Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Kaspersky » KAS1773044624

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (KAS1773044624)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-4
Company Score Before Incident660 / 1000
Company Score After Incident656 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERKAS1773044624
Type of Cyber IncidentVulnerability
ATTACK VECTORMalicious Image Files (Metadata Exploitation)
DATA EXPOSEDNA
INCIDENT DATE31/12/2025
STATUSpublished

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Kaspersky's Vulnerability 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 Kaspersky 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 Kaspersky breach identified under incident ID KAS1773044624.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Kaspersky's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/kaspersky, the number of followers: 528510, the industry type: Computer and Network Security and the number of employees: 4470 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 660 and after the incident was 656 with a difference of -4 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 Kaspersky and their customers.

ExifTool Users recently reported "Critical ExifTool Vulnerability Exposes macOS Systems to Code Execution via Malicious Images", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

A severe vulnerability in ExifTool, a widely used open-source utility for reading and editing image metadata, has been discovered, allowing attackers to execute arbitrary code on macOS systems through specially crafted image files.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting macOS systems running ExifTool versions 13.49 and earlier.

In response, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Upgrade to ExifTool 13.50 or later, and began remediation that includes Verify third-party software for outdated ExifTool libraries, Audit automated image-processing scripts and Isolate untrusted image processing in sandboxes.

The case underscores how teams are taking away lessons such as The incident underscores the risks of software supply chain threats, where even benign files like images can serve as attack vectors. Organizations should prioritize patch management and isolate untrusted processing environments, and recommending next steps like Upgrade to ExifTool 13.50 or later, Verify third-party software for embedded outdated ExifTool libraries and Audit automated image-processing scripts.

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 Exploitation for Client Execution (T1203) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating execute arbitrary code on macOS systems through specially crafted image files and Phishing: Spearphishing Attachment (T1566.001) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating journalists, law firms, or analysts receiving an image for processing. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified Command and Scripting Interpreter: Unix Shell (T1059.004) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating malformed date values disguised as shell commands...execute them under...macOS and Exploitation for Client Execution (T1203) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating execute arbitrary code on macOS systems through...image files. Under the Persistence tactic, the analysis identified Event Triggered Execution: Component Object Model Hijacking (T1546.015) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating download and execute payloads, including Trojans, infostealers, or backdoors. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Obfuscated Files or Information (T1027) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating malformed date values disguised as shell commands in image metadata and Exploitation for Defense Evasion (T1211) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating vulnerability stems from how the tool handles the DateTimeOriginal field. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Resource Hijacking (T1496) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating execute arbitrary code...compromising the system. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Exploitation for Client Execution (90%)
Phishing: Spearphishing Attachment (70%)
Execution
Command and Scripting Interpreter: Unix Shell (90%)
Exploitation for Client Execution (90%)
Persistence
Event Triggered Execution: Component Object Model Hijacking (50%)
Defense Evasion
Obfuscated Files or Information (80%)
Exploitation for Defense Evasion (70%)
Impact
Resource Hijacking (60%)

Sources & References