Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Augusta Housing Authority » AUG1770774763

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (AUG1770774763)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-128
Company Score Before Incident761 / 1000
Company Score After Incident633 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERAUG1770774763
Type of Cyber IncidentRansomware
ATTACK VECTORNA
DATA EXPOSEDPersonal data, including full names,...
INCIDENT DATE08/02/2026
STATUSOngoing

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Augusta Housing Authority'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 Augusta Housing Authority 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 Augusta Housing Authority breach identified under incident ID AUG1770774763.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Augusta Housing Authority's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/augusta-housing-authority, the number of followers: 354, the industry type: Government Administration and the number of employees: 83 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 761 and after the incident was 633 with a difference of -128 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 Augusta Housing Authority and their customers.

On 09 February 2026, Augusta Housing Authority (AHA) disclosed Ransomware issues under the banner "Qilin Ransomware Attack Exposes Sensitive Data of Georgia Housing Authority Residents".

The Augusta Housing Authority (AHA), a Georgia-based agency serving over 15,000 low-income families including military veterans, has been targeted in a ransomware attack by the Russia-linked Qilin gang.

The disruption is felt across the environment, and exposing Personal data, including full names, addresses, payment amounts, employee payroll details, and medical benefit deductions.

In response, and stakeholders are being briefed through Limited (website banner acknowledging technical issues).

The case underscores how Ongoing.

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%), with evidence including attack threatening the organizations existence, and website operational but displaying technical issues and Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating employee payroll spreadsheet detailing medical benefit deductions exposed. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified User Execution: Malicious File (T1204.002) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating qilin ransomware gang deployed malware via RaaS model. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified OS Credential Dumping (T1003) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating employee payroll spreadsheet with medical benefit deductions exposed. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating utility Reimbursement Report listing full names, addresses, payment amounts and Data from Information Repositories (T1213) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating tax preparation agreement, expense reports, payroll spreadsheets exposed. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating data breach posted on Qilin’s dark web leak site and Exfiltration Over Web Service (T1567) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating leaked files include sensitive documents on dark web. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Encrypted for Impact (T1486) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating qilin ransomware attack targeting the organization and Defacement (T1491) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating website displays banner acknowledging technical issues. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Obfuscated Files or Information (T1027) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating qilin ransomware operates under RaaS model with affiliates and Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (T1562.001) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating technical issues banner on website suggests system disruption. 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%)
Valid Accounts (60%)
Execution
User Execution: Malicious File (70%)
Credential Access
OS Credential Dumping (60%)
Collection
Data from Local System (80%)
Data from Information Repositories (70%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (90%)
Exfiltration Over Web Service (70%)
Impact
Data Encrypted for Impact (80%)
Defacement (50%)
Defense Evasion
Obfuscated Files or Information (60%)
Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (50%)

Sources & References