Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Charles Hunter Associates » CHA1782232955

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (CHA1782232955)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-67
Company Score Before Incident758 / 1000
Company Score After Incident691 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERCHA1782232955
Type of Cyber IncidentBreach
ATTACK VECTORNA
DATA EXPOSEDSocial Security numbers, financial account...
INCIDENT DATE21/04/2026
STATUSOngoing

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Charles Hunter Associates'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 Charles Hunter Associates 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 Charles Hunter Associates breach identified under incident ID CHA1782232955.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Charles Hunter Associates's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/charles-hunter-associates, the number of followers: 3478, the industry type: Staffing and Recruiting and the number of employees: 76 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 758 and after the incident was 691 with a difference of -67 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 Charles Hunter Associates and their customers.

On 15 June 2026, Hunter Associates disclosed Data Breach issues under the banner "Hunter Associates Data Breach Exposing Client Financial Information".

Hunter Associates, an independent wealth management firm based in Pittsburgh, disclosed a data breach that compromised sensitive personal and financial information of its clients.

The disruption is felt across the environment, and exposing Social Security numbers, financial account details.

In response, teams activated the incident response plan, and began remediation that includes Free identity protection services through IDX, and stakeholders are being briefed through Dedicated Incident Response Team, notifications via phone, email, and mail.

The case underscores how Ongoing, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Affected clients notified on June 15, 2026; enrollment in IDX services available until September 15, 2026.

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 breach occurred on April 22, 2026, but was not detected until May 29, 2026 and Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating compromised sensitive personal and financial information of its clients. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Modify Authentication Process (T1556) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating social Security numbers and financial account details exposed and Brute Force (T1110) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating undetected for over five weeks, suggesting possible credential abuse. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating social Security numbers and financial account details compromised. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating data breach exposing sensitive personal and financial information and Transfer Data to Cloud Account (T1537) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating high sensitivity of data suggests possible exfiltration to external storage. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating attack threatening the organizations existence and Stored Data Manipulation (T1565.001) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating high identity theft and payment information risk. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Indicator Removal (T1070) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating breach undetected for over five weeks and Hide Artifacts (T1564) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating no details on attack vector or vulnerability exploited. 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 (70%)
Exploit Public-Facing Application (50%)
Credential Access
Modify Authentication Process (60%)
Brute Force (50%)
Collection
Data from Local System (80%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (70%)
Transfer Data to Cloud Account (50%)
Impact
Data Destruction (40%)
Stored Data Manipulation (50%)
Defense Evasion
Indicator Removal (70%)
Hide Artifacts (60%)

Sources & References