Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » McKesson Corporation » ORAMCK1790001005

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (ORAMCK1790001005)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-5
Company Score Before Incident538 / 1000
Company Score After Incident533 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERORAMCK1790001005
Type of Cyber IncidentVulnerability
ATTACK VECTORExploitation of internal infrastructure, Defacement
DATA EXPOSEDPrivate keys, server data, authentication...
INCIDENT DATE17/09/2026
STATUSpublished

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of McKesson Corporation's Vulnerability 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 McKesson Corporation 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 McKesson Corporation breach identified under incident ID ORAMCK1790001005.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of McKesson Corporation's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/mckesson-corporation, the number of followers: 2058, the industry type: IT Services and IT Consulting and the number of employees: 248 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 538 and after the incident was 533 with a difference of -5 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 McKesson Corporation and their customers.

On 18 September 2026, Clop Ransomware Gang disclosed Cyber Extortion, Hacking, Data Theft issues under the banner "ShinyHunters Hacking Group Targets Clop Ransomware Gang in High-Profile Cyber Feud".

On the evening of 18 September, the ShinyHunters hacking and extortion group launched a cyberattack against the Clop ransomware gang, defacing Clop’s dark web data leak site with a taunting message.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Clop’s dark web data leak site, ransomware infrastructure, and exposing Private keys, server data, authentication logs, IP addresses of Clop members.

Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.

The case underscores how teams are taking away lessons such as The incident underscores the competitive and volatile nature of cybercriminal ecosystems, where rival groups operate as profit-driven enterprises and may turn on one another in disputes.

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 Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating feud over competing claims to a zero-day vulnerability (CVE-2025-61882) and Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating stole private keys, server data, and authentication logs from Clop’s infrastructure. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Private Keys (T1552.004) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating stole private keys from Clop’s ransomware infrastructure and OS Credential Dumping (T1003) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating authentication logs stolen from Clop’s infrastructure. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating stole server data and authentication logs from Clop’s infrastructure and Data from Information Repositories (T1213) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating defaced Clop’s dark web data leak site with taunting message. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating data exfiltration confirmed; IP addresses of Clop members exposed. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Defacement: Internal Defacement (T1491.001) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating defaced Clop’s dark web data leak site with taunting message and Data Destruction (T1485) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating potential exposure of Clop members identities via IP addresses. Under the Command and Control tactic, the analysis identified Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols (T1071.001) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating clop’s dark web data leak site targeted and defaced. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Masquerading (T1036) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating replaced Clop’s site background with ASCII art of a Pokémon. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Exploit Public-Facing Application (60%)
Valid Accounts (70%)
Credential Access
Private Keys (90%)
OS Credential Dumping (70%)
Collection
Data from Local System (80%)
Data from Information Repositories (70%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (80%)
Impact
Defacement: Internal Defacement (90%)
Data Destruction (50%)
Command and Control
Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols (60%)
Defense Evasion
Masquerading (70%)

Sources & References