Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Instructure » INSPIT1778174944

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (INSPIT1778174944)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact0
Company Score Before Incident100 / 1000
Company Score After Incident100 / 1000
Company LinkView Instructure Profile
INCIDENT NUMBERINSPIT1778174944
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTORNA
DATA EXPOSEDNames, email addresses, student ID...
INCIDENT DATE30/04/2026
STATUSOngoing

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Instructure'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 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 INSPIT1778174944.

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 100 and after the incident was 100 with a difference of 0 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.

On 01 May 2024, Pitt County Schools disclosed Data Breach issues under the banner "Pitt County Schools Investigates Data Breach Impacting Canvas Learning Platform".

Pitt County Schools (PCS) in North Carolina is investigating a data breach affecting Canvas, a widely used learning platform operated by third-party vendor Instructure.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Canvas learning platform, and exposing Names, email addresses, student ID numbers, user messages.

In response, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Breach contained by May 2, and stakeholders are being briefed through Direct notifications to affected entities, advisories to students and staff.

The case underscores how Ongoing, and recommending next steps like Caution against phishing attempts referencing the breach, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, affected school districts.

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 to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating cyberattack by a criminal threat actor on Canvas learning platform and Trusted Relationship (T1199) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating third-party vendor Instructure operated Canvas,supply chain such as true. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Gather Victim Identity Information: Email Addresses (T1589.002) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating compromised data may include names, email addresses, student ID numbers. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating names, email addresses, student ID numbers, user messages compromised and Data from Information Repositories (T1213) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating canvas learning platform data compromised. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating data breach affecting Canvas, no evidence of exfil method disclosed. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating no evidence of data destruction, but breach contained and Data Manipulation: Transmitted Data Manipulation (T1565.002) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating user messages compromised, potential for manipulation. 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 (70%)
Trusted Relationship (80%)
Credential Access
Gather Victim Identity Information: Email Addresses (90%)
Collection
Data from Local System (80%)
Data from Information Repositories (70%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (70%)
Impact
Data Destruction (30%)
Data Manipulation: Transmitted Data Manipulation (40%)

Sources & References