Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Anthropic » ANTGIT1775240707

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (ANTGIT1775240707)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-52
Company Score Before Incident510 / 1000
Company Score After Incident458 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERANTGIT1775240707
Type of Cyber IncidentBreach
ATTACK VECTORFake GitHub repositories, malicious executables
DATA EXPOSEDBrowser data, passwords, cryptocurrency wallets
INCIDENT DATE26/03/2026
STATUSOngoing (malicious repos removed, but payloads may evolve)

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Anthropic's Breach 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 Anthropic 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 Anthropic breach identified under incident ID ANTGIT1775240707.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Anthropic's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/anthropicresearch, the number of followers: 1898947, the industry type: Research Services and the number of employees: 3717 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 510 and after the incident was 458 with a difference of -52 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 Anthropic and their customers.

Anthropic recently reported "Hackers Exploit Claude Code Leak to Spread Vidar Infostealer and GhostSocks Malware", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

Cybercriminals leveraged the accidental leak of Anthropic’s Claude Code source code to distribute malware via fake GitHub repositories.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Infected machines repurposed as residential proxies, and exposing Browser data, passwords, cryptocurrency wallets.

In response, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like GitHub removed the offending account (dbzoomh).

The case underscores how Ongoing (malicious repos removed, but payloads may evolve), teams are taking away lessons such as Need for stricter source code access controls, rapid response to leaks, and enhanced monitoring of third-party repositories, and recommending next steps like Implement stricter access controls for sensitive code, monitor for unauthorized forks/repositories, educate employees on secure handling of proprietary code, and enhance threat detection for malware distribution via code leaks, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Users warned against downloading unofficial Claude-related executables or repositories.

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 Phishing: Spearphishing Link (T1566.001) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating fraudulent repos appeared on first page of Google search results for leaked Claude Code and Supply Chain Compromise: Compromise Software Dependencies and Development Tools (T1195.002) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating leveraging the recent accidental leak of Anthropic’s Claude Code source code. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified User Execution: Malicious File (T1204.002) with high confidence (95%), supported by evidence indicating malicious payload a Rust-built executable named ClaudeCode_x64.exe. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Credentials from Password Stores (T1555) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating vidar infostealer capable of harvesting browser data, passwords, and cryptocurrency wallets. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating vidar infostealer harvesting browser data, passwords, and cryptocurrency wallets. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating data exfiltration via Vidar infostealer. Under the Command and Control tactic, the analysis identified Proxy: Multi-hop Proxy (T1090.003) with moderate to high confidence (85%), supported by evidence indicating ghostSocks proxy malware repurposes infected machines into residential proxies. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Masquerading: Match Legitimate Name or Location (T1036.005) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating fake GitHub repositories falsely advertising unlocked enterprise features and Obfuscated Files or Information (T1027) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating rust-built executable named ClaudeCode_x64.exe. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Phishing: Spearphishing Link (90%)
Supply Chain Compromise: Compromise Software Dependencies and Development Tools (80%)
Execution
User Execution: Malicious File (95%)
Credential Access
Credentials from Password Stores (90%)
Collection
Data from Local System (90%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (80%)
Command and Control
Proxy: Multi-hop Proxy (85%)
Defense Evasion
Masquerading: Match Legitimate Name or Location (90%)
Obfuscated Files or Information (70%)