Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Edmunds » EDM1769511727

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (EDM1769511727)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-77
Company Score Before Incident632 / 1000
Company Score After Incident555 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBEREDM1769511727
Type of Cyber IncidentBreach
ATTACK VECTORUnknown
DATA EXPOSED146,000 user records
INCIDENT DATE31/12/2025
STATUSOngoing

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Edmunds'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 Edmunds 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 Edmunds breach identified under incident ID EDM1769511727.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Edmunds's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/edmunds-com, the number of followers: 47078, the industry type: Automotive and the number of employees: 609 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 632 and after the incident was 555 with a difference of -77 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 Edmunds and their customers.

Edmunds recently reported "Edmunds Data Breach Exposes 146K User Records in ShinyHunters Attack", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

The notorious cybercrime group ShinyHunters has claimed responsibility for a data breach at Edmunds, a major U.S.-based car shopping platform, allegedly exposing sensitive user information.

The disruption is felt across the environment, and exposing 146,000 user records, with nearly 146,000 records at risk.

Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.

The case underscores how Ongoing, teams are taking away lessons such as Persistent risks tied to weak password storage and the far-reaching consequences of credential leaks, and recommending next steps like Improve password storage practices (avoid base64 hashes, enforce strong encryption), monitor for credential stuffing attacks, and educate users on password hygiene.

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 moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating account passwords...poorly secured either stored in base64 hashes or left unhashed and Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating attack vector such as Unknown, but Edmunds is a public-facing car shopping platform. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Credentials from Password Stores (T1555) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating exposed information includes account passwords...stored in base64 hashes or left unhashed and Brute Force: Credential Stuffing (T1110.004) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating shinyHunters could exploit the stolen data for credential stuffing. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating 146,000 user records exposed, including email records and passwords. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating data exfiltration such as Yes, attackers released a sample of 186,000 unique email records and Exfiltration Over Web Service: Exfiltration to Cloud Storage (T1567.002) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating posted on a popular data leak forum. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Account Access Removal (T1531) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating potential for account takeovers due to exposed credentials and Data Destruction (T1485) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating no direct evidence, but high-impact breach may imply disruption. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating use of compromised credentials to blend in as legitimate users and Subvert Trust Controls: Code Signing (T1553.002) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating no direct evidence, but ShinyHunters is known for sophisticated attacks. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Valid Accounts (50%)
Exploit Public-Facing Application (40%)
Credential Access
Credentials from Password Stores (90%)
Brute Force: Credential Stuffing (80%)
Collection
Data from Local System (70%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (80%)
Exfiltration Over Web Service: Exfiltration to Cloud Storage (60%)
Impact
Account Access Removal (50%)
Data Destruction (30%)
Defense Evasion
Valid Accounts (70%)
Subvert Trust Controls: Code Signing (30%)

Sources & References