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

Elastic Vendor Cyber Rating & Cyber Score

elasticgroup.com.au

STRETCH YOUR THINKING Elastic - part of IVE Group - is a creative production agency founded on ingenuity, technology and experience. We blend business with creativity, curiosity with innovation and originality with collaboration. We’re passionate about working with our clients to understand their business from the inside out, helping identify opportunities through better creative communications. For over 18 years we have been delivering creative & production services across Australia and South-East Asia from our offices in Sydney and Melbourne.


Elastic A.I CyberSecurity Scoring

Elastic
Company Information
Website:https://www.elasticgroup.com.au/
Employees number:24
Number of followers:7,604
NAICS:541613
Industry Type:Advertising Services
Homepage:elasticgroup.com.au
Elastic Risk Score (AI oriented)
Between 750 and 799
logo
ElasticAdvertising Services
Updated:
29/03/2026
763/1000
Fair
Baa
AaaAaABaaBaBCaaCaC
Powered by our proprietary A.I cyber incident model
Insurance prefers TPRM score to calculate premium
Elastic Global Score (TPRM)
xxxx
logo
ElasticAdvertising Services
•••
Score locked
Instant access to detailed risk factors
Vulnerabilities
Benchmark vs. industry & size peers
Findings

Elastic
ElasticFair
Current Score
763Baa (FAIR)
01000
2 incidents
0 avg impact
Incident timeline with MITRE ATT&CK tactics, techniques, and mitigations.
JUNE 2026
767Before Incident
MAY 2026
765Before Incident
APRIL 2026
765Before Incident
MARCH 2026
764Before Incident
FEBRUARY 2026
772Before Incident
JANUARY 2026
775Before Incident
DECEMBER 2025
775Before Incident
NOVEMBER 2025
775Before Incident
OCTOBER 2025
775Before Incident
SEPTEMBER 2025
775Before Incident
AUGUST 2025
775Before Incident
JULY 2025
775Before Incident
JUNE 2025
775Before Incident
Vulnerability
16 Jun 2025Elastic
Elastic

Elastic Defend Privilege Escalation Vulnerability (CVE-2025-37735)

774After Incident
HIGH-1
ELA0132601111025
Elastic disclosed a critical vulnerability (CVE-2025-37735) in Elastic Defend for Windows, stemming from improper file permission preservation in its SYSTEM-privileged service. The flaw allows local attackers—even with low privileges—to delete arbitrary files, potentially escalating to full administrative control over compromised systems. Affected versions include 8.19.5 and earlier, as well as 9.0.0 through 9.1.5, with patched releases (8.19.6, 9.1.6, 9.2.0) now available. While exploitation requires local access and moderate complexity (CVSS 7.0: High), the risk is amplified in shared or multi-user environments where insiders or compromised accounts could abuse the vulnerability. Organizations relying on Elastic Defend for endpoint security face heightened exposure, as successful exploitation undermines system integrity, enables lateral movement, and could facilitate follow-on attacks like data theft or ransomware deployment. Mitigations include immediate patching or upgrading to Windows 11 24H2, which introduces architectural safeguards. Delayed remediation risks persistent privilege escalation threats, particularly in environments with untrusted local users or legacy Windows versions.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
Vulnerability / Privilege Escalation
IMPACT
Windows (all versions, with mitigation in Windows 11 24H2)Elastic Defend (versions 8.19.5 and earlier; 9.0.0–9.1.5)Operational Impact: High (potential for full administrative control by low-privilege attackers; critical infrastructure risk)Brand Reputation Impact: Moderate (public disclosure of high-severity vulnerability in security product)
JANUARY 2025
770Before Incident
Vulnerability
01 Jan 2025Elastic
Elastic, Deutsche Börse, Confluent and UiPath: AI went from assistant to autonomous actor and security never caught up

AI Security Gaps Expose Enterprises to Rising Risks in 2025-2026

761After Incident
CRITICAL-9
CONUIPDEUELA1772541735
AI Security Gaps Expose Enterprises to Rising Risks in 2025-2026, Report Finds A new briefing from the AIUC-1 Consortium, developed with input from Stanford’s Trustworthy AI Research Lab and over 40 security executives, highlights critical vulnerabilities in enterprise AI deployments as systems shift from pilot programs to production environments handling sensitive data and business transactions. The report, which includes insights from CISOs at Confluent, Elastic, UiPath, Deutsche Börse, and researchers from MIT Sloan, Scale AI, and Databricks, projects escalating risks for organizations in 2026 amid rapid AI adoption. A 2025 EY survey cited in the briefing reveals that 64% of companies with annual revenue over $1 billion have lost more than $1 million to AI failures, while one in five reported breaches linked to shadow AI unauthorized or unmonitored AI use by employees. ### Three Dominant AI Security Challenges The briefing identifies three primary risk categories: 1. The Agent Challenge AI systems have evolved from simple assistants to autonomous agents capable of executing multi-step tasks without human approval. These agents often operate with overprivileged access, leading to unintended consequences 80% of surveyed organizations reported risky behaviors, including unauthorized system access and data exposure. Yet, only 21% of executives have full visibility into agent permissions, tool usage, or data access patterns. Omar Khawaja (Databricks) noted that AI components frequently change across supply chains, while existing security controls assume static assets, creating blind spots. 2. The Visibility Challenge 63% of employees using AI tools in 2025 pasted sensitive data including source code and customer records into personal chatbot accounts. Enterprises now average 1,200 unofficial AI applications, with 86% lacking visibility into AI data flows. Shadow AI breaches cost $670,000 more on average than standard incidents due to delayed detection and unclear exposure scope. 3. The Trust Challenge Prompt injection, once an academic concern, has become a recurring production issue, ranking #1 on OWASP’s 2025 LLM Top 10. The vulnerability stems from LLMs’ inability to reliably separate instructions from data input. 53% of companies now use retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) or agentic pipelines, introducing new attack surfaces. ### Existing Frameworks Fall Short Current AI governance frameworks, such as NIST AI RMF and ISO 42001, provide high-level risk management structures but lack technical controls for agent-specific threats, including tool call validation, prompt injection logging, and containment testing. Sanmi Koyejo (Stanford Trustworthy AI Lab) found that model-level guardrails alone are insufficient fine-tuning attacks bypassed Claude Haiku (72%) and GPT-4o (57%). Early adopters of technically grounded AI security standards report faster procurement, clearer audits, and reduced friction in regulated environments. ### Mitigation Strategies The briefing recommends continuous adversarial testing integrated into agent operations. Nancy Wang (1Password) advocates for platform-built guardrails, including sandboxed tool execution, scoped credentials, and runtime policy enforcement, to reduce reliance on custom engineering. She suggests tiering agents by risk level, with high-stakes deployments undergoing continuous testing and lower-risk agents relying on standardized controls. Koyejo’s lab demonstrated that automated red-teaming (AutoRedTeamer) can cut computational costs by 42-58% while improving vulnerability coverage. For resource-constrained organizations, he recommends automated testing tied to deployment pipelines, runtime guardrails for sensitive agents, and selective human red-teaming for critical systems. Wang emphasized that least-privilege access, short-lived credentials, and scoped tokens proven in cloud security can similarly limit AI agent risks by restricting unauthorized access.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
AI Security VulnerabilitiesData BreachShadow AI
IMPACT
Financial Loss: > $1 million (64% of companies with annual revenue over $1 billion)Sensitive Data (source code, customer records)Personally Identifiable InformationAI AgentsLLMsRAG PipelinesDelayed Detection of BreachesUnclear Exposure Scope
DATA BREACH
Source CodeCustomer RecordsPersonally Identifiable InformationSensitivity Of Data: HighPersonally Identifiable Information: Yes

Frequently Asked Questions

?
What is the current A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score for Elastic ?
?
What was Elastic's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in May 2026 ?
?
What was Elastic's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in April 2026 ?
?
What was Elastic's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in March 2026 ?
?
What was Elastic's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in February 2026 ?
?
What was Elastic's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in January 2026 ?
?
What was Elastic's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in December 2025 ?
?
What was Elastic's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in November 2025 ?
?
What was Elastic's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in October 2025 ?
?
What was Elastic's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in September 2025 ?
?
What was Elastic's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in August 2025 ?
?
What was Elastic's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in July 2025 ?
?
What is the average per-incident point impact on Elastic's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score over the past 12 months ?
?
Where can I access detailed records of all cyber incidents associated with Elastic ?
?
Where can I find a summary of the A.I Rankiteo Risk Scoring methodology ?
?
Where can I view Elastic's profile page on Rankiteo ?
?
How accurate is the A.I Rankiteo Risk Scoring methodology ?