Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » AutoAp, Inc. » KNIAUT1785947780

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (KNIAUT1785947780)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-58
Company Score Before Incident753 / 1000
Company Score After Incident695 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERKNIAUT1785947780
Type of Cyber IncidentBreach
ATTACK VECTORThird-party vendor compromise
DATA EXPOSEDPersonally identifiable information (PII) and...
INCIDENT DATE24/12/2025
STATUSpublished

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of AutoAp, Inc.'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 AutoAp, Inc. 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 AutoAp, Inc. breach identified under incident ID KNIAUT1785947780.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of AutoAp, Inc.'s information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/autoap-inc-, the number of followers: 184, the industry type: Information Services and the number of employees: 8 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 753 and after the incident was 695 with a difference of -58 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 AutoAp, Inc. and their customers.

On 03 August 2026, Knights of Columbus disclosed Data Breach issues under the banner "Knights of Columbus Data Breach Exposes Sensitive Member Information".

Knights of Columbus, a global Catholic fraternal benefit society offering life insurance and financial services, recently disclosed a data breach stemming from a third-party vendor, AutoAPS, a medical record retrieval services company.

The disruption is felt across the environment, and exposing Personally identifiable information (PII) and protected health information (PHI).

In response, and began remediation that includes Identity protection services, guidance on security freezes with credit bureaus, and stakeholders are being briefed through Public disclosure and advisories to affected individuals.

The case underscores how teams are taking away lessons such as Highlights the risks of third-party vendor vulnerabilities in handling sensitive data, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Guidance on placing security freezes with major credit bureaus (Experian, TransUnion, and Equifax).

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 Supply Chain Compromise (T1195) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including breach stemming from a third-party vendor, AutoAPS, and third-party vendor vulnerabilities in handling sensitive data. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Steal Application Access Token (T1528) with moderate to high confidence (70%), with evidence including medical record retrieval services company, and suspicious network activity on December 25, 2025 and OS Credential Dumping (T1003) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, financial details compromised. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), with evidence including pII and PHI compromised via third-party vendor, and medical records exposed and Data from Information Repositories (T1213) with moderate to high confidence (80%), with evidence including medical record retrieval services company, and protected health information (PHI) exposed. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (70%), with evidence including suspicious network activity detected, and data breach with undisclosed number of affected individuals and Transfer Data to Cloud Account (T1537) with moderate confidence (50%), with evidence including third-party vendor handling sensitive data, and no details on data exfiltration method. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating no details on malware or data destruction and Data Manipulation: Transmitted Data Manipulation (T1565.002) with lower confidence (40%), with evidence including high identity theft risk, and financial details compromised. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Supply Chain Compromise (90%)
Credential Access
Steal Application Access Token (70%)
OS Credential Dumping (60%)
Collection
Data from Local System (80%)
Data from Information Repositories (80%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (70%)
Transfer Data to Cloud Account (50%)
Impact
Data Destruction (30%)
Data Manipulation: Transmitted Data Manipulation (40%)

Sources & References