%)
Execution
User Execution: Malicious File (60%)
Credential Access
Brute Force: Password Spraying (70%)
Credentials from Password Stores (50%)
Collection
Data from Local System (80%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (90%)
Exfiltration Over Web Service (70%)
Impact
Data Encrypted for Impact (80%)
Defacement: Internal Defacement (50%)
Defense Evasion
Obfuscated Files or Information (60%)
Virtualization/Sandbox Evasion (50%)