Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Microsoft Teams from Fresh Mango Technologies » MIC1778646224

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (MIC1778646224)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-1
Company Score Before Incident756 / 1000
Company Score After Incident755 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERMIC1778646224
Type of Cyber IncidentVulnerability
ATTACK VECTORInsecure file and directory access in Teams
DATA EXPOSEDNA
INCIDENT DATE29/02/2024
STATUSpublished

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Microsoft Teams from Fresh Mango Technologies'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 Teams from Fresh Mango Technologies 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 Teams from Fresh Mango Technologies breach identified under incident ID MIC1778646224.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Microsoft Teams from Fresh Mango Technologies's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/microsoft-teams-from-fresh-mango-technologies, the number of followers: 8, the industry type: IT Services and IT Consulting 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 756 and after the incident was 755 with a difference of -1 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 Teams from Fresh Mango Technologies and their customers.

Microsoft Teams recently reported "Microsoft Teams Vulnerability (CVE-2024-38197) Exposed Identity Trust Risks", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

A critical vulnerability in Microsoft Teams (CVE-2024-38197) allowed attackers to spoof sender identities in chat messages, exploiting the trust employees place in familiar names and profiles.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Microsoft Teams.

In response, and began remediation that includes Patch released in October 2025.

The case underscores how teams are taking away lessons such as The incident underscored the need for zero-trust governance in collaboration tools, including least-privilege access, verified identities, and out-of-band confirmation for high-stakes actions initiated via chat. Security defenses must address both system integrity and human psychology to mitigate modern threats, and recommending next steps like Update incident response playbooks to account for Teams-based compromises, Implement zero-trust governance in collaboration tools and Enforce least-privilege access and verified identities.

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 Link (T1566.002) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including allowed attackers to spoof sender identities in chat messages, and high-risk vector for wire fraud and social engineering. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Multi-Factor Authentication Request Generation (T1621) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating phishing-resistant MFA controls proved ineffective if the underlying identity layer was compromised. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Masquerading: Match Legitimate Name or Location (T1036.005) with high confidence (95%), with evidence including allowed attackers to spoof sender identities in chat messages, and impersonate colleagues such as a CFO by altering the sender’s name and Subvert Trust Controls: Code Signing Policy Modification (T1553.006) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating insecure file and directory access in Teams, allowing attackers to manipulate trusted elements. Under the Privilege Escalation tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts (T1078.004) with moderate to high confidence (80%), with evidence including exploiting the trust employees place in familiar names and profiles, and identity verification weakness in communication platforms. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Defacement: Internal Defacement (T1491.001) with moderate to high confidence (70%), with evidence including undermined trust in identity verification, and high-risk vector for wire fraud and social engineering. 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 Link (90%)
Credential Access
Multi-Factor Authentication Request Generation (70%)
Defense Evasion
Masquerading: Match Legitimate Name or Location (95%)
Subvert Trust Controls: Code Signing Policy Modification (70%)
Privilege Escalation
Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts (80%)
Impact
Defacement: Internal Defacement (70%)

Sources & References