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

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

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Columbia University's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/columbia-university, the number of followers: 740462, the industry type: Higher Education and the number of employees: 23329 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 813 and after the incident was 749 with a difference of -64 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 Columbia 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 (90%), supported by evidence indicating attacks stemmed from social engineering, with Harvard and Princeton specifically citing phone-based phishing and Phishing: Vishing (T1566.004) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating phone-based phishing as the entry point. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified User Execution (T1204) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating human error (falling for phishing attacks). Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Unsecured Credentials (T1552) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating decentralized networks, personal devices, and diverse user behaviors creating countless vulnerabilities and Brute Force (T1110) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating aI-driven threats grow more sophisticated (potential credential attacks). 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 sensitive information like Social Security numbers. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating data breach impacting thousands of students, faculty, and staff. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Impair Defenses (T1562) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating faculty resistance to IT policies due to perceived restrictions on academic freedom and Disabling Security Tools (T1089) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating researchers often bypass official channels, increasing exposure. 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.