Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Microsoft Security Response Center » MIC1776342690

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (MIC1776342690)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-24
Company Score Before Incident555 / 1000
Company Score After Incident531 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERMIC1776342690
Type of Cyber IncidentVulnerability
ATTACK VECTORDeep Link Abuse
DATA EXPOSEDNTLM authentication hashes
INCIDENT DATE13/04/2026
STATUSResolved

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Microsoft Security Response Center'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 Microsoft Security Response Center 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 Microsoft Security Response Center breach identified under incident ID MIC1776342690.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Microsoft Security Response Center's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/microsoft-security-response-center, the number of followers: 54723, the industry type: Computer and Network Security and the number of employees: None 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 555 and after the incident was 531 with a difference of -24 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 Microsoft Security Response Center and their customers.

On 15 April 2026, Microsoft disclosed Information Disclosure issues under the banner "Microsoft Snipping Tool Vulnerability Exposes NTLM Hashes via Deep Link Abuse".

A newly disclosed vulnerability in Microsoft’s Snipping Tool, tracked as CVE-2026-33829, allows attackers to capture NTLM authentication hashes through network spoofing.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Windows systems with Microsoft Snipping Tool, and exposing NTLM authentication hashes.

In response, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Security update released, and began remediation that includes Patch issued in April 14, 2026 security update.

The case underscores how Resolved, teams are taking away lessons such as Improper validation in deep link protocols can lead to credential leakage. User awareness of social engineering risks is critical, and recommending next steps like Apply Microsoft’s April 2026 security update immediately. Educate users on recognizing malicious links. Monitor for unusual SMB traffic.

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 exploitation requires minimal user interaction such as clicking a malicious link and Phishing: Spearphishing Link (T1566.002) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating attackers could disguise malicious links as legitimate files (e.g., company wallpapers). Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified OS Credential Dumping: LSASS Memory (T1003.001) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating nTLM authentication hashes exposed via SMB connection and Forced Authentication (T1187) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating snipping Tool initiates SMB connection, exposing NTLM response to attacker. Under the Lateral Movement tactic, the analysis identified Use Alternate Authentication Material: Pass the Hash (T1550.002) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating stolen NTLM hashes can enable impersonation or lateral movement. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating nTLM hashes leaked to an attacker-controlled server. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Indirect Command Execution (T1202) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating exploits improper validation in `ms-screensketch` deep link protocol. 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%)
Phishing: Spearphishing Link (80%)
Credential Access
OS Credential Dumping: LSASS Memory (30%)
Forced Authentication (90%)
Lateral Movement
Use Alternate Authentication Material: Pass the Hash (70%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (80%)
Defense Evasion
Indirect Command Execution (70%)

Sources & References