Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (MAR1772110336)
The details regarding individual company incidents & reports gives you full view from every side.
Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis
Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis
- Timeline of Marin Cancer Care'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 Marin Cancer Care 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 Marin Cancer Care breach identified under incident ID MAR1772110336.
The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Marin Cancer Care's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/marin-cancer-care, the number of followers: 193, the industry type: Medical Practices and the number of employees: 29 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 749 and after the incident was 727 with a difference of -22 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 Marin Cancer Care and their customers.
New Age Dermatology recently reported "Cyberattacks on Healthcare Providers Highlight HIPAA Compliance Risks and Data Exposure", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.
In December 2025, three healthcare providers (New Age Dermatology, Carolina Foot & Ankle Associates, and Marin Cancer Care) reported cybersecurity incidents involving unauthorized access to patient data, highlighting HIPAA compliance risks and data exposure vulnerabilities.
The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting internal server and network, and exposing True.
In response, teams activated the incident response plan, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like immediate security enhancements, and began remediation that includes credit monitoring and identity theft protection services, and stakeholders are being briefed through breach notifications to affected individuals and reporting to HHS’ Office for Civil Rights.
The case underscores how ongoing, teams are taking away lessons such as The incidents underscore persistent vulnerabilities in healthcare cybersecurity, including phishing/email-based attacks, insufficient workforce training, delayed breach notifications, inadequate access controls, and gaps in business associate oversight, and recommending next steps like ongoing security awareness training, documented risk analyses and timely breach reporting, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering complimentary credit monitoring and identity theft protection services for 12 months.
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%), supported by evidence indicating phishing and email-based attacks as primary entry points and Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate to high confidence (80%), with evidence including unauthorized network access, and shared login credentials. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified User Execution (T1204) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating insufficient workforce training on identifying malicious software. Under the Persistence tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating unauthorized access between November 22 and December 6, 2025. Under the Privilege Escalation tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating inadequate access controls, including shared login credentials. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (T1562.001) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating internal server rendered inoperable and Indicator Removal (T1070) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating improperly configured audit logs. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating unauthorized access via shared login credentials. Under the Discovery tactic, the analysis identified Account Discovery (T1087) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating access to patient names, medical information, health insurance details. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating files containing patient names, medical information acquired and Data from Information Repositories (T1213) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating diagnostic images, photographs, medical/treatment details compromised. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (80%), with evidence including unauthorized file exfiltration, and data exfiltration confirmed. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Encrypted for Impact (T1486) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating ransomware attack rendered server inoperable and Defacement (T1491) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating brand reputation impact due to breach. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.
Sources & References
- Marin Cancer Care Rankiteo Cyber Incident Details: https://www.rankiteo.com/company/marin-cancer-care/incident/MAR1772110336
- Marin Cancer Care CyberSecurity Rating page: https://www.rankiteo.com/company/marin-cancer-care
- Marin Cancer Care Rankiteo Cyber Incident Blog Article: https://blog.rankiteo.com/mar1772110336-marin-cancer-care-cyber-attack-december-2025/
- Marin Cancer Care CyberSecurity Score History: https://www.rankiteo.com/company/marin-cancer-care/history
- Marin Cancer Care CyberSecurity Incident Source: https://www.hipaajournal.com/carolina-foot-ankle-associates-new-age-dermatology-marin-cancer-care-breach/
- Rankiteo A.I CyberSecurity Rating methodology: https://www.rankiteo.com/Images/rankiteo_algo.pdf
- Rankiteo TPRM Scoring methodology: https://static.rankiteo.com/model/rankiteo_tprm_methodology.pdf