Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Gcore » G-C1774340621

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (G-C1774340621)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-17
Company Score Before Incident754 / 1000
Company Score After Incident737 / 1000
Company LinkView Gcore Profile
INCIDENT NUMBERG-C1774340621
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTORNetwork-layer attack, Application-layer attack
DATA EXPOSEDNA
INCIDENT DATE30/06/2025
STATUSpublished

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Gcore'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 Gcore 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 Gcore breach identified under incident ID G-C1774340621.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Gcore's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/g-core, the number of followers: 24031, the industry type: IT Services and IT Consulting and the number of employees: 478 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 754 and after the incident was 737 with a difference of -17 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 Gcore and their customers.

On 24 March 2026, a cybersecurity incident called "Surge in DDoS Attacks - Q3-Q4 2025" came to light.

Gcore Radar report highlights a dramatic escalation in DDoS attack activity, with volumes, frequency, and tactical complexity reaching unprecedented levels.

Impact assessments are still underway, so the full scope is not yet clear.

Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.

The case underscores how teams are taking away lessons such as Mitigation strategies must adapt, emphasizing globally distributed defense infrastructure to neutralize threats closer to their source, particularly in regions like Latin America, and recommending next steps like Adapt mitigation strategies to include globally distributed defense infrastructure, enhanced monitoring, and addressing insecure IoT ecosystems.

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 Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating dDoS attack activity...volumes, frequency, and tactical complexity reaching unprecedented levels and Network Denial of Service (T1498) with high confidence (95%), supported by evidence indicating network-layer attacks comprised 82% of all incidents...peak attack volumes skyrocketed to 12 Tbps. Under the Resource Development tactic, the analysis identified Botnet (T1583.005) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating aISURU botnet...disproportionately exploits vulnerable IoT devices in these areas and Malware (T1588.001) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating broader access to attack tools, lowering the barrier to entry for cybercriminals. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Endpoint Denial of Service: Application Layer DoS (T1499.004) with moderate to high confidence (85%), supported by evidence indicating application-layer attacks trended longer, with 64% exceeding 10 minutes and Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating technology firms bore the brunt of attacks (34% of incidents)...disruptions yield immediate financial or operational consequences. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Direct Network Flood (T1498.001) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating 75% of network-layer attacks lasted under one minute...short, high-intensity bursts. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Endpoint Denial of Service (90%)
Network Denial of Service (95%)
Resource Development
Botnet (90%)
Malware (70%)
Impact
Endpoint Denial of Service: Application Layer DoS (85%)
Endpoint Denial of Service (90%)
Defense Evasion
Direct Network Flood (80%)

Sources & References