Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Nacogdoches Memorial Hospital » NAC1775054288

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (NAC1775054288)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-33
Company Score Before Incident763 / 1000
Company Score After Incident730 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERNAC1775054288
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTORNA
DATA EXPOSEDSensitive patient information including personal...
INCIDENT DATE30/01/2026
STATUSCompleted

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Nacogdoches Memorial Hospital's Cyber Attack 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 Nacogdoches Memorial Hospital 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 Nacogdoches Memorial Hospital breach identified under incident ID NAC1775054288.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Nacogdoches Memorial Hospital's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/nacogdoches-memorial-hospital, the number of followers: 2291, the industry type: Hospitals and Health Care and the number of employees: 358 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 763 and after the incident was 730 with a difference of -33 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 Nacogdoches Memorial Hospital and their customers.

On 31 March 2026, Nacogdoches Memorial Hospital disclosed Data Breach issues under the banner "Nacogdoches Memorial Hospital Cyberattack and Data Breach".

Nacogdoches Memorial Hospital, a governmental healthcare provider in Nacogdoches, Texas, disclosed a data breach stemming from a cyberattack detected on January 31, 2026.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Hospital’s computer network, and exposing Sensitive patient information including personal and medical data, with nearly 257073 records at risk.

In response, teams activated the incident response plan, and began remediation that includes Strengthened cybersecurity measures, and stakeholders are being briefed through Notification letters sent to affected individuals.

The case underscores how Completed, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Notification letters sent to affected individuals.

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 Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating unauthorized access to the hospital’s computer network and Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating cyberattack detected on January 31, 2026. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified OS Credential Dumping (T1003) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating social Security numbers, medical record numbers compromised and Unsecured Credentials (T1552) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating unauthorized access to sensitive patient information. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating personal and medical data compromised via computer network and Data from Information Repositories (T1213) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating names, addresses, SSNs, medical records exposed. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating 257,073 people impacted by data breach and Exfiltration Over Web Service (T1567) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating unauthorized party accessed personal and medical data. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating cyberattack detected on January 31, 2026 and Data Manipulation: Transmitted Data Manipulation (T1565.002) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating unauthorized access to hospital’s computer network. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Valid Accounts (70%)
Exploit Public-Facing Application (50%)
Credential Access
OS Credential Dumping (60%)
Unsecured Credentials (60%)
Collection
Data from Local System (80%)
Data from Information Repositories (70%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (70%)
Exfiltration Over Web Service (50%)
Impact
Data Destruction (40%)
Data Manipulation: Transmitted Data Manipulation (30%)

Sources & References