Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » CMI Management » CMI1778163944

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (CMI1778163944)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-89
Company Score Before Incident758 / 1000
Company Score After Incident669 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERCMI1778163944
Type of Cyber IncidentBreach
ATTACK VECTOROpen Directory Listing flaw
DATA EXPOSED70,000 files
INCIDENT DATE15/03/2026
STATUSOngoing

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of CMI Management'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 CMI Management 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 CMI Management breach identified under incident ID CMI1778163944.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of CMI Management's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/cmi-management, the number of followers: 3348, the industry type: Facilities Services and the number of employees: 136 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 758 and after the incident was 669 with a difference of -89 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 CMI Management and their customers.

CMI Management Inc. (Dexterra Group subsidiary) recently reported "US Military Data Leak Exposes 70,000 Files via Unsecured Directory", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

Researchers at Cybernews uncovered a leaky directory containing over 70,000 sensitive files related to US military personnel, contractors, and internal base infrastructure.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Unsecured directory, and exposing 70,000 files, with nearly 70,000 files records at risk.

In response, and stakeholders are being briefed through No public response from CMI Management.

The case underscores how Ongoing, teams are taking away lessons such as Highlights persistent gaps in securing sensitive military data, even after authorities are alerted, and recommending next steps like Immediate remediation of unsecured directories, enhanced monitoring, and stricter access controls for sensitive military data, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering CISA alert on hardening endpoint systems (March 2026).

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%), supported by evidence indicating open Directory Listing flaw, allowing unrestricted access to the files. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (T1552.001) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating exposed dataset included maintenance records, staff emails. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating 70,000 sensitive files related to US military personnel, contractors and Data from Information Repositories (T1213) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating open Directory Listing flaw exposed schematics, internal photos. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating directory remained exposed for over a year despite prior notification and Transfer Data to Cloud Account (T1537) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating unrestricted access to files could enable unauthorized transfers. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Defacement: Internal Defacement (T1491.001) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating internal photos of military bases, schematics exposed and Data Manipulation: Stored Data Manipulation (T1565.001) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating potential for adversaries to map vulnerabilities in secure facilities. Under the Reconnaissance tactic, the analysis identified Gather Victim Network Information: DNS (T1590.002) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating base schematics and internal imagery could aid adversaries and Gather Victim Host Information: Hardware (T1592.001) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating exposure of maintenance records, internal photos. 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%)
Credential Access
Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (70%)
Collection
Data from Local System (90%)
Data from Information Repositories (90%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (50%)
Transfer Data to Cloud Account (40%)
Impact
Defacement: Internal Defacement (60%)
Data Manipulation: Stored Data Manipulation (30%)
Reconnaissance
Gather Victim Network Information: DNS (70%)
Gather Victim Host Information: Hardware (60%)