Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Cellebrite » CELOPE1782411871

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (CELOPE1782411871)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-20
Company Score Before Incident745 / 1000
Company Score After Incident725 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERCELOPE1782411871
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTORPhysical access to device, Forensic tool exploitation
DATA EXPOSEDWhatsApp, Telegram, and Viber communications;...
INCIDENT DATE16/06/2021
STATUSCompleted (Citizen Lab, 2025)

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Cellebrite'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 Cellebrite 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 Cellebrite breach identified under incident ID CELOPE1782411871.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Cellebrite's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/cellebrite, the number of followers: 100903, the industry type: Public Safety and the number of employees: 1274 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 745 and after the incident was 725 with a difference of -20 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 Cellebrite and their customers.

Andrey Pivovarov recently reported "Russian Authorities Used Cellebrite Tools to Extract Data from Opposition Politician’s iPhone Despite Contract Termination", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

In June 2021, Russian security services deployed Cellebrite’s Universal Forensic Extraction Device (UFED) to breach the iPhone 12 of Andrey Pivovarov, former director of the pro-democracy nonprofit Open Russia, despite Cellebrite terminating its contracts with Russian authorit...

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting iPhone 12 and MacBook, and exposing WhatsApp, Telegram, and Viber communications; keyword searches for opposition figures.

In response, and stakeholders are being briefed through Public disclosure by Citizen Lab and Access Now.

The case underscores how Completed (Citizen Lab, 2025), teams are taking away lessons such as Cellebrite tools can be misused by state actors even after contract termination due to offline functionality. Extracted data may inform subsequent cyber operations against dissidents, and recommending next steps like Implement technical safeguards in forensic tools to prevent unauthorized use, Enhance human rights due diligence for exports and Monitor downstream misuse of extracted data, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Cellebrite urged to implement export controls and technical safeguards to prevent misuse.

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 Exploitation of Remote Services (T1210) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating forensic tool exploitation and Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating offline functionality of Cellebrite UFED tools. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified User Execution: Malicious File (T1204.002) with lower confidence (20%), supported by evidence indicating forensic traces of Cellebrite’s UFED. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Automated Collection (T1119) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating whatsApp, Telegram, and Viber communications targeted, Data from Local System (T1005) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating extracted data from iPhone 12 and MacBook, and Data from Information Repositories (T1213) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating keyword searches for opposition figures. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (T1552.001) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating extracted communications from messaging apps. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating data used to inform subsequent FSB operations and Exfiltration Over Physical Medium (T1052) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating devices confiscated and held until 2023. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating devices held without consent or passwords and Data Manipulation: Stored Data Manipulation (T1565.001) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating potential tampering flagged in 2025. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (T1562.001) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating offline functionality of UFED tools post-contract termination. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Exploitation of Remote Services (30%)
Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (40%)
Execution
User Execution: Malicious File (20%)
Collection
Automated Collection (90%)
Data from Local System (90%)
Data from Information Repositories (80%)
Credential Access
Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (70%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (80%)
Exfiltration Over Physical Medium (70%)
Impact
Data Destruction (30%)
Data Manipulation: Stored Data Manipulation (40%)
Defense Evasion
Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (60%)

Sources & References