Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Instructure » INSINF1777891308

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (INSINF1777891308)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-361
Company Score Before Incident684 / 1000
Company Score After Incident323 / 1000
Company LinkView Instructure Profile
INCIDENT NUMBERINSINF1777891308
Type of Cyber IncidentBreach
ATTACK VECTORNA
DATA EXPOSEDUser-identifying data (full names, email...
INCIDENT DATE31/12/2024
STATUSOngoing

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Instructure'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 Instructure 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 Instructure breach identified under incident ID INSINF1777891308.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Instructure's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/instructure-inc-, the number of followers: 79694, the industry type: E-Learning Providers and the number of employees: 2172 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 684 and after the incident was 323 with a difference of -361 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 Instructure and their customers.

Instructure recently reported "Instructure Cybersecurity Breach Impacting Canvas LMS Users", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

Instructure, the provider of Canvas, confirmed a cybersecurity incident involving a criminal threat actor.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Canvas LMS, and exposing User-identifying data (full names, email addresses, student ID numbers, messages).

In response, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Incident contained, heightened monitoring implemented, security keys reissued, and began remediation that includes Re-authorization of access to affected tools, and stakeholders are being briefed through Public statement acknowledging the incident and outlining response measures.

The case underscores how Ongoing, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Users may need to re-authorize access to affected tools; notification promised if sensitive data compromise is confirmed.

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 (60%), supported by evidence indicating cybersecurity incident involving a criminal threat actor targeting Canvas LMS and Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating security keys reissued, requiring users to re-authorize access. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Steal Application Access Token (T1528) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating security keys reissued as a precaution, no evidence keys were misused. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating attackers may have accessed or exfiltrated user-identifying data and Data from Information Repositories (T1213) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating canvas LMS stores vast amounts of personal data. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating attackers may have accessed or exfiltrated user-identifying data. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (T1562.001) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating heightened monitoring implemented post-incident. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating no evidence of compromise of sensitive information like passwords. 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 (60%)
Valid Accounts (50%)
Credential Access
Steal Application Access Token (70%)
Collection
Data from Local System (80%)
Data from Information Repositories (70%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (70%)
Defense Evasion
Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (50%)
Impact
Data Destruction (30%)

Sources & References