DoorDash Breach Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (DOO4104241112725)

In this Rankiteo incident briefing, we review the DoorDash breach identified under incident ID DOO4104241112725.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of DoorDash's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/doordash-for-business, the number of followers: 1424762, the industry type: Software Development and the number of employees: 74124 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 766 and after the incident was 696 with a difference of -70 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 DoorDash and their customers.

On 25 October 2025, DoorDash disclosed Data Breach, Social Engineering and Credential Compromise issues under the banner "DoorDash Social Engineering Data Breach (2025)".

In November 2025, DoorDash disclosed a data breach where an employee fell victim to a social engineering attack, leading to the compromise of customer, Dasher, and merchant personal information.

The disruption is felt across the environment, and exposing Names, Physical Addresses and Email Addresses.

In response, teams activated the incident response plan, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Detection of Intrusion on 2025-10-25 and Access Containment (Timing Unspecified), and stakeholders are being briefed through Public Disclosure in November 2025 and Advisory on Compromised Data Types.

The case underscores how Contained (as of November 2025 disclosure), teams are taking away lessons such as Human elements (e.g., social engineering) remain a critical vulnerability despite technical defenses, Security awareness training alone is insufficient; proactive, AI-driven detection (e.g., UEBA, XDR) is essential to mitigate dwell time and Legitimate credentials can be weaponized; behavioral analytics are required to detect anomalous activity post-compromise, and recommending next steps like Implement AI-driven Extended Detection and Response (XDR) platforms (e.g., Seceon aiXDR) for real-time anomaly detection and automated containment, Enhance User and Entity Behavior Analytics (UEBA) to baseline normal activity and flag deviations (e.g., unusual access times, data queries) and Adopt dynamic threat modeling to correlate suspicious events across endpoints, networks, and identities, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Public Notification of Compromised PII (No Financial Data Exposed).

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: Spearphishing Link (T1566.002) with moderate to high confidence (85%), with evidence including social engineering attack targeting an employee via manipulation, and phishing (Spear Phishing/Vishing) listed under attack_vector and Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts (T1078.004) with high confidence (95%), with evidence including legitimate credentials obtained via manipulation, granting unauthorized access, and compromised Credentials listed under attack_vector. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Phishing: Spearphishing Link (T1566.002) with moderate to high confidence (85%), supported by evidence indicating employee fell victim to a social engineering attack, leading to the compromise of ... credentials and Command and Scripting Interpreter: Windows Command Shell (T1059.003) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating implied post-compromise activity (no direct evidence, but common for credential dumping after phishing). Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including exfiltrated personal contact information of customers, Dashers, and merchants, and customer/Dasher/Merchant Contact Databases listed as high-value targets. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Unencrypted/Obfuscated Non-C2 Protocol (T1048.003) with moderate to high confidence (80%), with evidence including attackers had already exfiltrated personal contact information, and no specifics on protocol, but data exfiltration confirmed. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts (T1078.004) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including attacker successfully manipulated the employee into divulging legitimate credentials, and used valid accounts to bypass security awareness training and avoid detection and Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (T1562.001) with moderate to high confidence (70%), with evidence including inadequate real-time detection of anomalous behavior post-credential compromise, and implied evasion of existing defenses (e.g., security awareness training). Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Phishing for Information (T1598) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including stolen information poses a significant risk for follow-on attacks such as spear phishing and vishing, and data Theft for Follow-on Attacks (e.g., Spear Phishing, Vishing) listed under motivation. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.