Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » INTERPOL » SOPVERINT1769439828

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (SOPVERINT1769439828)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-20
Company Score Before Incident760 / 1000
Company Score After Incident740 / 1000
Company LinkView INTERPOL Profile
INCIDENT NUMBERSOPVERINT1769439828
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTORPhishing emails, Malicious attachments, Compromised links, Exploiting vulnerabilities
DATA EXPOSEDSensitive data leaked, Credentials exposed
INCIDENT DATE15/06/2024
STATUSpublished

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of INTERPOL'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 INTERPOL 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 INTERPOL breach identified under incident ID SOPVERINT1769439828.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of INTERPOL's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/interpol, the number of followers: 568557, the industry type: Law Enforcement and the number of employees: 2306 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 760 and after the incident was 740 with a difference of -20 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 INTERPOL and their customers.

A newly reported cybersecurity incident, "Ransomware Surges in Africa Driven by Cybersecurity Gaps and Financial Incentives", has drawn attention.

Ransomware remains one of the most damaging cyber threats globally, with Africa emerging as a key target in 2024.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Critical infrastructure, Power grids and Healthcare systems, and exposing Sensitive data leaked and Credentials exposed, plus an estimated financial loss of ['Ransom payments', 'Revenue losses from downtime'].

Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.

The case underscores how teams are taking away lessons such as Africa's cybersecurity gaps, including lack of resources, skilled personnel, and robust infrastructure, contribute to the rise in ransomware attacks. Human error and weak security controls are primary vulnerabilities, and recommending next steps like Implement strong access controls, Enhance network monitoring and Conduct regular backups.

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 Phishing (T1566) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including phishing emails...leading entry point, and employees unknowingly downloading malicious attachments and Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating exploiting vulnerabilities...weak security controls. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified User Execution: Malicious File (T1204.002) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating employees unknowingly downloading malicious attachments. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Brute Force (T1110) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating poor password practices...allow hackers to exploit vulnerabilities and Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (T1552.001) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating leaked credentials fuel further phishing scams and breaches. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating weak security controls...poor password practices and Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (T1562.001) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating unmonitored networks, insufficient intrusion detection. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Encrypted for Impact (T1486) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating ransomware malicious software that locks or encrypts a victim’s data and Inhibit System Recovery (T1490) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating data encrypted until a ransom is paid. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating threatening to leak sensitive data on the dark web and Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol (T1048) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating data exfiltration...double extortion tactics. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Phishing (90%)
Exploit Public-Facing Application (70%)
Execution
User Execution: Malicious File (80%)
Credential Access
Brute Force (60%)
Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (50%)
Defense Evasion
Valid Accounts (70%)
Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (60%)
Impact
Data Encrypted for Impact (90%)
Inhibit System Recovery (70%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (80%)
Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol (60%)

Sources & References