Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » BdThemes Limited » BDT1786400621

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (BDT1786400621)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-19
Company Score Before Incident750 / 1000
Company Score After Incident731 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERBDT1786400621
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTORCompromised upstream infrastructure (remote JSON feed)
DATA EXPOSEDNA
INCIDENT DATE06/08/2026
STATUSOngoing (vulnerability unpatched as of report publication)

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of BdThemes Limited'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 BdThemes Limited 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 BdThemes Limited breach identified under incident ID BDT1786400621.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of BdThemes Limited's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/bdthemes, the number of followers: 2879, the industry type: Software Development and the number of employees: 19 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 750 and after the incident was 731 with a difference of -19 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 BdThemes Limited and their customers.

On 08 August 2024, BdThemes disclosed Supply-Chain Attack issues under the banner "BdThemes Supply-Chain Attack Compromises 350,000+ WordPress Sites".

A threat actor breached the upstream infrastructure of BdThemes, a developer of premium WordPress plugins, and injected malicious code into a remote JSON feed used by administrative dashboards.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting WordPress sites using BdThemes plugins.

In response, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Affected plugins pulled from WordPress.org on August 8.

The case underscores how Ongoing (vulnerability unpatched as of report publication).

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: Compromise Software Supply Chain (T1195.002) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including breached the upstream infrastructure of BdThemes, and injected malicious code into a remote JSON feed and Drive-by Compromise (T1189) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating exploited a cross-site scripting (XSS) vulnerability in the Biggop Library. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified Exploitation for Client Execution (T1203) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating malicious JavaScript executed in an administrator’s browser and JavaScript (T1059.007) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating replaced legitimate JSON responses with malicious JavaScript. Under the Persistence tactic, the analysis identified Create Account: Local Account (T1136.001) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating created rogue admin accounts and Server Software Component: Web Shell (T1505.003) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating installed a webshell (emer-run.php) disguised as a fake plugin. Under the Privilege Escalation tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts: Default Accounts (T1078.001) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating rogue admin accounts created with elevated privileges. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Masquerading: Match Legitimate Name or Location (T1036.005) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating webshell (emer-run.php) disguised as a fake plugin and Hide Artifacts: Hidden Files and Directories (T1564.001) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating manipulated database queries to hide the rogue accounts. Under the Command and Control tactic, the analysis identified Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols (T1071.001) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating malicious code injected into a remote JSON feed. 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: Compromise Software Supply Chain (90%)
Drive-by Compromise (80%)
Execution
Exploitation for Client Execution (90%)
JavaScript (90%)
Persistence
Create Account: Local Account (90%)
Server Software Component: Web Shell (90%)
Privilege Escalation
Valid Accounts: Default Accounts (90%)
Defense Evasion
Masquerading: Match Legitimate Name or Location (90%)
Hide Artifacts: Hidden Files and Directories (80%)
Command and Control
Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols (70%)

Sources & References