Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Google » BLETREGOO1780669490

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (BLETREGOO1780669490)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-19
Company Score Before Incident388 / 1000
Company Score After Incident369 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERBLETREGOO1780669490
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTORFake App Downloads, Typosquatted Domains, Social Engineering (Fake Security Update Prompt)
DATA EXPOSEDDocuments, PDFs, Spreadsheets, Cryptocurrency Wallet...
INCIDENT DATE30/04/2026
STATUSOngoing

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Google'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 Google 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 Google breach identified under incident ID BLETREGOO1780669490.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Google's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/google, the number of followers: 40050213, the industry type: Software Development and the number of employees: 327709 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 388 and after the incident was 369 with a difference of -19 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 Google and their customers.

A newly reported cybersecurity incident, "macOS Users Targeted by Reaper Malware Campaign Using Fake App Downloads", has drawn attention.

A new malware campaign is targeting macOS users with an updated version of the SHub Stealer, dubbed Reaper, which masquerades as trusted software brands to steal files and cryptocurrency assets.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting macOS (Tahoe 26.4 and potentially other versions), and exposing Documents, PDFs, Spreadsheets, Cryptocurrency Wallet Files, Browser Passwords, Crypto Wallet Extensions.

Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.

The case underscores how Ongoing.

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 Phishing: Spearphishing Link (T1566.002) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including applescript such as // links to automatically open macOS Script Editor, and typosquatted domains (e.g., mlcrosoft.co.com) and Drive-by Compromise (T1189) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating fake App Downloads impersonating WeChat and Miro. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified Command and Scripting Interpreter: AppleScript (T1059.002) with high confidence (95%), supported by evidence indicating malicious code hidden in macOS Script Editor via applescript such as // links and User Execution: Malicious File (T1204.002) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating fake Apple security update prompt tricking users into entering password. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Masquerading: Match Legitimate Name or Location (T1036.005) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including masquerades as trusted software brands (WeChat, Miro), and fake Google Software Update directory, Obfuscated Files or Information: Binary Padding (T1027.001) with moderate to high confidence (85%), supported by evidence indicating malicious code hidden beneath ASCII art and excessive whitespace, and Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (T1562.001) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating bypassing Apple’s recent security updates in macOS Tahoe 26.4. Under the Discovery tactic, the analysis identified System Information Discovery (T1082) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating checks victim’s keyboard language shutting down if set to Russian. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with high confidence (95%), supported by evidence indicating targets documents, PDFs, spreadsheets, cryptocurrency-related files (.wallet, .keys), Steal Web Session Cookie (T1539) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating steals browser passwords (Chrome, Firefox, Edge), and Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (T1552.001) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating steals crypto wallet extensions (1Password, MetaMask). Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Credentials from Password Stores: Credentials from Web Browsers (T1555.003) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating steals browser passwords (Chrome, Firefox, Edge) and Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (T1552.001) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating steals crypto wallet extensions (1Password, MetaMask). Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with high confidence (95%), supported by evidence indicating compressing files into 70MB ZIP chunks, exfiltrating to C2 server (hebsbsbzjsjshduxbs.xyz/gate/chunk). Under the Persistence tactic, the analysis identified Boot or Logon Autostart Execution: Plist Modification (T1547.011) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating fake Google Software Update directory created to maintain persistent backdoor access. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Encrypted for Impact (T1486) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating modifying desktop wallet apps (Ledger Live, Trezor Suite) to divert funds. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Phishing: Spearphishing Link (90%)
Drive-by Compromise (80%)
Execution
Command and Scripting Interpreter: AppleScript (95%)
User Execution: Malicious File (90%)
Defense Evasion
Masquerading: Match Legitimate Name or Location (90%)
Obfuscated Files or Information: Binary Padding (85%)
Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (70%)
Discovery
System Information Discovery (80%)
Collection
Data from Local System (95%)
Steal Web Session Cookie (80%)
Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (90%)
Credential Access
Credentials from Password Stores: Credentials from Web Browsers (90%)
Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (90%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (95%)
Persistence
Boot or Logon Autostart Execution: Plist Modification (70%)
Impact
Data Encrypted for Impact (30%)