Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Mariner Holdings » MAR1780432613

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (MAR1780432613)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-96
Company Score Before Incident751 / 1000
Company Score After Incident655 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERMAR1780432613
Type of Cyber IncidentBreach
ATTACK VECTORUnauthorized access to cloud applications
DATA EXPOSEDNames, account numbers, birthdates, Social...
INCIDENT DATE28/05/2025
STATUSOngoing

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Mariner Holdings'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 Mariner Holdings 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 Mariner Holdings breach identified under incident ID MAR1780432613.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Mariner Holdings's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/marinerholdings, the number of followers: 2096, the industry type: Financial Services and the number of employees: 6 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 751 and after the incident was 655 with a difference of -96 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 Mariner Holdings and their customers.

Mariner Wealth Advisors recently reported "Mariner Wealth Advisors Data Breach", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

Mariner Wealth Advisors disclosed a data breach that may have exposed the personal information of approximately 8,995 individuals.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Three associates’ cloud applications, and exposing Names, account numbers, birthdates, Social Security numbers, with nearly 8,995 records at risk.

In response, teams activated the incident response plan, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Isolated and secured affected accounts.

The case underscores how Ongoing, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Identity theft protection services offered to affected clients.

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 Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating unauthorized access to three associates’ cloud applications and Phishing: Spearphishing Link (T1566.002) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating no details on initial access vector, but phishing is common in such breaches. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Unsecured Credentials: Cloud Instance Metadata API (T1552.005) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating access to cloud applications suggests possible credential compromise and Brute Force: Password Spraying (T1110.003) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating no direct evidence, but cloud app breaches often involve brute force. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Cloud Storage (T1530) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating compromised names, account numbers, birthdates, and Social Security numbers via cloud apps. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Transfer Data to Cloud Account (T1537) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating criminal third party accessed and downloaded certain files and Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating data breach impacting 8,995 individuals with PII exfiltrated. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with lower confidence (20%), supported by evidence indicating no evidence of data destruction, but PII exposure is primary impact and Data Manipulation: Transmitted Data Manipulation (T1565.002) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating no evidence of data manipulation, but unauthorized access occurred. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Hide Artifacts: Email Hiding Rules (T1564.008) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating no direct evidence, but cloud app breaches often involve evasion tactics. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Valid Accounts (80%)
Phishing: Spearphishing Link (50%)
Credential Access
Unsecured Credentials: Cloud Instance Metadata API (60%)
Brute Force: Password Spraying (40%)
Collection
Data from Cloud Storage (90%)
Exfiltration
Transfer Data to Cloud Account (80%)
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (70%)
Impact
Data Destruction (20%)
Data Manipulation: Transmitted Data Manipulation (30%)
Defense Evasion
Hide Artifacts: Email Hiding Rules (40%)

Sources & References