Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Mercer » FIDLPLAMEMER1779194480

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (FIDLPLAMEMER1779194480)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-62
Company Score Before Incident800 / 1000
Company Score After Incident738 / 1000
Company LinkView Mercer Profile
INCIDENT NUMBERFIDLPLAMEMER1779194480
Type of Cyber IncidentBreach
ATTACK VECTORNA
DATA EXPOSEDSensitive client information, Social Security...
INCIDENT DATE31/12/2019
STATUSpublished

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Mercer'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 Mercer 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 Mercer breach identified under incident ID FIDLPLAMEMER1779194480.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Mercer's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/mercer, the number of followers: 929738, the industry type: Professional Services and the number of employees: 22066 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 800 and after the incident was 738 with a difference of -62 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 Mercer and their customers.

Fidelity Investments recently reported "Fidelity Investments Data Breach and Fine", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

A recent data breach at Fidelity Investments has resulted in a $1.25 million fine for failing to adequately protect customer data.

The disruption is felt across the environment, and exposing Sensitive client information, Social Security numbers, client financial records, plus an estimated financial loss of $1.25 million (fine).

Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.

The case underscores how teams are taking away lessons such as Stronger security measures and compliance protocols are needed to address evolving cyber risks in the financial sector, and recommending next steps like Enhance cybersecurity measures, improve regulatory compliance, and implement robust incident response plans.

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 lPL Financial Incident such as A phishing attack led to unauthorized transactions. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Brute Force (T1110) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating inadequate protection of customer data may imply weak authentication and Unsecured Credentials (T1552) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating sensitive client information, Social Security numbers compromised. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating sensitive client information, client financial records compromised. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating data breach exposed sensitive client information (48,000 clients affected). Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating no details on extent of breach, but fines and lawsuits imply impact and Data Manipulation (T1565) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating unauthorized transactions at LPL Financial suggest possible manipulation. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Disabling Security Tools (T1089) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating inadequate protection of customer data may imply security failures. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Phishing (90%)
Credential Access
Brute Force (50%)
Unsecured Credentials (60%)
Collection
Data from Local System (80%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (70%)
Impact
Data Destruction (30%)
Data Manipulation (40%)
Defense Evasion
Disabling Security Tools (50%)

Sources & References