Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Meta » METMICCRY1775140151

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (METMICCRY1775140151)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-6
Company Score Before Incident679 / 1000
Company Score After Incident673 / 1000
Company LinkView Meta Profile
INCIDENT NUMBERMETMICCRY1775140151
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTORMalware distribution (underground cybercrime forums)
DATA EXPOSEDBrowser credentials, session cookies, autofill...
INCIDENT DATE31/12/2025
STATUSOngoing (researchers at Varonis identified the threat)

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Meta'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 Meta 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 Meta breach identified under incident ID METMICCRY1775140151.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Meta's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/meta, the number of followers: 11662374, the industry type: Software Development and the number of employees: 146293 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 679 and after the incident was 673 with a difference of -6 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 Meta and their customers.

On 01 January 2026, a cybersecurity incident called "New Storm Infostealer Emerges as a Stealthy Threat to Browser and Crypto Security" came to light.

Security researchers at Varonis have identified *Storm*, a sophisticated infostealer malware that harvests browser credentials, session cookies, and cryptocurrency wallets before exfiltrating encrypted data to attacker-controlled servers.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Chromium-based browsers (Chrome, Edge), Gecko-based browsers (Firefox, Waterfox, Pale Moon), crypto wallet extensions, desktop applications (Telegram, Signal, Discord), and exposing Browser credentials, session cookies, autofill data, Google account tokens, credit card details, browsing history, system information, screenshots, messaging app session data, cryptocurrency wallet data, with nearly 1,715 entries (some may include test data) records at risk.

Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.

The case underscores how Ongoing (researchers at Varonis identified the threat).

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: Spearphishing Attachment (T1566.001) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating malware distribution (underground cybercrime forums) and Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating bypassing Google’s App-Bound Encryption via remote decryption. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified User Execution: Malicious File (T1204.002) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating infostealer malware that harvests browser credentials and Command and Scripting Interpreter: PowerShell (T1059.001) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating all operations run in memory to minimize forensic traces. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Credentials from Password Stores: Credentials from Web Browsers (T1555.003) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating extracts saved passwords, session cookies, autofill data from browsers, Steal Application Access Token (T1528) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating google account tokens, session cookies, and Refresh Tokens captured, and Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (T1552.001) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating targets crypto wallet extensions and desktop applications. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating harvests browser credentials, session cookies, autofill data, etc., Screen Capture (T1113) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating captures screenshots and session data from messaging apps, and Input Capture: Keylogging (T1056.001) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating extracts autofill data, credit card details, browsing history. Under the Command and Control tactic, the analysis identified Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols (T1071.001) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating exfiltrates encrypted data to attacker-controlled servers and Proxy: Multi-hop Proxy (T1090.003) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating uses geographically matched SOCKS5 proxies for session restoration. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating encrypted data transmitted to attacker-controlled servers for decryption and Exfiltration Over Web Service: Exfiltration to Cloud Storage (T1567.002) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating data commonly sold on credential marketplaces for account takeovers. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Obfuscated Files or Information (T1027) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating transmits encrypted files to remote infrastructure for decryption, Process Injection: Dynamic-link Library Injection (T1055.001) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating avoids detection by running operations in memory, and Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (T1562.001) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating bypasses Google’s App-Bound Encryption and endpoint security tools. Under the Lateral Movement tactic, the analysis identified Remote Services: Cloud Services (T1021.007) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating uses Google Refresh Tokens to restore authenticated sessions. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data from Cloud Storage (T1530) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating unauthorized access to SaaS platforms and cloud environments and Resource Hijacking (T1496) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating crypto wallet compromise for financial gain. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Phishing: Spearphishing Attachment (60%)
Exploit Public-Facing Application (40%)
Execution
User Execution: Malicious File (70%)
Command and Scripting Interpreter: PowerShell (50%)
Credential Access
Credentials from Password Stores: Credentials from Web Browsers (90%)
Steal Application Access Token (90%)
Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (80%)
Collection
Data from Local System (90%)
Screen Capture (80%)
Input Capture: Keylogging (70%)
Command and Control
Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols (80%)
Proxy: Multi-hop Proxy (70%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (90%)
Exfiltration Over Web Service: Exfiltration to Cloud Storage (60%)
Defense Evasion
Obfuscated Files or Information (90%)
Process Injection: Dynamic-link Library Injection (70%)
Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (60%)
Lateral Movement
Remote Services: Cloud Services (80%)
Impact
Data from Cloud Storage (70%)
Resource Hijacking (60%)