Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Group-IB » GRO1776176694

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (GRO1776176694)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-108
Company Score Before Incident735 / 1000
Company Score After Incident627 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERGRO1776176694
Type of Cyber IncidentRansomware
ATTACK VECTORDouble-extortion (data leak as leverage)
DATA EXPOSEDIdentity photos, names, locations, plaintext...
INCIDENT DATE11/04/2026
STATUSOngoing (analysis by security researchers)

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Group-IB's Ransomware 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 Group-IB 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 Group-IB breach identified under incident ID GRO1776176694.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Group-IB's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/group-ib, the number of followers: 131374, the industry type: Computer and Network Security and the number of employees: 475 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 735 and after the incident was 627 with a difference of -108 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 Group-IB and their customers.

On 01 January 2026, Krybit disclosed Ransomware, Cyber Extortion, Data Leak issues under the banner "0APT Threatens to Expose Krybit Ransomware Operatives".

The ransomware group 0APT targeted a rival outfit, Krybit, threatening to expose its affiliates unless a payment is made.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Krybit's website (offline, displaying maintenance message), and exposing Identity photos, names, locations, plaintext credentials, cryptocurrency wallet addresses.

In response, and stakeholders are being briefed through Threatening data leaks via dark web.

The case underscores how Ongoing (analysis by security researchers), teams are taking away lessons such as The incident underscores the paranoia and infighting within the ransomware ecosystem, where even criminal groups are not immune to extortion.

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 moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating krybits website is currently offline, displaying a generic maintenance message and Phishing: Spearphishing Attachment (T1566.001) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating rivalry between ransomware groups may involve targeted malicious exchanges. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified OS Credential Dumping (T1003) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating plaintext credentials...found in the leaked data and Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (T1552.001) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating plaintext credentials...found in the leaked data. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating identity photos, names, locations, and other sensitive details of its members and Data from Information Repositories (T1213) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating cryptocurrency wallet addresses...found in the leaked data. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating leaked a sample of stolen data as leverage and Exfiltration Over Web Service: Exfiltration to Cloud Storage (T1567.002) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating data leak as leverage via dark web. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Encrypted for Impact (T1486) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating standard double-extortion playbook leaking a sample of stolen data and Defacement: Internal Defacement (T1491.001) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating krybit’s website is currently offline, displaying a generic maintenance message. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating plaintext credentials...found in the leaked data and Hide Artifacts: Hidden Files and Directories (T1564.001) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating krybit’s website offline, displaying maintenance message. 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 (50%)
Phishing: Spearphishing Attachment (40%)
Credential Access
OS Credential Dumping (80%)
Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (70%)
Collection
Data from Local System (90%)
Data from Information Repositories (70%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (80%)
Exfiltration Over Web Service: Exfiltration to Cloud Storage (60%)
Impact
Data Encrypted for Impact (50%)
Defacement: Internal Defacement (60%)
Defense Evasion
Valid Accounts (70%)
Hide Artifacts: Hidden Files and Directories (50%)

Sources & References