Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Brinks Home » BRI1785435859

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (BRI1785435859)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-84
Company Score Before Incident761 / 1000
Company Score After Incident677 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERBRI1785435859
Type of Cyber IncidentBreach
ATTACK VECTORVishing (Voice Phishing)
DATA EXPOSEDCustomer and employee data, customer...
INCIDENT DATE12/07/2026
STATUSOngoing

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Brinks Home'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 Brinks Home 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 Brinks Home breach identified under incident ID BRI1785435859.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Brinks Home's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/brinks-home, the number of followers: 21048, the industry type: Consumer Electronics and the number of employees: 1402 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 761 and after the incident was 677 with a difference of -84 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 Brinks Home and their customers.

On 20 July 2024, Brinks Home disclosed Data Breach issues under the banner "Brinks Home Suffers Data Breach Following Vishing Attack by ShinyHunters".

Brinks Home, a leading residential security provider, disclosed a data breach after hackers infiltrated its systems via a Microsoft Entra voice phishing (vishing) attack.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Salesforce Contacts object, Care Cresta instance, and exposing Customer and employee data, customer support chat logs, with nearly 1.1 million+ (customer data), 4,000+ (employee PII), 3.8 million+ (chat logs) records at risk.

In response, teams activated the incident response plan, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Immediate incident response launched, and stakeholders are being briefed through Customer advisories issued about potential fraudulent messages.

The case underscores how Ongoing, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Warning about potential fraudulent messages exploiting the incident.

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: Vishing (T1566.004) with high confidence (95%), with evidence including microsoft Entra voice phishing (vishing) attack, and employee was tricked into completing an authentication process. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified User Execution: Malicious Link (T1204.001) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating employee was tricked into completing an authentication process. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Modify Authentication Process (T1556) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating microsoft Entra authentication process exploited via vishing and Valid Accounts (T1078) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating employee authentication process granted hackers access. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Information Repositories: Sharepoint (T1213.002) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating 1.1 million+ rows of customer data from Salesforce Contacts object and Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating 3.8 million+ customer support chat logs from Care Cresta instance. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including shinyHunters claimed to have stolen sensitive data, and data exfiltration confirmed. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Defacement: Internal Defacement (T1491.001) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating threat to leak the data as part of extortion and Data Manipulation: Transmitted Data Manipulation (T1565.002) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating potential fraudulent messages exploiting the incident. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Phishing: Vishing (95%)
Execution
User Execution: Malicious Link (80%)
Credential Access
Modify Authentication Process (90%)
Valid Accounts (90%)
Collection
Data from Information Repositories: Sharepoint (80%)
Data from Local System (70%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (90%)
Impact
Defacement: Internal Defacement (60%)
Data Manipulation: Transmitted Data Manipulation (50%)

Sources & References