Elastic Breach Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (ELA0132601111025)

In this Rankiteo incident briefing, we review the Elastic breach identified under incident ID ELA0132601111025.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Elastic's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/elastic, the number of followers: 6907, the industry type: Advertising Services and the number of employees: 27 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 775 and after the incident was 774 with a difference of -1 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 Elastic and their customers.

Elastic (vendor) recently reported "Elastic Defend Privilege Escalation Vulnerability (CVE-2025-37735)", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

Elastic has released a security advisory addressing a significant vulnerability in Elastic Defend (CVE-2025-37735) that could allow attackers to escalate their privileges on Windows systems.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting {'os': 'Windows (all versions, with mitigation in Windows 11 24H2)', 'software': 'Elastic Defend (versions 8.19.5 and earlier; 9.0.0–9.1.5)'}.

In response, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Immediate upgrade to patched versions (8.19.6, 9.1.6, 9.2.0) and Interim mitigation: Upgrade to Windows 11 24H2 (reduces exploitability), and began remediation that includes Patch deployment across all affected systems, Inventory of Elastic Defend deployments to identify vulnerable versions and Prioritization of critical infrastructure updates, and stakeholders are being briefed through Public security advisory by Elastic and Urgent notification to customers via standard channels.

The case underscores how Resolved (patch available; advisory published), teams are taking away lessons such as Critical importance of patching security products promptly, even for 'local access' vulnerabilities, Need for defense-in-depth against privilege escalation paths in endpoint protection tools and Value of OS-level mitigations (e.g., Windows 11 24H2 architectural changes) as interim protections, and recommending next steps like Upgrade Elastic Defend to patched versions (8.19.6, 9.1.6, or 9.2.0) immediately, Conduct emergency inventory of all Elastic Defend deployments to identify vulnerable systems and Prioritize patching for systems with high-value data or critical roles, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Elastic has issued a public security advisory with technical details and remediation guidance.

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.

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 Privilege Escalation tactic, the analysis identified Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068) with high confidence (95%), with evidence including improper file permission preservation in its SYSTEM-privileged service... allows local attackers to delete arbitrary files, escalating to full administrative control, and cVE-2025-37735 (Improper Preservation of Permissions) and Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism: Bypass User Account Control (T1548.002) with moderate to high confidence (85%), with evidence including low-privilege attackers... gain administrative control via SYSTEM-privileged service, and windows 11 24H2 introduces architectural safeguards (implies UAC bypass mitigation). Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Indicator Removal: File Deletion (T1070.004) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including allows local attackers... to delete arbitrary files, and monitor for suspicious file deletion activity (from recommendations) and Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (T1562.001) with moderate to high confidence (80%), with evidence including undermines system integrity, enables lateral movement (compromising Elastic Defend, a security product), and follow-on attacks like data theft or ransomware deployment. Under the Lateral Movement tactic, the analysis identified Remote Services: SMB/Windows Admin Shares (T1021.002) with moderate to high confidence (75%), with evidence including enables lateral movement (post-escalation), and full administrative control over compromised systems (implies potential for Pass-the-Hash or SMB abuse). Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with moderate to high confidence (70%), with evidence including delete arbitrary files (could lead to data destruction), and follow-on attacks like... ransomware deployment and Inhibit System Recovery (T1490) with moderate confidence (65%), with evidence including delete arbitrary files (could target backups or recovery partitions), and persistent privilege escalation threats. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.