Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Google » GOOGSMDC-APP1766375619

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (GOOGSMDC-APP1766375619)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-9
Company Score Before Incident584 / 1000
Company Score After Incident575 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERGOOGSMDC-APP1766375619
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTORNA
DATA EXPOSEDNA
INCIDENT DATE03/06/2025
STATUSOngoing (policy discussion and technical evaluation)

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 GOOGSMDC-APP1766375619.

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 584 and after the incident was 575 with a difference of -9 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.

Apple recently reported "UK Legislators Question Apple and Google Over Lack of Smartphone Theft Protections", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

UK Members of Parliament expressed concerns that Apple and Google have not implemented measures to remotely lock, reset, and block stolen smartphones from accessing cloud services, as requested by the Metropolitan Police.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Smartphones (primarily Apple iPhones), plus an estimated financial loss of £50 million ($67 million) annual replacement value of stolen phones in London.

In response, and stakeholders are being briefed through Public statements by Apple and Google to UK Parliament.

The case underscores how Ongoing (policy discussion and technical evaluation), teams are taking away lessons such as Need for collaboration between tech companies, law enforcement, and regulators to address smartphone theft and resale. Potential for IMEI-based blocking systems to reduce theft incentives, and recommending next steps like Implement an international cloud-level blocking system for stolen smartphones using IMEI numbers, Establish a regulatory or government body to oversee smartphone registration and locking mechanisms and Enhance fraud detection to prevent misuse of IMEI-based blocking systems, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering UK Parliament committee urging Apple and Google to implement IMEI-based blocking for stolen devices.

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 Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts (T1078.004) with moderate to high confidence (70%), with evidence including stolen devices barred from accessing Apple or Google services, and potential access to cloud services (e.g., Google Photos, Drive, iCloud). Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Steal Application Access Token (T1528) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating potential risk if data is accessed by criminals via stolen devices and Credentials In Files: Cloud Instance Metadata API (T1552.005) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating stolen phones may retain cached cloud session tokens. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (T1562.001) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating criminals may bypass Find My Device or remote wipe features and Domain Policy Modification: Group Policy Modification (T1484.001) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating iMEI spoofing risks cited as fraud vector for blocking systems. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Unencrypted/Obfuscated Non-C2 Protocol (T1048.003) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating stolen devices resold abroad (Algeria, China, Hong Kong). These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts (70%)
Credential Access
Steal Application Access Token (60%)
Credentials In Files: Cloud Instance Metadata API (50%)
Defense Evasion
Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (60%)
Domain Policy Modification: Group Policy Modification (40%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Unencrypted/Obfuscated Non-C2 Protocol (70%)

Sources & References