Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Bublup » BUB1774902458

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (BUB1774902458)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-91
Company Score Before Incident765 / 1000
Company Score After Incident674 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERBUB1774902458
Type of Cyber IncidentBreach
ATTACK VECTORNA
DATA EXPOSEDPersonal data of approximately 22,000...
INCIDENT DATE30/06/2024
STATUSOngoing (assessment of breach scope)

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Bublup'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 Bublup 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 Bublup breach identified under incident ID BUB1774902458.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Bublup's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/bublupinc, the number of followers: 768, the industry type: Technology, Information and Internet and the number of employees: 20 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 765 and after the incident was 674 with a difference of -91 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 Bublup and their customers.

On 21 October 2024, Town of Apex, North Carolina disclosed Data Breach issues under the banner "Apex, NC, Recovers Stolen Data in Landmark Cybersecurity Case".

In July 2024, the town of Apex, North Carolina, suffered a cyberattack that potentially compromised the personal data of approximately 22,000 residents.

The disruption is felt across the environment, and exposing Personal data of approximately 22,000 residents, with nearly 22,000 records at risk.

In response, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Legal action to recover data, and began remediation that includes Assessment of breach scope, notification of affected individuals, while recovery efforts such as Data recovery via court order continue.

The case underscores how Ongoing (assessment of breach scope), teams are taking away lessons such as The incident highlights the growing challenges local governments face in protecting public data and the legal avenues available to reclaim compromised information, and recommending next steps like Strengthen cybersecurity measures in response to evolving threats, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Notification of affected individuals.

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 Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating attacker had stored the town’s data in the cloud storage service Bublup and Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating cyberattack that potentially compromised the personal data. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Steal Application Access Token (T1528) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating attacker had stored the town’s data in the cloud storage service Bublup. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Cloud Storage (T1530) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating attacker had stored the town’s data in the cloud storage service Bublup and Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating personal data of approximately 22,000 residents compromised. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Transfer Data to Cloud Account (T1537) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating attacker had stored the town’s data in the cloud storage service Bublup and Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating data breach impacting approximately 22,000 residents. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Hide Artifacts (T1564) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating preventing its exposure on the dark web. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating potentially compromised the personal data of approximately 22,000 residents. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Valid Accounts (60%)
Exploit Public-Facing Application (50%)
Credential Access
Steal Application Access Token (70%)
Collection
Data from Cloud Storage (90%)
Data from Local System (70%)
Exfiltration
Transfer Data to Cloud Account (90%)
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (60%)
Defense Evasion
Hide Artifacts (70%)
Impact
Data Destruction (40%)

Sources & References