Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » GOG » GOG1773146209

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (GOG1773146209)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-5
Company Score Before Incident752 / 1000
Company Score After Incident747 / 1000
Company LinkView GOG Profile
INCIDENT NUMBERGOG1773146209
Type of Cyber IncidentVulnerability
ATTACK VECTORUnauthenticated file overwrite via LFS objects
DATA EXPOSEDNA
INCIDENT DATE31/12/2025
STATUSpublished

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of GOG'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 GOG 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 GOG breach identified under incident ID GOG1773146209.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of GOG's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/gogcom, the number of followers: 11267, the industry type: Computer Games and the number of employees: 812 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 GOG and their customers.

Gogs recently reported "Critical Gogs Vulnerability (CVE-2026-25921) Exposes Self-Hosted Git Services to Supply-Chain Attacks", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

A severe security flaw in Gogs, a popular open-source self-hosted Git service, has been identified, allowing unauthenticated attackers to silently overwrite Git Large File Storage (LFS) objects across repositories.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Gogs versions 0.14.1 and earlier.

In response, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Upgrade to Gogs 0.14.2 or later, audit existing LFS objects, restrict access or disable public registrations if patching is delayed, and began remediation that includes Enforce strict hash verification for LFS objects in Gogs 0.14.2.

The case underscores how teams are taking away lessons such as Risks of unverified file storage in self-hosted Git services, importance of repository-level isolation and hash verification for LFS objects, and recommending next steps like Upgrade to Gogs 0.14.2 or later immediately, Audit existing LFS objects for unauthorized modifications and Restrict access or disable public registrations if patching is delayed.

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 severe security flaw in Gogs...allowing unauthenticated attackers to silently overwrite and Supply Chain Compromise: Compromise Software Supply Chain (T1195.002) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating stealthy supply-chain attacks by replacing legitimate files with malicious payloads. Under the Persistence tactic, the analysis identified Compromise Client Software Binary (T1554) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating replace legitimate files with malicious versions...such as backdoored binaries or scripts. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Masquerading (T1036) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating silently overwrite Git Large File Storage (LFS) objects...evade detection and Subvert Trust Controls: Code Signing (T1553.002) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating no repository-level isolation...missing hash verification for uploaded files. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Resource Hijacking (T1496) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating replace critical project files (e.g., datasets, compiled binaries) with malicious versions and Network Denial of Service: Direct Network Flood (T1498.001) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating potential compromise of software supply chains...operational impact. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Exploit Public-Facing Application (90%)
Supply Chain Compromise: Compromise Software Supply Chain (90%)
Persistence
Compromise Client Software Binary (80%)
Defense Evasion
Masquerading (80%)
Subvert Trust Controls: Code Signing (70%)
Impact
Resource Hijacking (80%)
Network Denial of Service: Direct Network Flood (50%)

Sources & References