Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Google » GOO1787581656

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (GOO1787581656)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-26
Company Score Before Incident438 / 1000
Company Score After Incident412 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERGOO1787581656
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTORPhishing, Malicious Browser Extension, Remote Access Tools
DATA EXPOSEDEmails, Attachments, Sender/Recipient Details, Message...
INCIDENT DATE31/12/2025
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 GOO1787581656.

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: 41943502, the industry type: Software Development and the number of employees: 313465 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 438 and after the incident was 412 with a difference of -26 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.

On 01 January 2026, a cybersecurity incident called "Kimsuky’s Latest Espionage Campaign Targets Gmail via Malicious Chrome Extension" came to light.

A new cyber espionage campaign attributed to the North Korean threat group Kimsuky has been uncovered, leveraging a malicious Chrome extension to steal Gmail data from victims in South Korea and Japan during the first half of 2026.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Gmail, Thunderbird and Outlook, and exposing Emails, Attachments and Sender/Recipient Details.

Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.

The case underscores how Ongoing, teams are taking away lessons such as The campaign highlights Kimsuky's adaptation of AI tools and legitimate software to enhance espionage capabilities while evading traditional defenses.

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 (T1566) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating phishing emails containing OneDrive sharing links and User Execution: Malicious File (T1204.002) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating windows shortcut (LNK) file delivered via phishing. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified User Execution: Malicious File (T1204.002) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating lNK file executed hidden commands to download malware and Command and Scripting Interpreter: JavaScript (T1059.007) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating malicious Chrome extension used JavaScript for data theft. Under the Persistence tactic, the analysis identified Browser Extensions (T1176) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating malicious Chrome extension named Gmail automatic server uploader, Scheduled Task/Job: Scheduled Task (T1053.005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating task named Chrome_Update ran every 15 minutes, and Create or Modify System Process: Windows Service (T1543.003) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating remote access tools (Chrome Remote Desktop, AnyDesk) for persistence. Under the Privilege Escalation tactic, the analysis identified Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism: Bypass User Account Control (T1548.002) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating chrome Remote Desktop used UAC bypass for elevated privileges. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Masquerading: Match Legitimate Name or Location (T1036.005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating chrome Remote Desktop and AnyDesk abused as legitimate tools, Indicator Removal: File Deletion (T1070.004) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating attackers likely removed traces post-exfiltration, and Hide Artifacts: Hidden Window (T1564.003) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating anyDesk hidden from view to evade detection. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Brute Force: Password Guessing (T1110.001) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating keylogging suggests potential credential harvesting and Input Capture: Keylogging (T1056.001) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating keystrokes logged as part of the attack. Under the Discovery tactic, the analysis identified Account Discovery: Local Account (T1087.001) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating system reconnaissance conducted to evade detection and File and Directory Discovery (T1083) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating gmail, Thunderbird, and Outlook data targeted. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Email Collection: Remote Email Collection (T1114.002) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating gmail, Thunderbird, and Outlook emails harvested, Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating attachments, sender/recipient details, message content stolen, and Screen Capture (T1113) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating remote access tools suggest potential screen capture. Under the Command and Control tactic, the analysis identified Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols (T1071.001) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating data exfiltrated to attacker-controlled server via encoded transmissions and Proxy: External Proxy (T1090.002) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating rapidly rotating C2 servers to obscure infrastructure. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating data exfiltrated to hxxps such as //sweet-iki-4263.holy.jp/gmail.php and Exfiltration Over Web Service: Exfiltration to Cloud Storage (T1567.002) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating oneDrive sharing links used in phishing. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Phishing (90%)
User Execution: Malicious File (80%)
Execution
User Execution: Malicious File (80%)
Command and Scripting Interpreter: JavaScript (70%)
Persistence
Browser Extensions (90%)
Scheduled Task/Job: Scheduled Task (80%)
Create or Modify System Process: Windows Service (60%)
Privilege Escalation
Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism: Bypass User Account Control (70%)
Defense Evasion
Masquerading: Match Legitimate Name or Location (80%)
Indicator Removal: File Deletion (50%)
Hide Artifacts: Hidden Window (70%)
Credential Access
Brute Force: Password Guessing (40%)
Input Capture: Keylogging (80%)
Discovery
Account Discovery: Local Account (60%)
File and Directory Discovery (70%)
Collection
Email Collection: Remote Email Collection (90%)
Data from Local System (80%)
Screen Capture (50%)
Command and Control
Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols (80%)
Proxy: External Proxy (70%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (90%)
Exfiltration Over Web Service: Exfiltration to Cloud Storage (60%)

Sources & References