Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Michigan State University » JOHMICYAL1770890509

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (JOHMICYAL1770890509)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-91
Company Score Before Incident757 / 1000
Company Score After Incident666 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERJOHMICYAL1770890509
Type of Cyber IncidentRansomware
ATTACK VECTORPhishing, Supply Chain Attacks, Vishing (AI-generated audio), Exploitation of Outdated Security Practices
DATA EXPOSED238.5 terabytes of data exfiltrated...
INCIDENT DATE30/07/2025
STATUSpublished

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Michigan State University's Ransomware 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 Michigan State University 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 Michigan State University breach identified under incident ID JOHMICYAL1770890509.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Michigan State University's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/michigan-state-university, the number of followers: 604029, the industry type: Higher Education and the number of employees: 25674 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 757 and after the incident was 666 with a difference of -91 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 Michigan State University and their customers.

A newly reported cybersecurity incident, "Ransomware Attacks Surge Across Critical Sectors, Fueled by AI and Automation", has drawn attention.

A new report from Zscaler’s ThreatLabz reveals a sharp escalation in ransomware attacks, with manufacturing, technology, and healthcare remaining the most targeted industries.

The disruption is felt across the environment, and exposing 238.5 terabytes of data exfiltrated (92.7% increase).

Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.

The case underscores how teams are taking away lessons such as Ransomware attacks are increasingly fueled by AI and automation, with data theft becoming the primary extortion tactic. Outdated security practices and supply chain vulnerabilities remain critical weaknesses. Law enforcement disruptions (e.g., Operation Endgame) are effective but require sustained public-private collaboration, and recommending next steps like Enhance security practices in critical sectors (e.g., oil and gas, healthcare), Improve supply chain security to mitigate Clop-like attacks and Leverage AI-driven threat detection to counter automated phishing and vishing.

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%), with evidence including phishing listed as an attack vector, and aI-generated audio (vishing) used for scams, Supply Chain Compromise (T1195) with moderate to high confidence (80%), with evidence including clop leveraging supply chain attacks, and supply Chain Attacks listed as attack vector, and Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating outdated security practices expose critical systems. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified User Execution (T1204) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating phishing and vishing require user interaction and Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating aI-driven malware development implies scripting. Under the Persistence tactic, the analysis identified Create or Modify System Process (T1543) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating ransomware strains like Clop and Akira require persistence. Under the Privilege Escalation tactic, the analysis identified Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating outdated security practices imply unpatched vulnerabilities. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Obfuscated Files or Information (T1027) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating aI-driven malware development enables obfuscation and Execution Guardrails (T1480) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating ransomware groups rebrand to evade detection. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Adversary-in-the-Middle (T1557) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating phishing and vishing imply credential harvesting and Brute Force (T1110) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating outdated security practices may allow brute force attacks. Under the Discovery tactic, the analysis identified Account Discovery (T1087) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating precision social engineering targets privileged users and File and Directory Discovery (T1083) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating data exfiltration implies discovery of sensitive files. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating 238.5 terabytes of data exfiltrated (92.7% increase) and Automated Collection (T1119) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating aI-driven data extraction mentioned. Under the Command and Control tactic, the analysis identified Application Layer Protocol (T1071) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating ransomware strains require C2 for exfiltration and encryption. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including 238.5 terabytes of data exfiltrated, and data theft as primary extortion tactic and Exfiltration Over Web Service (T1567) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating leak site postings increased by 70.1%. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Encrypted for Impact (T1486) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating ransomware strains like Clop and Akira encrypt data, Defacement (T1491) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating public extortion tactics, leak site postings, and Inhibit System Recovery (T1490) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating ransomware disrupts critical sectors (healthcare, oil and gas). 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%)
Supply Chain Compromise (80%)
Exploit Public-Facing Application (70%)
Execution
User Execution (80%)
Command and Scripting Interpreter (70%)
Persistence
Create or Modify System Process (60%)
Privilege Escalation
Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (70%)
Defense Evasion
Obfuscated Files or Information (80%)
Execution Guardrails (60%)
Credential Access
Adversary-in-the-Middle (70%)
Brute Force (60%)
Discovery
Account Discovery (70%)
File and Directory Discovery (80%)
Collection
Data from Local System (90%)
Automated Collection (80%)
Command and Control
Application Layer Protocol (80%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (90%)
Exfiltration Over Web Service (70%)
Impact
Data Encrypted for Impact (90%)
Defacement (70%)
Inhibit System Recovery (80%)

Sources & References