Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (CAN1768223930)
The details regarding individual company incidents & reports gives you full view from every side.
Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis
Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis
- Timeline of Canopy Cancer Care'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 Canopy Cancer Care 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 Canopy Cancer Care breach identified under incident ID CAN1768223930.
The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Canopy Cancer Care's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/canopy-cancer-care, the number of followers: 801, the industry type: Hospitals and Health Care and the number of employees: 46 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 610 with a difference of -151 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 Canopy Cancer Care and their customers.
On 18 July 2025, Canopy Healthcare disclosed Data Breach issues under the banner "Canopy Healthcare Data Breach".
Canopy Healthcare, one of New Zealand’s largest private medical oncology providers, disclosed a data breach affecting patient and staff information six months after the incident occurred.
The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Administration systems, and exposing Patient records, passport details, bank account numbers, with nearly Small amount records at risk.
In response, and stakeholders are being briefed through Patients notified in December 2025.
The case underscores how Ongoing (unclear which individuals were impacted and what data was taken), with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Patients notified in December 2025.
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 to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating unauthorized access took place on 18 July 2025 and Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating accessed part of its administration systems. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified OS Credential Dumping (T1003) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating compromised patient records, passport details, bank account numbers and Unsecured Credentials (T1552) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating administration systems accessed by unauthorized party. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating attackers copied a limited set of administrative data and Data from Information Repositories (T1213) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating patient records, passport details, bank account numbers compromised. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating attackers copied a limited set of administrative data and Exfiltration Over Web Service (T1567) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating no evidence of data being leaked or published online. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating full scope of affected individuals remains unclear and Data Manipulation (T1565) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating unauthorized access to administration systems. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Indicator Removal (T1070) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating delayed disclosure of breach (6 months after incident) and Hide Artifacts (T1564) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating no evidence of data being leaked or published online. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.
Sources & References
- Canopy Cancer Care Rankiteo Cyber Incident Details: https://www.rankiteo.com/company/canopy-cancer-care/incident/CAN1768223930
- Canopy Cancer Care CyberSecurity Rating page: https://www.rankiteo.com/company/canopy-cancer-care
- Canopy Cancer Care Rankiteo Cyber Incident Blog Article: https://blog.rankiteo.com/can1768223930-canopy-healthcare-breach-july-2025/
- Canopy Cancer Care CyberSecurity Score History: https://www.rankiteo.com/company/canopy-cancer-care/history
- Canopy Cancer Care CyberSecurity Incident Source: https://dig.watch/updates/canopy-healthcare-data-breach
- Rankiteo A.I CyberSecurity Rating methodology: https://www.rankiteo.com/Images/rankiteo_algo.pdf
- Rankiteo TPRM Scoring methodology: https://static.rankiteo.com/model/rankiteo_tprm_methodology.pdf