Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Cleo » CLE1788431185

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (CLE1788431185)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-5
Company Score Before Incident638 / 1000
Company Score After Incident633 / 1000
Company LinkView Cleo Profile
INCIDENT NUMBERCLE1788431185
Type of Cyber IncidentVulnerability
ATTACK VECTORNetwork
DATA EXPOSEDSensitive data exposure
INCIDENT DATE31/08/2026
STATUSpublished

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Cleo's Vulnerability 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 Cleo 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 Cleo breach identified under incident ID CLE1788431185.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Cleo's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/cleo-communications, the number of followers: 14924, the industry type: Software Development and the number of employees: 583 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 638 and after the incident was 633 with a difference of -5 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 Cleo and their customers.

On 01 September 2026, Cleo Harmony disclosed Privilege Escalation issues under the banner "Critical Privilege Escalation Vulnerability in Cleo Harmony (CVE-2026-84115)".

A severe privilege-management vulnerability, tracked as CVE-2026-84115, has been identified in Cleo Harmony versions up to 5.8.1.10, affecting the platform’s JWT Refresh Token Handler and the /api/connections endpoint.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Cleo Harmony (versions up to 5.8.1.10), and exposing Sensitive data exposure.

In response, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Upgrade to Cleo Harmony version 5.8.1.11 or later, and began remediation that includes Enhanced input validation, bearer token monitoring.

The case underscores how and recommending next steps like Upgrade to Cleo Harmony version 5.8.1.11 or later, implement enhanced input validation, and monitor bearer tokens for suspicious activity.

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 high confidence (90%), with evidence including remotely exploitable via network-based HTTP requests, and cVE-2026-84115 in Cleo Harmony (versions up to 5.8.1.10). Under the Privilege Escalation tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts (T1078) with high confidence (95%), with evidence including authentication bypass via Bearer token manipulation, and unauthorized administrative access and Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism: Bypass User Account Control (T1548.002) with moderate to high confidence (80%), with evidence including jWT Refresh Token Handler flaw (CWE-269), and privilege escalation via improper privilege management. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Use Alternate Authentication Material: Application Access Token (T1550.001) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating manipulation of the Bearer token argument in HTTP authorization headers. Under the Lateral Movement tactic, the analysis identified Exploitation of Remote Services (T1210) with moderate to high confidence (80%), with evidence including lateral movement across connected environments, and intercept legitimate traffic or forge requests. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Information Repositories (T1213) with moderate to high confidence (85%), with evidence including viewing sensitive data via /api/connections endpoint, and sensitive data exposure. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (70%), with evidence including compromise confidentiality of systems, and public exploit reported. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Endpoint Denial of Service: Application or System Exploitation (T1499.004) with moderate to high confidence (70%), with evidence including disrupting integration workflows, and compromise availability of systems and Data Manipulation: Stored Data Manipulation (T1565.001) with moderate to high confidence (75%), with evidence including forge requests using malformed or replayed bearer tokens, and compromise integrity of systems. 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 (90%)
Privilege Escalation
Valid Accounts (95%)
Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism: Bypass User Account Control (80%)
Credential Access
Use Alternate Authentication Material: Application Access Token (90%)
Lateral Movement
Exploitation of Remote Services (80%)
Collection
Data from Information Repositories (85%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (70%)
Impact
Endpoint Denial of Service: Application or System Exploitation (70%)
Data Manipulation: Stored Data Manipulation (75%)