Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Bath Fitter » BAT1770660011

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (BAT1770660011)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-56
Company Score Before Incident690 / 1000
Company Score After Incident634 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERBAT1770660011
Type of Cyber IncidentBreach
ATTACK VECTORSocial Engineering (Impersonation)
DATA EXPOSEDEmployee personal data
INCIDENT DATE08/02/2026
STATUSOngoing

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Bath Fitter'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 Bath Fitter 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 Bath Fitter breach identified under incident ID BAT1770660011.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Bath Fitter's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/bath-fitter, the number of followers: 22942, the industry type: Retail and the number of employees: 1560 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 690 and after the incident was 634 with a difference of -56 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 Bath Fitter and their customers.

Bath Fitter (National Bath Systems LLC) recently reported "Bath Fitter Partial Data Breach Lawsuit Over Employee Impersonation Incident", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

A federal court in Vermont has allowed key claims in a proposed class-action lawsuit against Bath Fitter (operating as National Bath Systems LLC) to proceed, following allegations that the company failed to protect an employee’s personal data from a breach.

The disruption is felt across the environment, and exposing Employee personal data.

Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.

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 Phishing: Spearphishing Link (T1566.002) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating attacker impersonated an IT support technician and Phishing: Spearphishing via Service (T1566.003) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating impersonated an IT support technician, potentially gaining access. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Unsecured Credentials: Private Keys (T1552.004) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating failed to protect an employee’s personal data from a breach and Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating impersonated an IT support technician, potentially gaining access. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating sensitive employee information potentially accessed and Data from Information Repositories (T1213) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating employee personal data compromised. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating data breach involving employee personal data. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Use Alternate Authentication Material: Application Access Token (T1550.001) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating impersonated an IT support technician and Masquerading (T1036) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating attacker impersonated an IT support technician. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating no details on the breach’s scope or specific data compromised and Data Manipulation: Stored Data Manipulation (T1565.001) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating potential access to sensitive employee information. 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 (60%)
Phishing: Spearphishing via Service (70%)
Credential Access
Unsecured Credentials: Private Keys (50%)
Valid Accounts (80%)
Collection
Data from Local System (70%)
Data from Information Repositories (60%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (50%)
Defense Evasion
Use Alternate Authentication Material: Application Access Token (60%)
Masquerading (80%)
Impact
Data Destruction (30%)
Data Manipulation: Stored Data Manipulation (40%)

Sources & References