Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » LexisNexis Legal » RELLEX1772562253

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (RELLEX1772562253)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-95
Company Score Before Incident755 / 1000
Company Score After Incident660 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERRELLEX1772562253
Type of Cyber IncidentBreach
ATTACK VECTORExploitation of unpatched vulnerability (React2Shell)
DATA EXPOSED2.04 GB of structured data
INCIDENT DATE02/03/2026
STATUSpublished

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of LexisNexis Legal'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 LexisNexis Legal 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 LexisNexis Legal breach identified under incident ID RELLEX1772562253.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of LexisNexis Legal's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/lexisnexislegal, the number of followers: 13007, the industry type: Software Development and the number of employees: 445 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 755 and after the incident was 660 with a difference of -95 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 LexisNexis Legal and their customers.

On 03 March 2026, LexisNexis Legal & Professional (RELX Group) disclosed Data Breach issues under the banner "FulcrumSec Claims Breach of LexisNexis, Exposing 2GB of Sensitive Legal Data".

On March 3, 2026, the threat actor FulcrumSec publicly took responsibility for a breach of LexisNexis Legal & Professional, a division of RELX Group, alleging the theft of 2.04 GB of structured data from the company’s AWS cloud infrastructure.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting AWS cloud infrastructure, Production Redshift data warehouse and 17 VPC databases, and exposing 2.04 GB of structured data, with nearly 3.9 million database records, 400,000 cloud user profiles records at risk.

Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.

Overall, the incident is a reminder of why proactive monitoring and strong governance matter.

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 high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating exploited the React2Shell vulnerability in an unpatched React frontend application. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified Container Administration Command (T1609) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating gained access via the compromised LawfirmsStoreECSTaskRole ECS task container. Under the Privilege Escalation tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts (T1078) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating rDS master password was set to Lexis1234 and Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism: Bypass User Account Control (T1548.002) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating single task role had access to all AWS Secrets Manager entries. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (T1552.001) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating 53 plaintext AWS Secrets Manager secrets exposed and Valid Accounts (T1078) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating rDS master password was set to Lexis1234. Under the Discovery tactic, the analysis identified Account Discovery: Cloud Account (T1087.004) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating 400,000 cloud user profiles (names, emails, phone numbers, job functions) exposed and Cloud Infrastructure Discovery (T1580) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating complete VPC infrastructure map exposed. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Cloud Storage Object (T1530) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating 3.9 million database records, 2.04 GB of structured data stolen from AWS cloud and Data from Information Repositories: Code Repositories (T1213.003) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating aWS Secrets Manager secrets exposed. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Transfer Data to Cloud Account (T1537) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating 2.04 GB of data stolen from AWS cloud infrastructure and Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating threat actor FulcrumSec publicly took responsibility for the breach. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating 2.04 GB of structured data stolen, potential for misuse and Account Access Removal (T1531) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating 45 employee password hashes exposed. 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 (90%)
Execution
Container Administration Command (80%)
Privilege Escalation
Valid Accounts (90%)
Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism: Bypass User Account Control (70%)
Credential Access
Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (90%)
Valid Accounts (90%)
Discovery
Account Discovery: Cloud Account (80%)
Cloud Infrastructure Discovery (80%)
Collection
Data from Cloud Storage Object (90%)
Data from Information Repositories: Code Repositories (70%)
Exfiltration
Transfer Data to Cloud Account (80%)
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (70%)
Impact
Data Destruction (40%)
Account Access Removal (30%)

Sources & References