Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Matrix, LLC » BURMAT1772051599

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (BURMAT1772051599)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-33
Company Score Before Incident755 / 1000
Company Score After Incident722 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERBURMAT1772051599
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTORInsider Threat, Exploit Acquisition, Dark Web Sales
DATA EXPOSEDEight proprietary cyber tools developed...
INCIDENT DATE23/02/2026
STATUSOngoing (sanctions imposed, criminal case concluded for Peter Williams)

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Matrix, LLC'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 Matrix, LLC 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 Matrix, LLC breach identified under incident ID BURMAT1772051599.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Matrix, LLC's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/matrix-llc, the number of followers: 142, the industry type: Government Relations and the number of employees: 13 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 722 with a difference of -33 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 Matrix, LLC and their customers.

On 24 February 2026, U.S. Government disclosed Cyber Espionage, Intellectual Property Theft, Exploit Brokerage issues under the banner "U.S. Sanctions Russian Exploit Broker Network for Trafficking Stolen Cyber Tools".

On February 24, 2026, the U.S.

The disruption is felt across the environment, and exposing Eight proprietary cyber tools developed for U.S. national security, plus an estimated financial loss of $1.3 million (forfeited by Peter Williams).

In response, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Sanctions imposed, asset freezing, and stakeholders are being briefed through Public disclosure by U.S. Treasury, press statements.

The case underscores how Ongoing (sanctions imposed, criminal case concluded for Peter Williams), with advisories going out to stakeholders covering U.S. government warnings to entities dealing with exploit brokers and insider threats.

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 Unsecured Credentials: Private Keys (T1552.004) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating former senior employee at a U.S. defense contractor stole proprietary cyber tools and Trusted Relationship (T1199) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating insider threat (Peter Williams, former U.S. defense contractor employee). Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (T1552.001) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating eight proprietary cyber tools stolen from U.S. defense contractor. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Cloud Storage (T1530) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating cyber tools intended for exclusive government use were stolen and Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating former employee stole proprietary cyber tools from U.S. defense systems. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating sold to unauthorized buyers, explored AI-driven data extraction methods and Exfiltration Over Web Service (T1567) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating data sold on dark web to Operation Zero and unauthorized buyers. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Code Signing: Code Signing Certificates (T1553.002) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating stolen cyber tools likely retained original signatures for legitimacy. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating aI-driven methods explored to extract private data (potential misuse) and Search Victim-Owned Websites (T1594) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating exploit brokerage targeted U.S. national security tools. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Unsecured Credentials: Private Keys (80%)
Trusted Relationship (90%)
Credential Access
Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (70%)
Collection
Data from Cloud Storage (60%)
Data from Local System (80%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (90%)
Exfiltration Over Web Service (70%)
Defense Evasion
Code Signing: Code Signing Certificates (50%)
Impact
Data Destruction (40%)
Search Victim-Owned Websites (60%)

Sources & References