Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » ChipSoft Nederland » CHI1782225432

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (CHI1782225432)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-30
Company Score Before Incident684 / 1000
Company Score After Incident654 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERCHI1782225432
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTORNA
DATA EXPOSEDTrue
INCIDENT DATE31/01/2026
STATUSpublished

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of ChipSoft Nederland'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 ChipSoft Nederland 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 ChipSoft Nederland breach identified under incident ID CHI1782225432.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of ChipSoft Nederland's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/chipsoft, the number of followers: 606, the industry type: Software Development and the number of employees: 995 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 684 and after the incident was 654 with a difference of -30 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 ChipSoft Nederland and their customers.

Odido recently reported "Decline in Cyberattack Damages Among Dutch Businesses, but AI and US Tech Dependence Raise Risks", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

A recent study by ABN Amro and MWM2 reveals a decline in cyberattack-related damages among Dutch businesses in 2023, though underlying vulnerabilities persist.

The disruption is felt across the environment, and exposing True, with nearly ['6200000', '32000'] records at risk.

Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.

The case underscores how teams are taking away lessons such as Improved basic defenses (firewalls, threat detection, password practices) have reduced damages, but risks persist due to AI-driven threats and US tech dependence. Only 25% of SMEs have a cyberattack response plan, and 43% have never conducted a drill. AI tools like ChatGPT and Claude pose data leakage risks, and reliance on US tech providers introduces geopolitical risks, and recommending next steps like Develop and test cyberattack response plans, Implement policies for AI tool usage and Reduce dependence on US tech providers by exploring European alternatives.

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 Phishing (T1566) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating 60% of SMEs experienced...phishing, or data breaches and User Execution: Malicious File (T1204.002) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating 60% of SMEs experienced malware, phishing, or data breaches. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified User Execution: Malicious File (T1204.002) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating malware, phishing, or data breaches experienced by 60% of SMEs. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Brute Force (T1110) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating improved password practices mentioned as a defense and Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (T1552.001) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating aI tools like ChatGPT pose data leakage risks. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating customer records...resident data compromised (6.2M, 32K records). Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating data breach impacting 6.2M customer records (Odido). Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating aI-driven threats enable easier exploitation of vulnerabilities and Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (T1562.001) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating only 25% of SMEs have a cyberattack response plan. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating malware and data breaches reported by 60% of SMEs and Defacement: Internal Defacement (T1491.001) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating operational impact reported by 15% of affected companies. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Phishing (90%)
User Execution: Malicious File (80%)
Execution
User Execution: Malicious File (80%)
Credential Access
Brute Force (60%)
Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (50%)
Collection
Data from Local System (80%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (70%)
Defense Evasion
Valid Accounts (60%)
Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (50%)
Impact
Data Destruction (40%)
Defacement: Internal Defacement (30%)

Sources & References