Conduent Breach Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (CON0962609110725)

In this Rankiteo incident briefing, we review the Conduent breach identified under incident ID CON0962609110725.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Conduent's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/conduent, the number of followers: 523798, the industry type: IT Services and IT Consulting and the number of employees: 36834 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 220 and after the incident was 154 with a difference of -66 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 Conduent and their customers.

Conduent Business Services LLC recently reported "Conduent Monthslong Data Breach and Class Action Lawsuits", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

Conduent Business Services LLC has been hit with a barrage of class action lawsuits in New Jersey federal court alleging it failed to adequately protect sensitive personal and health information of individuals during a monthslong data breach.

The disruption is felt across the environment, and exposing Sensitive Personal Information and Health Information.

Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.

The case underscores how Ongoing (Litigation in Progress).

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 External Remote Services (T1133) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating monthslong data breach suggests persistent unauthorized access via exposed services and Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating inadequate security measures may imply compromised credentials or weak authentication. Under the Persistence tactic, the analysis identified Account Manipulation (T1098) with moderate confidence (65%), supported by evidence indicating prolonged data breach suggests long-term access, possibly via account manipulation. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Unsecured Credentials (T1552) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating inadequate security measures likely includes poor credential hygiene or storage. Under the Discovery tactic, the analysis identified File and Directory Discovery (T1083) with moderate to high confidence (75%), supported by evidence indicating exfiltration of sensitive personal and health information implies prior internal reconnaissance. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating compromised information likely included PII and PHI indicates targeted data collection. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol (T1048) with moderate to high confidence (85%), supported by evidence indicating monthslong data breach with sensitive data exposed strongly implies exfiltration. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating no direct evidence, but high-severity impact could include data integrity risks and Resource Hijacking (T1496) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating reputational harm and financial stability risks suggest misuse of organizational resources. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Impair Defenses (T1562) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating failed to detect or mitigate the breach promptly indicates evasion of security controls and Indicator Removal (T1070) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating monthslong breach duration suggests deletion/obfuscation of logs or alerts. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.