Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Duales » DUA1775235439

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (DUA1775235439)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-70
Company Score Before Incident797 / 1000
Company Score After Incident727 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERDUA1775235439
Type of Cyber IncidentBreach
ATTACK VECTORCloud Misconfiguration
DATA EXPOSED360,000 unencrypted files
INCIDENT DATE31/08/2020
STATUSResolved (database secured)

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Duales's Breach 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 Duales 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 Duales breach identified under incident ID DUA1775235439.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Duales's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/duales, the number of followers: 0, the industry type: Financial Services and the number of employees: 5 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 797 and after the incident was 727 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 Duales and their customers.

Duc App recently reported "Duc App Exposed 360,000 Unencrypted Customer Files in Major Data Leak", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

A Canadian money transfer service, Duc App, left a publicly accessible Amazon-hosted database containing sensitive customer data, exposing over 360,000 unencrypted files.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Amazon-hosted database, and exposing 360,000 unencrypted files, with nearly 360,000+ records at risk.

In response, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Database secured after notification, and began remediation that includes All protections now in place (per company statement), and stakeholders are being briefed through Public disclosure via TechCrunch.

The case underscores how Resolved (database secured), teams are taking away lessons such as Cloud misconfigurations due to misunderstandings about security responsibilities are a leading cause of data leaks. Proper access controls and encryption are critical for sensitive data storage, and recommending next steps like Implement strict access controls for cloud databases, Encrypt sensitive customer data at rest and in transit and Conduct regular security audits of cloud environments.

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 Compromise Accounts (T1586) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating publicly accessible Amazon-hosted database and Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating cloud misconfiguration...leading cause of such leaks. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (T1552.001) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating 360,000 unencrypted files...exposing sensitive customer data. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating personal details, transaction records, KYC documents exposed and Data from Information Repositories (T1213) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating amazon-hosted database contained 360,000+ unencrypted files. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Transfer Data to Cloud Account (T1537) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating publicly accessible database...accessible to anyone with internet and Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating remains unclear whether malicious actors accessed the data. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (T1562.001) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating misunderstandings about security responsibilities in cloud and Disabling Security Tools (T1089) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating publicly accessible database with no encryption. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with lower confidence (20%), supported by evidence indicating unclear whether malicious actors accessed the data and Data Manipulation: Stored Data Manipulation (T1565.001) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating potential reputational damage and regulatory fines. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Compromise Accounts (30%)
Exploit Public-Facing Application (50%)
Credential Access
Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (40%)
Collection
Data from Local System (80%)
Data from Information Repositories (90%)
Exfiltration
Transfer Data to Cloud Account (70%)
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (50%)
Defense Evasion
Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (40%)
Disabling Security Tools (30%)
Impact
Data Destruction (20%)
Data Manipulation: Stored Data Manipulation (30%)