Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (CYB1769455038)
The details regarding individual company incidents & reports gives you full view from every side.
Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis
Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis
- Timeline of Cyberhaven'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 Cyberhaven 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 Cyberhaven breach identified under incident ID CYB1769455038.
The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Cyberhaven's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/cyberhaven, the number of followers: 17774, the industry type: Computer and Network Security and the number of employees: 282 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 753 and after the incident was 697 with a difference of -56 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 Cyberhaven and their customers.
Trust Wallet recently reported "Browser-Based Attacks Surge as Enterprises Struggle with Session Hijacking and AI Risks", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.
Cybersecurity leaders warn that browser-based attacks have become a dominant threat vector, with 95% of enterprises experiencing incidents in the past year, most undetected by traditional security tools.
The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Browser sessions, SaaS applications and Cloud identities, and exposing Sensitive data pasted into AI tools, Wallet credentials (Trust Wallet) and Corporate data (Cyberhaven attack), with nearly ['2,520 wallets (Trust Wallet)', '400,000 corporate customers (Cyberhaven)'] records at risk, plus an estimated financial loss of $8.5 million (Trust Wallet breach).
In response, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Extension inventory and risk assessment, Delayed auto-updates (48-72 hours) and Browser-layer DLP, and began remediation that includes Behavioral anomaly detection, GenAI policy enforcement and Integration with SOC workflows.
The case underscores how teams are taking away lessons such as The browser is the primary attack surface for enterprises, requiring browser-layer controls to detect session hijacking, malicious extensions, and AI-driven exfiltration. Traditional security tools lack visibility into authenticated sessions, and recommending next steps like Implement browser-layer controls for extension risk assessment, Delay auto-updates by 48-72 hours to contain supply chain attacks and Enforce DLP at the browser layer to block unauthorized data movement.
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 Valid Accounts (T1078) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating attackers log in using stolen credentials or session tokens, Drive-by Compromise (T1189) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating browser-based attacks exploit the browser as an execution layer, and Supply Chain Compromise: Compromise Software Supply Chain (T1195.002) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating malicious Chrome extension auto-updated to 400,000 corporate customers. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified Exploitation for Client Execution (T1203) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating attackers exploit the browser as an execution layer and User Execution: Malicious Link (T1204.001) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating phished developer’s credentials led to malicious extension. Under the Persistence tactic, the analysis identified Browser Extensions (T1176) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating 99% of enterprise users have at least one browser extension and Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication (T1556.003) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating attackers bypass multi-factor authentication (MFA). Under the Privilege Escalation tactic, the analysis identified Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism: Bypass User Account Control (T1548.002) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating high-risk extension permissions (53% of extensions). Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Hide Artifacts: Hidden Window (T1564.003) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating traditional security tools lose visibility once access is granted, Valid Accounts (T1078) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating attackers operate inside live sessions with valid identities, and Code Signing (T1116) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating legitimate Chrome Web Store API key used to push malicious updates. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Steal Web Session Cookie (T1539) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating session hijacking such as attackers replay valid tokens from anywhere and Credentials from Password Stores: Credentials from Web Browsers (T1555.003) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating extensions with access to cookies, passwords, or page content. Under the Discovery tactic, the analysis identified Account Discovery: Cloud Account (T1087.004) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating browser hosts SaaS applications and cloud identities. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Information Repositories: Confluence (T1213.001) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating sensitive data pasted into unvetted AI platforms and Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating corporate data compromised via malicious extensions. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating aI-driven exfiltration via encrypted browser sessions and Exfiltration Over Web Service: Exfiltration to Cloud Storage (T1567.002) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating data exfiltrated to approved SaaS endpoints. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Encrypted for Impact (T1486) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating no details on malware’s origin or extent of breach and Defacement: Internal Defacement (T1491.001) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating malicious extensions auto-updated to 400,000 customers. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.
Sources & References
- Cyberhaven Rankiteo Cyber Incident Details: https://www.rankiteo.com/company/cyberhaven/incident/CYB1769455038
- Cyberhaven CyberSecurity Rating page: https://www.rankiteo.com/company/cyberhaven
- Cyberhaven Rankiteo Cyber Incident Blog Article: https://blog.rankiteo.com/cyb1769455038-cyberhaven-cyber-attack-june-2023/
- Cyberhaven CyberSecurity Score History: https://www.rankiteo.com/company/cyberhaven/history
- Cyberhaven CyberSecurity Incident Source: https://venturebeat.com/security/browser-security-gap-ciso-enterprise-breaches
- Rankiteo A.I CyberSecurity Rating methodology: https://www.rankiteo.com/Images/rankiteo_algo.pdf
- Rankiteo TPRM Scoring methodology: https://static.rankiteo.com/model/rankiteo_tprm_methodology.pdf