Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (ANY1783528011)
The details regarding individual company incidents & reports gives you full view from every side.
Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis
Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis
- Timeline of ANY.RUN's Cyber Attack 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 ANY.RUN 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 ANY.RUN breach identified under incident ID ANY1783528011.
The analysis begins with a detailed overview of ANY.RUN's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/any-run, the number of followers: 22119, the industry type: Computer and Network Security and the number of employees: 375 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 650 and after the incident was 630 with a difference of -20 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 ANY.RUN and their customers.
A newly reported cybersecurity incident, "Banana RAT Campaign Exposed: Malware Builder Generates Fresh Variants on Demand", has drawn attention.
A recent discovery by researcher Moises Cerqueira has uncovered a sophisticated upgrade to Banana RAT, a remote access trojan (RAT) linked to Brazilian banking fraud.
The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Windows systems (via malicious executables and scheduled tasks), and exposing Banking credentials, payment transaction data.
Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.
The case underscores how Ongoing (malware variants analyzed, IoCs published), teams are taking away lessons such as Banana RAT’s on-demand regeneration undermines blocklist-based defenses, highlighting the need for behavior-based detection and real-time monitoring of malware evolution, and recommending next steps like Monitor for IoCs (IPs: 198.245.53.26, 149.56.12.51, 104.21.39.172, 67.142.55; domains: c.windowns-cdn.com, testewin.com; files: Fatura-BtgPactual-22568.bat, msedgeupdate.txt, st.php.malw, payload_new.php.malw, c9dba5b0552d879be654.txt, MicrosoftEdgeUpdateCore.exe), Implement behavior-based detection to counter evasion techniques like randomized payloads and encrypted C2 channels and Enhance monitoring of WebSocket traffic and hashed subdomains for C2 communication.
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 (T1566) with moderate to high confidence (80%), with evidence including phishing (malicious batch files), and fatura-BtgPactual-22568.bat and Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including exposed backend server (198.245.53.26), and payload generator (servidor_completo_pool.py). Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified Command and Scripting Interpreter: PowerShell (T1059.001) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including ofuscador.py scrambled PowerShell commands, and randomized sequences, User Execution: Malicious File (T1204.002) with moderate to high confidence (80%), with evidence including malicious batch files (Fatura-BtgPactual-22568.bat), and vBS launcher, and Scheduled Task/Job: Scheduled Task (T1053.005) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including scheduled task (MicrosoftEdgeUpdateCore.exe), and system-level scheduled tasks. Under the Persistence tactic, the analysis identified Scheduled Task/Job: Scheduled Task (T1053.005) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including scheduled task tied to MicrosoftEdgeUpdateCore.exe, and system-level scheduled tasks and Boot or Logon Autostart Execution: Registry Run Keys / Startup Folder (T1547.001) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating randomized file names and folders for persistence. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Obfuscated Files or Information (T1027) with high confidence (95%), with evidence including ofuscador.py scrambled PowerShell commands, and randomized sequences, Masquerading (T1036) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including misspelled domain (c.windowns-cdn.com), and microsoftEdgeUpdateCore.exe, Indicator Removal: File Deletion (T1070.004) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating randomized file names and folders, and Hide Artifacts: Hidden Window (T1564.003) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating vBS launcher for execution. Under the Command and Control tactic, the analysis identified Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols (T1071.001) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including encrypted WebSocket channels, and cloudflare edge IPs (104.21.39.172, 67.142.55), Dynamic Resolution: Domain Generation Algorithms (T1568.002) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating hashed, machine-specific subdomains (testewin.com), and Proxy: External Proxy (T1090.002) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating cloudflare edge IPs (104.21.39.172, 67.142.55). Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Input Capture: Keylogging (T1056.001) with moderate to high confidence (80%), with evidence including stealing banking credentials, and rAT linked to Brazilian banking fraud and Credentials from Password Stores (T1555) with moderate to high confidence (70%), with evidence including banking credentials theft, and payment transaction hijacking. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating banking credentials, payment transaction data compromised and Screen Capture (T1113) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating rAT functionality (remote access trojan). Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including encrypted WebSocket channels, and fallback C2 IP (149.56.12.51). Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Resource Hijacking (T1496) with moderate to high confidence (70%), with evidence including payment transaction hijacking, and banking fraud and Data from Cloud Storage (T1530) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating potential access to financial systems. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.
Sources & References
- ANY.RUN Rankiteo Cyber Incident Details: https://www.rankiteo.com/company/any-run/incident/ANY1783528011
- ANY.RUN CyberSecurity Rating page: https://www.rankiteo.com/company/any-run
- ANY.RUN Rankiteo Cyber Incident Blog Article: https://blog.rankiteo.com/any1783528011-banana-rat-cyber-attack-may-2026/
- ANY.RUN CyberSecurity Score History: https://www.rankiteo.com/company/any-run/history
- ANY.RUN CyberSecurity Incident Source: https://cybersecuritynews.com/banana-rat-uses-exposed-payload-generator/
- Rankiteo A.I CyberSecurity Rating methodology: https://www.rankiteo.com/Images/rankiteo_algo.pdf
- Rankiteo TPRM Scoring methodology: https://static.rankiteo.com/model/rankiteo_tprm_methodology.pdf