Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Banco Bradesco » MASBRA1769236185

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (MASBRA1769236185)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-24
Company Score Before Incident772 / 1000
Company Score After Incident748 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERMASBRA1769236185
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTORLame nameserver delegation (Sitting Ducks)
DATA EXPOSEDUser metrics, device data, ad...
INCIDENT DATE30/09/2024
STATUSDisrupted by researchers

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Banco Bradesco'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 Banco Bradesco 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 Banco Bradesco breach identified under incident ID MASBRA1769236185.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Banco Bradesco's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/bradesco, the number of followers: 3611421, the industry type: Banking and the number of employees: 87598 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 772 and after the incident was 748 with a difference of -24 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 Banco Bradesco and their customers.

Victims (individuals) recently reported "Infoblox Researchers Hijack Malicious Push Notification Network via DNS Misconfiguration", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

Security researchers at Infoblox disrupted a large-scale malicious push notification operation by exploiting a DNS misconfiguration flaw known as 'lame nameserver delegation' (dubbed 'Sitting Ducks').

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Victim devices receiving malicious push notifications, and exposing User metrics, device data, ad delivery logs (unencrypted), with nearly 57 million+ logs records at risk, plus an estimated financial loss of $350 daily revenue (estimated from monitored domains).

In response, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Domain hijacking via DNS misconfiguration exploitation, and began remediation that includes Disruption of malicious push notification network.

The case underscores how Disrupted by researchers, teams are taking away lessons such as Risks of unmaintained DNS configurations and abandoned domains becoming targets for malicious campaigns. Organizations should audit nameserver delegations to prevent similar exploits, and recommending next steps like Audit nameserver delegations, monitor for DNS misconfigurations, and secure abandoned domains.

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 Acquire Infrastructure: Domains (T1583.001) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating abandoned domains misconfigured to use external nameservers and Compromise Infrastructure: Domains (T1584.001) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating lame nameserver delegation (Sitting Ducks) enabled domain hijacking. Under the Resource Development tactic, the analysis identified Acquire Infrastructure: DNS Server (T1583.002) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating external nameservers lacking proper records allowed domain claiming and Obtain Capabilities: Malware (T1588.001) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating malicious push notification network delivered 52M ads. Under the Command and Control tactic, the analysis identified Application Layer Protocol: DNS (T1071.004) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating dNS misconfiguration (lame nameserver delegation) exploited and Dynamic Resolution: Domain Generation Algorithms (T1568.002) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating abandoned domains repurposed for malicious campaigns. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Information Repositories (T1213) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating 57M+ logs intercepted containing user metrics, device data. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating unencrypted traffic from victim devices intercepted by researchers. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Defacement: Internal Defacement (T1491.001) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating ads mimicked Bradesco, MasterCard, Sparkasse, GCash and Adversary-in-the-Middle (T1471) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating duplicate notifications (140+/day) via traffic distribution systems. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Acquire Infrastructure: Domains (90%)
Compromise Infrastructure: Domains (80%)
Resource Development
Acquire Infrastructure: DNS Server (80%)
Obtain Capabilities: Malware (70%)
Command and Control
Application Layer Protocol: DNS (90%)
Dynamic Resolution: Domain Generation Algorithms (60%)
Collection
Data from Information Repositories (80%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (70%)
Impact
Defacement: Internal Defacement (80%)
Adversary-in-the-Middle (70%)

Sources & References