Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » OpenAir » MICANTOPE1789727167

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (MICANTOPE1789727167)

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 Incident751 / 1000
Company Score After Incident748 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERMICANTOPE1789727167
Type of Cyber IncidentVulnerability
ATTACK VECTORMalicious Plugin Takeover, Repository Hijacking
DATA EXPOSEDNA
INCIDENT DATE30/04/2026
STATUSpublished

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of OpenAir'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 OpenAir 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 OpenAir breach identified under incident ID MICANTOPE1789727167.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of OpenAir's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/openair, the number of followers: 1210, the industry type: Software Development and the number of employees: 28 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 751 and after the incident was 748 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 OpenAir and their customers.

Anthropic recently reported "Critical Zero-Click RCE Flaw Found in Major AI Coding Agents (Plugin4Shell)", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

Researchers at AIR (AI Incident Response) uncovered a severe zero-click remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability, dubbed Plugin4Shell, affecting four leading AI coding agents: Claude Code, Codex, GitHub Copilot, and Gemini CLI.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Claude Code, Codex and GitHub Copilot.

In response, and began remediation that includes Anthropic patched Claude Code (v2.1.179), OpenAI patched Codex (v0.146.0) and Google deprecated Gemini CLI (migration to Antigravity advised).

The case underscores how and recommending next steps like Update to patched versions of affected agents (Claude Code v2.1.179, Codex v0.146.0), Migrate from Gemini CLI to Antigravity (Google's recommended alternative) and Monitor for vendor updates for GitHub Copilot (unpatched as of disclosure).

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 Supply Chain Compromise: Compromise Software Supply Chain (T1195.002) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating malicious Plugin Takeover – attacker publishes legitimate plugin, later replaces with malicious code and Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating zero-click remote code execution (RCE) vulnerability affecting AI coding agents. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified Exploitation for Client Execution (T1203) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating zero-click RCE flaw allows attackers to execute malicious code with user-level permissions and Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating attackers swap in malicious code while SHA pin appears intact. Under the Persistence tactic, the analysis identified Server Software Component: Web Shell (T1505.003) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating vulnerability persists in background updates, already-installed plugins remain at risk. Under the Privilege Escalation tactic, the analysis identified Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating flaw grants attackers the same access to systems and data as the user running the agent. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Subvert Trust Controls: Code Signing (T1553.002) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating bypass SHA pinning, enabling malicious code execution while pin appears intact and Masquerading (T1036) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating branch can be named like a hash to evade detection. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Steal Application Access Token (T1528) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating attackers gain same access as the user running the agent. Under the Lateral Movement tactic, the analysis identified Exploitation of Remote Services (T1210) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating zero-click RCE allows remote exploitation of AI coding agents. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating potential unauthorized access to systems and data with user-level permissions. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Supply Chain Compromise: Compromise Software Supply Chain (90%)
Exploit Public-Facing Application (80%)
Execution
Exploitation for Client Execution (90%)
Command and Scripting Interpreter (70%)
Persistence
Server Software Component: Web Shell (60%)
Privilege Escalation
Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (80%)
Defense Evasion
Subvert Trust Controls: Code Signing (90%)
Masquerading (70%)
Credential Access
Steal Application Access Token (60%)
Lateral Movement
Exploitation of Remote Services (70%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (60%)