Clemson University Breach Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (DARHARPRICOLCLE1767881845)

In this Rankiteo incident briefing, we review the Clemson University breach identified under incident ID DARHARPRICOLCLE1767881845.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Clemson University's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/clemson-university, the number of followers: 243567, the industry type: Higher Education and the number of employees: 11690 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 796 and after the incident was 727 with a difference of -69 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 Clemson University and their customers.

University of Pennsylvania recently reported "Multiple University Data Breaches Due to Social Engineering Attacks", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

In the past two months, the University of Pennsylvania, Harvard University, and Princeton University have fallen victim to data breaches attributed to social engineering attacks, specifically phone-based phishing.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Internal university systems, and exposing Personal data of students, faculty, and staff.

In response, teams activated the incident response plan, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Removed hackers' access to internal systems, and began remediation that includes Stepped up security protocols, and stakeholders are being briefed through Public statements to stakeholders.

The case underscores how Ongoing, teams are taking away lessons such as Universities are highly vulnerable to cyberattacks due to decentralized IT structures, lack of centralized control, and human error. Cybersecurity training and awareness are critical but not sufficient alone. There is a need for better collaboration between IT departments and faculty to balance security with academic freedom, and recommending next steps like Implement more centralized IT control to reduce vulnerabilities from decentralized departments, Enhance cybersecurity training and awareness programs, focusing on non-punitive approaches and Limit data retention to reduce the risk of exposure (e.g., avoid storing unnecessary sensitive data like Social Security numbers), with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Universities have issued public statements to stakeholders about the breaches and steps taken to mitigate risks.

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.

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 (95%), with evidence including social engineering...phone-based phishing as the entry point, and human error, lack of centralized IT control and Phishing: Vishing (T1566.004) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including phone-based phishing as the entry point, and social engineering attacks. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Brute Force (T1110) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating decentralized networks, personal devices, and diverse user behaviors and Unsecured Credentials (T1552) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating decentralized IT departments...inconsistent security enforcement. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating personal data of students, faculty, and staff compromised and Data from Information Repositories (T1213) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating retaining excessive data...including Social Security numbers. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating data breach...personal data of students, faculty, and staff. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (T1562.001) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating faculty resistance to IT policies...perceived restrictions and Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating decentralized networks...diverse user behaviors creating vulnerabilities. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating disruption of university operations and Defacement (T1491) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating reputational damage to affected universities. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.