Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Edelman Financial Engines » AMEHIGLPLEDE1777062318

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (AMEHIGLPLEDE1777062318)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-24
Company Score Before Incident761 / 1000
Company Score After Incident737 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERAMEHIGLPLEDE1777062318
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTORPhishing (Malware)
DATA EXPOSEDPossibility of sensitive client data...
INCIDENT DATE09/11/2025
STATUSCompleted (no ongoing compromise detected)

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Edelman Financial Engines'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 Edelman Financial Engines 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 Edelman Financial Engines breach identified under incident ID AMEHIGLPLEDE1777062318.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Edelman Financial Engines's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/edelman-financial-engines, the number of followers: 37712, the industry type: Financial Services and the number of employees: 1494 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 761 and after the incident was 737 with a difference of -24 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 Edelman Financial Engines and their customers.

On 20 November 2025, LPL Financial disclosed Cybersecurity Breach issues under the banner "LPL Financial Cybersecurity Breach Affecting 1,581 Clients".

LPL Financial disclosed a cybersecurity incident that led to unauthorized securities transactions and financial transfers in some client accounts.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Web-based advisor portal, and exposing Possibility of sensitive client data access (not confirmed), with nearly 1581 records at risk, plus an estimated financial loss of Unauthorized securities transactions and financial transfers.

In response, teams activated the incident response plan, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Halted unauthorized activity, secured affected accounts, and began remediation that includes Restored impacted accounts to original financial positions, implemented new technical safeguards, and stakeholders are being briefed through Notified affected clients, offered credit monitoring.

The case underscores how Completed (no ongoing compromise detected), with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Affected clients offered two years of complimentary Experian credit monitoring.

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 Phishing (T1566) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating malware distributed via phishing messages and Phishing: Spearphishing Attachment (T1566.001) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating phishing messages...compromising financial advisors’ devices. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified User Execution (T1204) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating malware distributed via phishing messages and User Execution: Malicious File (T1204.002) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating malware...compromising financial advisors’ devices. Under the Persistence tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts (T1078) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating unauthorized access to LPL’s web-based advisor portal. Under the Privilege Escalation tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating compromised financial advisors’ devices...unauthorized access. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts (T1078) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating unauthorized access to LPL’s web-based advisor portal and Brute Force (T1110) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating no direct evidence but implied via advisor portal access. Under the Lateral Movement tactic, the analysis identified Remote Services (T1021) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating access to LPL’s web-based advisor portal. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating possibility of sensitive client data access. Under the Command and Control tactic, the analysis identified Application Layer Protocol (T1071) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating malware...granting unauthorized access to portal. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating unauthorized securities transactions and financial transfers. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Encrypted for Impact (T1486) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating malware infection (no ransomware details) and Data Manipulation: Transmitted Data Manipulation (T1565.002) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating unauthorized securities transactions and financial transfers. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Masquerading (T1036) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating malware distributed via phishing messages and Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (T1562.001) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating new technical safeguards implemented post-incident. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Phishing (90%)
Phishing: Spearphishing Attachment (80%)
Execution
User Execution (80%)
User Execution: Malicious File (80%)
Persistence
Valid Accounts (90%)
Privilege Escalation
Valid Accounts (80%)
Credential Access
Valid Accounts (90%)
Brute Force (50%)
Lateral Movement
Remote Services (70%)
Collection
Data from Local System (70%)
Command and Control
Application Layer Protocol (60%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (70%)
Impact
Data Encrypted for Impact (30%)
Data Manipulation: Transmitted Data Manipulation (80%)
Defense Evasion
Masquerading (60%)
Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (50%)