Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » OpenAI » PEPDELADOFIFTHEADINETOPE1783376814

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (PEPDELADOFIFTHEADINETOPE1783376814)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-11
Company Score Before Incident583 / 1000
Company Score After Incident572 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERPEPDELADOFIFTHEADINETOPE1783376814
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTOREmail, Malicious Redirects, Browser-in-the-Browser (BitB) Technique
DATA EXPOSEDGoogle account credentials
INCIDENT DATE31/01/2026
STATUSOngoing

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of OpenAI'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 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 PEPDELADOFIFTHEADINETOPE1783376814.

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: 11173860, the industry type: Research Services and the number of employees: 9859 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 583 and after the incident was 572 with a difference of -11 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.

Adobe recently reported "Phishing Campaign Targets Marketing Professionals with Fake Job Offers from Major Brands", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

A sophisticated phishing campaign is impersonating over 30 high-profile brands including Adobe, Netflix, Coca-Cola, and OpenAI to steal Google account credentials from marketing professionals under the guise of fake job interviews.

The disruption is felt across the environment, and exposing Google account credentials.

Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.

The case underscores how Ongoing.

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 (T1566) with high confidence (95%), supported by evidence indicating sophisticated phishing campaign...under the guise of fake job interviews, Phishing: Spearphishing Link (T1566.001) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating links in phishing emails initially resolve to exct.net (Salesforce), and Phishing: Spearphishing Attachment (T1566.002) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating no direct evidence of attachments, but email-based attack vector. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified User Execution: Malicious Link (T1204.001) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating victims were prompted to sign in with their Google accounts via malicious links. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Input Capture: Web Portal Capture (T1056.006) with high confidence (95%), supported by evidence indicating fake Google authentication popup (BitB technique) mimics legitimate login and Brute Force: Password Guessing (T1110.001) with lower confidence (20%), supported by evidence indicating no evidence of brute force, but credential theft is primary goal. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication Interception (T1556.003) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating bitB technique could intercept MFA tokens if implemented, Masquerading: Match Legitimate Name or Location (T1036.005) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating domains mimicking brands (e.g., adidas-hiring.com), real recruiters names/photos, and Subvert Trust Controls: Code Signing (T1553.002) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating no direct evidence, but abuse of legitimate platforms (Salesforce, PeopleForce). Under the Resource Development tactic, the analysis identified Acquire Infrastructure: Domains (T1583.001) with high confidence (95%), supported by evidence indicating 34 domains mimicking brands (e.g., adidas-hiring.com), Establish Accounts: Social Media Accounts (T1585.001) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating real recruiters’ names and photos used to enhance trust, and Obtain Capabilities: Tool (T1588.002) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating browser-in-the-Browser (BitB) technique using HTML/CSS. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating google account credentials targeted for theft (implied exfiltration). These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Phishing (95%)
Phishing: Spearphishing Link (90%)
Phishing: Spearphishing Attachment (30%)
Execution
User Execution: Malicious Link (90%)
Credential Access
Input Capture: Web Portal Capture (95%)
Brute Force: Password Guessing (20%)
Defense Evasion
Modify Authentication Process: Multi-Factor Authentication Interception (70%)
Masquerading: Match Legitimate Name or Location (90%)
Subvert Trust Controls: Code Signing (30%)
Resource Development
Acquire Infrastructure: Domains (95%)
Establish Accounts: Social Media Accounts (70%)
Obtain Capabilities: Tool (80%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (70%)