Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » OpenAI » OPE1780071991

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (OPE1780071991)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-3
Company Score Before Incident535 / 1000
Company Score After Incident532 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBEROPE1780071991
Type of Cyber IncidentVulnerability
ATTACK VECTORCross Prompt Injection Attacks (XPIA), Visual Prompt Injection, DOM Redressing
DATA EXPOSEDNA
INCIDENT DATE28/04/2026
STATUSReported as duplicate, initially dismissed as unreproducible

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of OpenAI'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 OpenAI 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 OpenAI breach identified under incident ID OPE1780071991.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of OpenAI's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/openai, the number of followers: 9569287, the industry type: Research Services and the number of employees: 6888 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 535 and after the incident was 532 with a difference of -3 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 OpenAI and their customers.

On 29 April 2024, OpenAI (ChatGPT) disclosed Phishing issues under the banner "ChatGPhish Exploits AI Trust to Turn Web Pages Into Phishing Vectors".

A newly disclosed vulnerability, dubbed ChatGPhish, exposes a critical flaw in how AI-powered summarization tools (particularly ChatGPT) process web content, enabling attackers to weaponize trusted interfaces for large-scale phishing.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Browser sessions using AI summarization tools (e.g., ChatGPT).

In response, and began remediation that includes Treat AI-rendered content as untrusted input, runtime enforcement between retrieval and action.

The case underscores how Reported as duplicate, initially dismissed as unreproducible, teams are taking away lessons such as The incident underscores the need to treat AI-rendered content as untrusted input, akin to traditional web security practices. Enterprises must update acceptable use policies to address browser-based AI summarization as a phishing vector, and recommending next steps like Update acceptable use policies to address AI summarization as a phishing vector, Implement runtime enforcement between data retrieval and action in AI tools and Treat AI-rendered content as untrusted input.

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 (T1566.001) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating rendering malicious links...within the trusted ChatGPT interface and Drive-by Compromise (T1189) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating manipulating what the AI reads rather than directly compromising systems. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified User Execution: Malicious Link (T1204.001) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating tricking the AI into rendering malicious links...within the trusted ChatGPT interface and User Execution: Malicious File (T1204.002) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating qR code pivot...directs victims to scan on a secondary device. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Masquerading (T1036) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating implicit trust in AI-generated summaries, bypassing perimeter defenses, Subvert Trust Controls: Install Root Certificate (T1553.004) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating trust-transfer chain such as users trust ChatGPT, ChatGPT trusts the page content, and Disabling Security Tools (T1089) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating evading enterprise security controls entirely via QR code pivot. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Adversary-in-the-Middle (T1557) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating potential identity theft via phishing, potential payment information risk via phishing. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating qR code pivot directs victims to scan on a secondary device. 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%)
Drive-by Compromise (80%)
Execution
User Execution: Malicious Link (90%)
User Execution: Malicious File (70%)
Defense Evasion
Masquerading (90%)
Subvert Trust Controls: Install Root Certificate (60%)
Disabling Security Tools (70%)
Credential Access
Adversary-in-the-Middle (80%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (70%)

Sources & References