Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Hackmanac » HAC1770717121

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (HAC1770717121)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-88
Company Score Before Incident748 / 1000
Company Score After Incident660 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERHAC1770717121
Type of Cyber IncidentBreach
ATTACK VECTORUnknown (Database Leak)
DATA EXPOSEDEmail addresses, user IDs, subscription...
INCIDENT DATE31/05/2023
STATUSpublished

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Hackmanac'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 Hackmanac 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 Hackmanac breach identified under incident ID HAC1770717121.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Hackmanac's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/hackmanac, the number of followers: 10069, the industry type: Computer and Network Security and the number of employees: 7 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 748 and after the incident was 660 with a difference of -88 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 Hackmanac and their customers.

WormGPT recently reported "WormGPT Database Leaked: Threat Actor Exposes 19,000 Users of Malicious AI Tool", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

A threat actor known as *Sythe* has claimed responsibility for leaking the full database of *WormGPT*, a cybercrime-focused AI platform sold on dark web forums since 2023.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting WormGPT platform database, and exposing Email addresses, user IDs, subscription and billing metadata, with nearly 19,000 records at risk.

Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.

The case underscores how teams are taking away lessons such as The incident underscores the growing threat of AI-powered cybercrime, as generative AI tools like WormGPT continue to evolve and expand the attack surface. It also highlights the risks of exposing cybercriminal user data, which can be exploited for further attacks or retaliation, and recommending next steps like Enhance security measures for cybercrime-focused platforms to prevent database leaks, Monitor dark web forums for exposed user data to mitigate further exploitation and Increase awareness of AI-powered cybercrime tools and their risks.

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 wormGPT platform database leaked; attack vector unknown and Compromise Accounts (T1586) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating threat actor *Sythe* claimed responsibility for leaking database. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Container API (T1552.007) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating database included subscription and billing metadata. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Information Repositories (T1213) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating exposed email addresses, user IDs, subscription/billing metadata. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating leaked database of 19,000 users by threat actor *Sythe* and Exfiltration Over Web Service (T1567) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating database leaked; potential exposure on dark web forums. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating leaked database risks retaliatory attacks or further exploitation and Defacement: Internal Defacement (T1491.001) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating negative impact on WormGPTs reputation as a cybercrime tool. Under the Resource Development tactic, the analysis identified Obtain Capabilities: Tool (T1588.002) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating wormGPT designed for phishing, malware dev, exploit creation and Acquire Infrastructure: Web Services (T1583.006) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating advertised on underground forums; subscription-based access. 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%)
Compromise Accounts (60%)
Credential Access
Container API (40%)
Collection
Data from Information Repositories (80%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (70%)
Exfiltration Over Web Service (60%)
Impact
Data Destruction (50%)
Defacement: Internal Defacement (40%)
Resource Development
Obtain Capabilities: Tool (90%)
Acquire Infrastructure: Web Services (70%)

Sources & References