Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Bankinter » EVOBAN1777652813

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (EVOBAN1777652813)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-98
Company Score Before Incident792 / 1000
Company Score After Incident694 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBEREVOBAN1777652813
Type of Cyber IncidentBreach
ATTACK VECTORAPI Vulnerability
DATA EXPOSEDPersonal and financial data of...
INCIDENT DATE22/03/2024
STATUSConcluded

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Bankinter'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 Bankinter 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 Bankinter breach identified under incident ID EVOBAN1777652813.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Bankinter's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/bankinter, the number of followers: 114802, the industry type: Banking and the number of employees: 6439 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 792 and after the incident was 694 with a difference of -98 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 Bankinter and their customers.

On 18 April 2024, EVO Banco disclosed Data Breach issues under the banner "Spain’s AEPD Fines Bankinter €240,000 Over 2024 EVO Banco Data Breach".

Spain’s data protection authority (AEPD) has concluded its investigation into a 2024 cyberattack on EVO Banco, imposing a €240,000 fine on Bankinter after the lender absorbed EVO Banco through a merger.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Customer onboarding API, and exposing Personal and financial data of over 1.27 million individuals, with nearly 1.27 million records at risk, plus an estimated financial loss of €240,000 fine.

In response, and began remediation that includes API access control restoration, forensic analysis, and stakeholders are being briefed through Mandatory disclosures under GDPR Article 34 (ordered by AEPD).

The case underscores how Concluded, teams are taking away lessons such as Risks of inadequate API security, limitations of internal risk assessments for financial data, importance of access control testing in change management processes, and recommending next steps like Enhance API security controls, implement encryption for sensitive data, improve change management testing for access control vulnerabilities, and ensure timely breach notifications, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Mandatory disclosures under GDPR Article 34.

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 high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating aPI vulnerability introduced during a system migration in February 2024. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Unsecured Credentials: Credentials in Files (T1552.006) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating unencrypted personal data allowed unauthenticated queries to retrieve data. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating 1.27 million personal records accessed via vulnerable API endpoint and Data from Information Repositories (T1213) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating exposed names, national identity numbers, IBANs, employment details. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating attacker published data for 958 clients and 4 employees after ransom demand and Exfiltration Over Web Service (T1567) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating 5.47 million unauthenticated API requests processed between 23-27 March 2024. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Defacement: Internal Defacement (T1491.001) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating attacker advertised 1.3M customer database on Dark Web and Financial Theft (T1657) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating ransom demanded after exposing financial data (IBANs, income levels). Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (T1562.001) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating aPI access controls removed during system migration and Valid Accounts: Default Accounts (T1078.001) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating unauthenticated queries allowed via API vulnerability. 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 (90%)
Credential Access
Unsecured Credentials: Credentials in Files (70%)
Collection
Data from Local System (90%)
Data from Information Repositories (80%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (70%)
Exfiltration Over Web Service (60%)
Impact
Defacement: Internal Defacement (50%)
Financial Theft (80%)
Defense Evasion
Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (70%)
Valid Accounts: Default Accounts (60%)

Sources & References