Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Monster Cloud » MON1791563163

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (MON1791563163)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-167
Company Score Before Incident750 / 1000
Company Score After Incident583 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERMON1791563163
Type of Cyber IncidentRansomware
ATTACK VECTORNA
DATA EXPOSEDNA
INCIDENT DATE31/12/2022
STATUSOngoing (indictment filed)

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Monster Cloud'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 Monster Cloud 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 Monster Cloud breach identified under incident ID MON1791563163.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Monster Cloud's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/monstercloud, the number of followers: 195, the industry type: Computer and Network Security and the number of employees: 7 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 750 and after the incident was 583 with a difference of -167 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 Monster Cloud and their customers.

MonsterCloud recently reported "MonsterCloud Founder Indicted for Allegedly Paying Ransoms While Claiming Decryption Expertise", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

A federal indictment has accused Zohar Pinhasi, founder of cybersecurity firm MonsterCloud, of misleading clients by secretly paying ransoms to cybercriminals while falsely advertising proprietary decryption services.

The disruption is felt across the environment, plus an estimated financial loss of Exorbitant fees charged to clients (e.g., $150,000 for an $8,200 ransom).

In response, while recovery efforts such as Negotiation with cybercriminals for decryption keys continue, and stakeholders are being briefed through Misleading claims of proprietary decryption services.

The case underscores how Ongoing (indictment filed), teams are taking away lessons such as Risks of relying on third-party recovery services without transparency; potential legal exposure from ransom payments; importance of verifying claims of decryption expertise, and recommending next steps like Conduct due diligence on cybersecurity firms; avoid ransom payments where possible; ensure transparency in incident response; comply with legal and regulatory guidelines for ransomware response, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Clients and potential customers advised to verify claims of decryption services and transparency in ransomware response.

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 Financial Theft (T1496) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating misleading clients by secretly paying ransoms while falsely advertising decryption. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Application Access Token: OAuth Token Theft (T1550.001) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating negotiated with attackers to obtain decryption keys (implied access). Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Hide Artifacts: Hidden Users (T1564.002) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating secretly paying ransoms while claiming proprietary decryption services and Indirect Command Execution (T1202) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating positioned itself as an alternative to ransom payments (deceptive practices). Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Encrypted for Impact (T1486) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating ransomware encryption (implied); paid $8,200 ransom for decryption keys and Defacement: Internal Defacement (T1491.001) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating misleading clients by falsely advertising proprietary decryption services. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating negotiated with cybercriminals (implied data or key exchange). These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Financial Theft (80%)
Credential Access
Application Access Token: OAuth Token Theft (50%)
Defense Evasion
Hide Artifacts: Hidden Users (70%)
Indirect Command Execution (60%)
Impact
Data Encrypted for Impact (90%)
Defacement: Internal Defacement (70%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (50%)

Sources & References