Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Cashea » YUMCAS1774291171

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (YUMCAS1774291171)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-44
Company Score Before Incident759 / 1000
Company Score After Incident715 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERYUMCAS1774291171
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTORNA
DATA EXPOSED29 million store records, 15,227...
INCIDENT DATE22/03/2026
STATUSpublished

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Cashea'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 Cashea 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 Cashea breach identified under incident ID YUMCAS1774291171.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Cashea's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/cashea, the number of followers: 770, the industry type: Financial Services and the number of employees: 597 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 759 and after the incident was 715 with a difference of -44 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 Cashea and their customers.

Cashea recently reported "Venezuela’s Cybersecurity Gap Exposed as Major Data Breaches Hit Cashea and Yummy", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

Venezuela’s rapidly growing fintech and tech sectors faced critical vulnerabilities after two major data breaches exposed systemic weaknesses in cybersecurity infrastructure.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Cashea BNPL platform, Yummy Rides service and BT Travel Solutions, and exposing 29 million store records, 15,227 partner business details, 79 million transaction histories, rider data, with nearly 29 million store records, 15,227 partner business details, 79 million transaction histories records at risk.

Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.

The case underscores how teams are taking away lessons such as Venezuela’s tech sector prioritizes consumer-facing innovation over foundational security, creating systemic vulnerabilities. The absence of unified consumer and business safeguards mirrors gaps seen in early-stage markets, and recommending next steps like Implement robust security layers, adopt frameworks from Brazil/Colombia/Mexico, invest in high-margin defensive solutions, and leverage cost-efficient technical talent for cybersecurity infrastructure.

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 Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190) with moderate confidence (60%), with evidence including systemic weaknesses in cybersecurity infrastructure, and prioritizing consumer-facing innovation over foundational security and Trusted Relationship (T1199) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating 15,227 partner business details compromised. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Unsecured Credentials (T1552) with moderate to high confidence (70%), with evidence including 79 million transaction histories exposed, and high payment information risk. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating 29 million store records, 15,227 partner business details compromised and Data from Information Repositories (T1213) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating 79 million transaction histories exposed. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating massive leak revealed by user @VecertRadar and Exfiltration Over Web Service (T1567) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating broader pattern of exploitation in fintech ecosystem. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating high identity theft risk and brand reputation impact and Stored Data Manipulation (T1565.001) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating 79 million transaction histories exposed. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Exploit Public-Facing Application (60%)
Trusted Relationship (50%)
Credential Access
Unsecured Credentials (70%)
Collection
Data from Local System (80%)
Data from Information Repositories (70%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (60%)
Exfiltration Over Web Service (50%)
Impact
Data Destruction (40%)
Stored Data Manipulation (50%)

Sources & References