Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » DragonForce » PRODRA1787174209

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (PRODRA1787174209)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-150
Company Score Before Incident759 / 1000
Company Score After Incident609 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERPRODRA1787174209
Type of Cyber IncidentRansomware
ATTACK VECTORExploitation of RaaS administrative panels, phishing/unsolicited emails
DATA EXPOSEDEncryption keys, stolen data, personally...
INCIDENT DATE31/12/2023
STATUSOngoing (moderate confidence in findings)

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of DragonForce's Ransomware 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 DragonForce 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 DragonForce breach identified under incident ID PRODRA1787174209.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of DragonForce's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/dragonforce, the number of followers: 186, the industry type: Musicians and the number of employees: 15 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 759 and after the incident was 609 with a difference of -150 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 DragonForce and their customers.

A newly reported cybersecurity incident, "Ransomware Affiliate Masquerades as Recovery Service in Sophisticated Extortion Scheme", has drawn attention.

A suspected ransomware affiliate is targeting victims under the guise of a recovery service called *Ransom Busters*, contacting them before attacks become public and offering decryption keys and data deletion for a fee.

The disruption is felt across the environment, and exposing Encryption keys, stolen data, personally identifiable information, plus an estimated financial loss of $20,000 - $60,000 (demanded fees).

Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.

The case underscores how Ongoing (moderate confidence in findings), teams are taking away lessons such as Growing distrust within RaaS ecosystems could fuel more such schemes as affiliates seek additional profits. Victims paying ransom may no longer guarantee data deletion if multiple parties have access, and recommending next steps like Enhanced monitoring for unsolicited recovery offers, verification of third-party recovery services, and improved incident response planning to address evolving ransomware tactics, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Ransomware affiliates may pose as recovery services to exploit victims before breaches are detected. Paying ransom does not guarantee data deletion if multiple parties are involved.

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 moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating exploitation of vulnerabilities in RaaS administrative panels and Phishing (T1566) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating unsolicited emails from the group offering decryption keys. Under the Persistence tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts: Local Accounts (T1078.003) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating backdoor account with the password *Numlock!123*. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Masquerading (T1036) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating posing as a recovery service called *Ransom Busters*. 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 access to encryption keys and stolen data from RaaS panels. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating stolen data from operations like *DragonForce*, *Settra*, and *Anubis*. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating data exfiltration confirmed in ransomware incidents. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Encrypted for Impact (T1486) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating data encryption confirmed in ransomware attacks and Defacement: Internal Defacement (T1491.001) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating diversion of ransom payments from RaaS gangs. 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 (80%)
Phishing (70%)
Persistence
Valid Accounts: Local Accounts (90%)
Defense Evasion
Masquerading (90%)
Credential Access
Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (70%)
Collection
Data from Local System (80%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (80%)
Impact
Data Encrypted for Impact (90%)
Defacement: Internal Defacement (60%)