Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (GIV1777898417)
The details regarding individual company incidents & reports gives you full view from every side.
Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis
Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis
- Timeline of GiveWP's Vulnerability 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 GiveWP 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 GiveWP breach identified under incident ID GIV1777898417.
The analysis begins with a detailed overview of GiveWP's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/givewp, the number of followers: 494, the industry type: Non-profit Organization Management and the number of employees: 5 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 752 and after the incident was 747 with a difference of -5 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 GiveWP and their customers.
A newly reported cybersecurity incident, "Nonprofits Face Growing Cybersecurity Risks in Donation Infrastructure", has drawn attention.
Nonprofit organizations handling cross-border donations are increasingly targeted by cybercriminals due to under-resourced and outdated payment infrastructure.
The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting donation platforms (GiveWP, Charitable), payment processors (Stripe) and crypto-based donation platforms, and exposing card data and donor records.
In response, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Content Security Policy (CSP) headers, Subresource Integrity (SRI) checks and automated dependency audits, and began remediation that includes patching vulnerabilities, securing API keys and auditing third-party scripts.
The case underscores how teams are taking away lessons such as Most exploits stem from unpatched vulnerabilities, exposed API keys, and unaudited third-party scripts. Nonprofits lack resources to secure infrastructure, leading to systematic exploitation of long-standing vulnerabilities, and recommending next steps like Implement Content Security Policy (CSP) headers, Use Subresource Integrity (SRI) checks and Conduct automated dependency audits.
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 Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating vulnerabilities in donation platforms like GiveWP and Charitable exposed to unauthenticated SQL injection, Drive-by Compromise (T1189) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating magecart Group 5 injected malicious scripts into donation pages to steal card data, and Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating poorly secured APIs and misconfigured third-party integrations create entry points. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified Exploitation for Client Execution (T1203) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating malicious scripts injected into donation pages to silently steal card data and Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating sQL injection attacks (e.g., CVE-2021-24917) exploited in donation platforms. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Credentials in Files (T1552.006) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating exposed API keys and unaudited third-party scripts create credential exposure risks. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating card data and donor records compromised via formjacking and skimming attacks and Automated Collection (T1119) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating data scraping attacks targeting donation platforms. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating data exfiltration confirmed via formjacking and payment skimming and Automated Exfiltration (T1020) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating malicious scripts silently steal card data before transactions complete. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Resource Hijacking (T1496) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating payment skimming attacks disrupt donation processing and Data Destruction (T1485) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating ransomware attacks targeting nonprofits with under-resourced security. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Obfuscated Files or Information (T1027) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating malicious scripts injected into donation pages to evade detection and Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (T1562.001) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating lack of CSP headers, SRI checks, and automated dependency audits. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.
Sources & References
- GiveWP Rankiteo Cyber Incident Details: https://www.rankiteo.com/company/givewp/incident/GIV1777898417
- GiveWP CyberSecurity Rating page: https://www.rankiteo.com/company/givewp
- GiveWP Rankiteo Cyber Incident Blog Article: https://blog.rankiteo.com/giv1777898417-givewp-vulnerability-april-2024/
- GiveWP CyberSecurity Score History: https://www.rankiteo.com/company/givewp/history
- GiveWP CyberSecurity Incident Source: https://hackread.com/cyber-secure-philanthropy-tech-infrastructure-global-donations/
- Rankiteo A.I CyberSecurity Rating methodology: https://www.rankiteo.com/Images/rankiteo_algo.pdf
- Rankiteo TPRM Scoring methodology: https://static.rankiteo.com/model/rankiteo_tprm_methodology.pdf