Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Cloudflare » GOOCLO1778581869

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (GOOCLO1778581869)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-12
Company Score Before Incident526 / 1000
Company Score After Incident514 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERGOOCLO1778581869
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTORMalicious GTM Containers
DATA EXPOSEDCredit card information
INCIDENT DATE31/10/2025
STATUSOngoing

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Cloudflare'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 Cloudflare 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 Cloudflare breach identified under incident ID GOOCLO1778581869.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Cloudflare's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/cloudflare, the number of followers: 1140726, the industry type: Computer and Network Security and the number of employees: 6899 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 526 and after the incident was 514 with a difference of -12 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 Cloudflare and their customers.

A newly reported cybersecurity incident, "Magecart Group Exploits Google Tag Manager in Sophisticated Credit Card Skimming Campaign", has drawn attention.

A notorious Magecart threat group has weaponized Google Tag Manager (GTM) to deploy credit card skimmers on e-commerce sites, turning a trusted analytics tool into a vehicle for digital skimming.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting E-commerce websites, and exposing Credit card information.

Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.

The case underscores how Ongoing, teams are taking away lessons such as Attackers are increasingly abusing legitimate tools like GTM to evade detection. Organizations must monitor GTM containers and third-party scripts for malicious activity, and recommending next steps like Monitor GTM containers for unauthorized changes, Implement strict script allowlisting on e-commerce sites and Use behavioral analysis to detect skimming 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 Supply Chain Compromise: Compromise Software Supply Chain (T1195.002) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating weaponized Google Tag Manager (GTM) to deploy credit card skimmers and Drive-by Compromise (T1189) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating inject malicious scripts disguised as legitimate analytics services on e-commerce sites. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified JavaScript (T1059.007) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating malicious scripts disguised as legitimate analytics services via GTM containers. Under the Persistence tactic, the analysis identified Browser Extensions (T1176) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating gTM containers like GTM-WJ6S9J6, GTM-TVKQ79ZS used to inject scripts. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Obfuscated Files or Information (T1027) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating highly obfuscated GTM containers that break if altered, Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts (T1078.004) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating abuse of Google Tag Manager (GTM), a trusted analytics tool, and Hide Artifacts: Email Hiding Rules (T1564.008) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating 40 new domains with deceptive naming patterns (e.g., cdn.sketchinsightswatch.com). Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Input Capture: Credential API Hooking (T1056.004) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating credit card skimmers deployed to steal payment information and Automated Collection (T1119) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating aTMZOW skimmer group targeting e-commerce payment pages. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating data exfiltration confirmed for payment information and Exfiltration Over Web Service: Exfiltration to Cloud Storage (T1567.002) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating skimmer randomly selects two domains per victim, likely for exfiltration. Under the Command and Control tactic, the analysis identified Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols (T1071.001) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating malicious domains hidden behind Cloudflare, blending into normal web traffic and Web Service: Bidirectional Communication (T1102.002) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating domains stored in local storage to limit exposure of full infrastructure. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Supply Chain Compromise: Compromise Software Supply Chain (90%)
Drive-by Compromise (80%)
Execution
JavaScript (90%)
Persistence
Browser Extensions (70%)
Defense Evasion
Obfuscated Files or Information (90%)
Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts (80%)
Hide Artifacts: Email Hiding Rules (70%)
Collection
Input Capture: Credential API Hooking (90%)
Automated Collection (80%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (90%)
Exfiltration Over Web Service: Exfiltration to Cloud Storage (70%)
Command and Control
Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols (80%)
Web Service: Bidirectional Communication (70%)

Sources & References