Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Maple ITES Inc. » MAP1782398329

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (MAP1782398329)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-16
Company Score Before Incident763 / 1000
Company Score After Incident747 / 1000
Company LinkView Maple ITES Inc. Profile
INCIDENT NUMBERMAP1782398329
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTORSupply chain vulnerabilities
DATA EXPOSEDNA
INCIDENT DATE31/12/2025
STATUSpublished

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Maple ITES Inc.'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 Maple ITES Inc. 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 Maple ITES Inc. breach identified under incident ID MAP1782398329.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Maple ITES Inc.'s information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/maple-ites-inc, the number of followers: 3, the industry type: IT Services and IT Consulting and the number of employees: 1 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 763 and after the incident was 747 with a difference of -16 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 Maple ITES Inc. and their customers.

On 25 June 2026, Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) disclosed Ransomware issues under the banner "Ransomware Attacks Surge 55% Across Europe in Early 2026".

A new report from cyber risk management firm Black Kite reveals a sharp rise in ransomware attacks targeting European organizations, with incidents increasing by 55.1% year-over-year in the first four months of 2026.

The disruption is felt across the environment, plus an estimated financial loss of Costliest cyber incident in UK history (JLR attack).

Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.

The case underscores how teams are taking away lessons such as Downstream effects of supply chain vulnerabilities are a defining feature of major ransomware campaigns. Organizations need to map risk concentration and monitor threat propagation to build resilience, and recommending next steps like Monitor third-party risk, enhance supply chain security, and implement robust incident response plans.

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 Supply Chain Compromise (T1195) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating over 30 ransomware incidents linked to the August 2025 compromise of Swedish software supplier Miljödata and Supply Chain Compromise: Compromise Software Supply Chain (T1195.002) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating exploit supply chain weaknesses to amplify their impact. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified Exploitation for Client Execution (T1203) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating qilin ransomware responsible for 372 recorded attacks. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Encrypted for Impact (T1486) with high confidence (95%), with evidence including data encryption such as Yes (ransomware-related), and ransomware strain such as Qilin, Akira, SafePay and Defacement (T1491) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating forced 30,000 employees to reset passwords (JLR attack). Under the Lateral Movement tactic, the analysis identified Exploitation of Remote Services (T1210) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating downstream effects where a single breach cascades through interconnected networks. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating ransomware campaigns often involve data exfiltration prior to encryption. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Obfuscated Files or Information (T1027) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating ransomware strains (Qilin, Akira, SafePay) likely employ obfuscation. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Supply Chain Compromise (90%)
Supply Chain Compromise: Compromise Software Supply Chain (80%)
Execution
Exploitation for Client Execution (70%)
Impact
Data Encrypted for Impact (95%)
Defacement (50%)
Lateral Movement
Exploitation of Remote Services (80%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (60%)
Defense Evasion
Obfuscated Files or Information (70%)

Sources & References