Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Moxa » MOX1770302285

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (MOX1770302285)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-5
Company Score Before Incident756 / 1000
Company Score After Incident751 / 1000
Company LinkView Moxa Profile
INCIDENT NUMBERMOX1770302285
Type of Cyber IncidentVulnerability
ATTACK VECTORRemote
DATA EXPOSEDNA
INCIDENT DATE03/02/2026
STATUSpublished

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Moxa'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 Moxa 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 Moxa breach identified under incident ID MOX1770302285.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Moxa's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/moxa, the number of followers: 61948, the industry type: Automation Machinery Manufacturing and the number of employees: 1407 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 751 with a difference of -5 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 Moxa and their customers.

On 04 February 2026, Moxa disclosed Authentication Bypass issues under the banner "Critical Authentication Bypass Flaw in Moxa Industrial Switches Exposes Networks to Remote Attacks".

Moxa has released a critical security advisory (MPSA-241409) addressing a severe authentication bypass vulnerability in its industrial Ethernet switches, tracked as CVE-2024-12297 (CVSS 9.2).

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Industrial Ethernet switches (TN-A and TN-G series).

In response, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Restricting network access to trusted hosts, Enabling network segmentation and Auditing logs for suspicious activity, and began remediation that includes Patch to v3.13.255 (TN-A Series) and Patch to v5.5.255 (TN-G Series).

The case underscores how teams are taking away lessons such as Reliance on obscured authentication logic rather than secure server-side validation is insufficient for security. Prompt patching and post-update verification are critical, and recommending next steps like Apply patches immediately, Restrict network access to trusted hosts and Enable network segmentation.

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 Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating critical authentication bypass flaw in Moxa industrial Ethernet switches and External Remote Services (T1133) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating unauthorized access to switch management interfaces via remote attacks. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Brute Force (T1110) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating attackers exploit weak authentication via brute-force attacks and Password Spraying (T1110.003) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating mD5 hash collision techniques used to forge credentials. Under the Lateral Movement tactic, the analysis identified Exploitation of Remote Services (T1210) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating successful exploitation enables lateral movement within industrial networks. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Modify Authentication Process (T1556) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating improper coordination between client-side and backend authorization logic and Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating forged credentials grant unauthorized access to management interfaces. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Endpoint Denial of Service: Application or System Exploitation (T1499.004) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating configuration tampering within industrial networks and Data Manipulation: Transmitted Data Manipulation (T1565.002) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating unauthorized access enables configuration tampering. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Exploit Public-Facing Application (90%)
External Remote Services (80%)
Credential Access
Brute Force (90%)
Password Spraying (70%)
Lateral Movement
Exploitation of Remote Services (80%)
Defense Evasion
Modify Authentication Process (90%)
Valid Accounts (80%)
Impact
Endpoint Denial of Service: Application or System Exploitation (60%)
Data Manipulation: Transmitted Data Manipulation (70%)

Sources & References