Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Marquis » MAR1770198786

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (MAR1770198786)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-70
Company Score Before Incident525 / 1000
Company Score After Incident455 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERMAR1770198786
Type of Cyber IncidentBreach
ATTACK VECTORNA
DATA EXPOSEDPersonally identifiable information (PII), including...
INCIDENT DATE31/12/2024
STATUSpublished

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Marquis'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 Marquis 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 Marquis breach identified under incident ID MAR1770198786.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Marquis's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/marquis-software-solutions, the number of followers: 3020, the industry type: Financial Services and the number of employees: 309 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 525 and after the incident was 455 with a difference of -70 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 Marquis and their customers.

Union State Bank recently reported "Union State Bank Customers Impacted by Third-Party Data Breach at Marquis Software Solutions", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

Union State Bank recently disclosed a data breach stemming from a security incident at Marquis Software Solutions, a third-party vendor that previously handled marketing and communications for the bank.

The disruption is felt across the environment, and exposing Personally identifiable information (PII), including names and account details.

In response, and stakeholders are being briefed through Notification letters mailed to impacted individuals; details posted on Union State Bank’s website.

The case underscores how and recommending next steps like Review credit reports, monitor financial statements, utilize provided support services (credit monitoring and identity theft protection), with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Notification letters mailed to impacted individuals; details posted on Union State Bank’s website. Customers advised to review credit reports and monitor financial statements.

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 breach stemming from a security incident at Marquis Software Solutions, a third-party vendor and Trusted Relationship (T1199) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating marquis Software Solutions, a third-party vendor that previously handled marketing. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Steal Application Access Token (T1528) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating pII of some Union State Bank customers, including names and account details. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating exposed personally identifiable information (PII) of some Union State Bank customers and Data from Information Repositories (T1213) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating marquis Software Solutions...previously handled marketing and communications for the bank. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating breach may have exposed personally identifiable information (PII) and Transfer Data to Cloud Account (T1537) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating multiple organizations using Marquis’ services were potentially affected. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating exact cause and scope of the breach remain undisclosed and Data Manipulation: Stored Data Manipulation (T1565.001) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating identity theft risk such as Yes. 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%)
Trusted Relationship (80%)
Credential Access
Steal Application Access Token (60%)
Collection
Data from Local System (80%)
Data from Information Repositories (70%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (70%)
Transfer Data to Cloud Account (50%)
Impact
Data Destruction (30%)
Data Manipulation: Stored Data Manipulation (40%)