Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » MEXC » MEX1768465942

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (MEX1768465942)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-31
Company Score Before Incident777 / 1000
Company Score After Incident746 / 1000
Company LinkView MEXC Profile
INCIDENT NUMBERMEX1768465942
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTORMalicious Chrome Extension
DATA EXPOSEDAPI keys
INCIDENT DATE13/01/2026
STATUSpublished

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of MEXC'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 MEXC 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 MEXC breach identified under incident ID MEX1768465942.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of MEXC's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/mexcofficial, the number of followers: 161848, the industry type: Technology, Information and Internet and the number of employees: 1293 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 777 and after the incident was 746 with a difference of -31 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 MEXC and their customers.

MEXC recently reported "Malicious Google Chrome Extension Targeting MEXC Users for API Key Theft", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

Cybersecurity researchers uncovered a malicious Google Chrome extension, MEXC API Automator, designed to exploit users of MEXC, a centralized cryptocurrency exchange.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting User accounts on MEXC cryptocurrency exchange, and exposing API keys, with nearly 29 (downloads) records at risk.

In response, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Immediate removal of the extension recommended, and began remediation that includes Users advised to change API keys, and stakeholders are being briefed through Public advisory to users about the malicious extension.

The case underscores how teams are taking away lessons such as Users must verify the authenticity of browser extensions, avoid over-permissioned tools, and conduct regular security audits of applications with access to financial accounts, and recommending next steps like Verify extensions by checking developer information and user reviews, Avoid extensions requesting unrelated permissions and Conduct periodic security audits of browser extensions, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Users advised to remove the extension and change API keys.

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 Drive-by Compromise (T1189) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating malicious Google Chrome extension, MEXC API Automator, disguised as legitimate tool and Phishing: Spearphishing Link (T1566.002) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating extension masquerades as a legitimate tool to automate trading. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified User Execution: Malicious File (T1204.002) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating users installed the malicious Chrome extension (29 downloads). Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Steal Application Access Token (T1528) with high confidence (95%), supported by evidence indicating extension harvests sensitive API keys from MEXC users and Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (T1552.001) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating aPI keys, which grant access to trading accounts, are prime targets. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating extension covertly harvests sensitive credentials from users. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating aPI keys harvested, enabling unauthorized access to victims accounts. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Masquerading: Match Legitimate Name or Location (T1036.005) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating disguised as a legitimate trading automation tool, MEXC API Automator. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Resource Hijacking (T1496) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating potential unauthorized transactions on affected cryptocurrency accounts. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Drive-by Compromise (80%)
Phishing: Spearphishing Link (60%)
Execution
User Execution: Malicious File (90%)
Credential Access
Steal Application Access Token (95%)
Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (80%)
Collection
Data from Local System (90%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (80%)
Defense Evasion
Masquerading: Match Legitimate Name or Location (90%)
Impact
Resource Hijacking (70%)