Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Grafana Labs » GRA1779201402

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (GRA1779201402)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-59
Company Score Before Incident767 / 1000
Company Score After Incident708 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERGRA1779201402
Type of Cyber IncidentBreach
ATTACK VECTORCompromised Token
DATA EXPOSEDSource code
INCIDENT DATE31/12/2024
STATUSpublished

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Grafana Labs's Breach 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 Grafana Labs 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 Grafana Labs breach identified under incident ID GRA1779201402.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Grafana Labs's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/grafana-labs, the number of followers: 258334, the industry type: Software Development and the number of employees: 1772 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 767 and after the incident was 708 with a difference of -59 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 Grafana Labs and their customers.

On 01 January 2026, Grafana disclosed Source Code Theft issues under the banner "Grafana Source Code Theft in Cyberattack Linked to Coinbase Cartel".

Grafana confirmed a security breach after attackers accessed its GitHub environment using a compromised token.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting GitHub environment, and exposing Source code.

Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.

Overall, the incident is a reminder of why proactive monitoring and strong governance matter.

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 high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating attackers accessed its GitHub environment using a compromised token. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Steal Application Access Token (T1528) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including attack vector such as Compromised Token, and vulnerability exploited such as Stolen GitHub credentials. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Cloud Storage (T1530) with moderate to high confidence (80%), with evidence including theft of source code, and systems affected such as GitHub environment. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Transfer Data to Cloud Account (T1537) with moderate to high confidence (80%), with evidence including data exfiltration such as Yes, and threat actors demanded a ransom to prevent the leaked code. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Encrypted for Impact (T1486) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating ransom demanded to prevent leaked code from being published. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Use Alternate Authentication Material: Application Access Token (T1550.001) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating attackers accessed GitHub environment using a compromised token. 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 (90%)
Credential Access
Steal Application Access Token (90%)
Collection
Data from Cloud Storage (80%)
Exfiltration
Transfer Data to Cloud Account (80%)
Impact
Data Encrypted for Impact (30%)
Defense Evasion
Use Alternate Authentication Material: Application Access Token (80%)

Sources & References