Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Chrome Holdings Ltd. » CHR1779992999

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (CHR1779992999)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-70
Company Score Before Incident669 / 1000
Company Score After Incident599 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERCHR1779992999
Type of Cyber IncidentBreach
ATTACK VECTORCredential Stuffing
DATA EXPOSEDGenetic health predispositions, ancestry details,...
INCIDENT DATE05/10/2023
STATUSOngoing (lawsuit filed)

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Chrome Holdings Ltd.'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 Chrome Holdings Ltd. 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 Chrome Holdings Ltd. breach identified under incident ID CHR1779992999.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Chrome Holdings Ltd.'s information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/chrome-holdings-ltd-, the number of followers: 0, the industry type: Real Estate and the number of employees: 1 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 669 and after the incident was 599 with a difference of -70 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 Chrome Holdings Ltd. and their customers.

Chrome Holding Co. (formerly 23andMe) recently reported "California AG Sues 23andMe Over Massive Data Breach Exposing Genetic and Personal Data of 7 Million Users", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit against genetic testing company Chrome Holding Co.

The disruption is felt across the environment, and exposing Genetic health predispositions, ancestry details, family histories, ethnicity data, personally identifiable information, with nearly 7,000,000 records at risk.

In response, and stakeholders are being briefed through Downplayed severity, falsely asserted no internal systems were compromised.

The case underscores how Ongoing (lawsuit filed).

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 (50%), supported by evidence indicating exploited a coding vulnerability in the DNA Relatives feature and Valid Accounts (T1078) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating threat actor used credential stuffing to access 14,000 23andMe accounts. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Brute Force: Credential Stuffing (T1110.004) with high confidence (95%), supported by evidence indicating credential stuffing...exploiting reused passwords from prior breaches. Under the Discovery tactic, the analysis identified Account Discovery: Domain Account (T1087.002) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating scrape data from millions of users via DNA Relatives feature. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Cloud Storage Object: Code Repositories (T1213.003) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating coding vulnerability in the DNA Relatives feature and Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating exposed genetic health predispositions, ancestry details, family histories. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating stolen information was later advertised for sale on the dark web and Exfiltration Over Web Service: Exfiltration to Cloud Storage (T1567.001) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating data exfiltration and sale on dark web. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating highly personal information...sold on the dark web and Data Manipulation: Stored Data Manipulation (T1565.001) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating genetic and personal data exposed; potential for misuse. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Indicator Removal: Clear Windows Event Logs (T1070.001) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating attack went undetected for five months and Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (T1562.001) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating failed to implement basic safeguards against credential stuffing. 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 (50%)
Valid Accounts (90%)
Credential Access
Brute Force: Credential Stuffing (95%)
Discovery
Account Discovery: Domain Account (80%)
Collection
Data from Cloud Storage Object: Code Repositories (70%)
Data from Local System (80%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (90%)
Exfiltration Over Web Service: Exfiltration to Cloud Storage (60%)
Impact
Data Destruction (30%)
Data Manipulation: Stored Data Manipulation (40%)
Defense Evasion
Indicator Removal: Clear Windows Event Logs (50%)
Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (60%)

Sources & References