Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Oracle Security

Oracle Security Vendor Cyber Rating & Cyber Score

oracle.com

Protect your most valuable data in the cloud and on-premises with Oracle’s security-first approach. Oracle has decades of experience securing data and applications; Oracle Cloud Infrastructure delivers a more secure cloud to our customers, building trust and protecting their most valuable data.


Oracle Security A.I CyberSecurity Scoring

Oracle Security
Company Information
Website:https://www.oracle.com/security/
Employees number:None
Number of followers:11,377
NAICS:5415
Industry Type:IT Services and IT Consulting
Homepage:oracle.com
Oracle Security Risk Score (AI oriented)
Between 0 and 549
logo
Oracle SecurityIT Services and IT Consulting
Updated:
30/09/2026
448/1000
Critical
C
AaaAaABaaBaBCaaCaC
Powered by our proprietary A.I cyber incident model
✖ Insurance prefers TPRM score to calculate premium
Oracle Security Global Score (TPRM)
xxxx
logo
Oracle SecurityIT Services and IT Consulting
•••
Score locked
Instant access to detailed risk factors
Vulnerabilities
Benchmark vs. industry & size peers
Findings

Oracle SecurityCritical
Current Score
448C (CRITICAL)
01000
7 incidents
-60.67 avg impact
Incident timeline with MITRE ATT&CK tactics, techniques, and mitigations.
OCTOBER 2026
448Before Incident
SEPTEMBER 2026
453Before Incident
Vulnerability
28 Sep 2026 • Oracle Security
Oracle, Odido and Federal Bureau of Investigation: Dutch Hacker Arrested in ShinyHunters Probe [2026]

Dutch Police Arrest 24-Year-Old in ShinyHunters Cybercrime Probe

447After Incident
CRITICAL-6
ORAODIFED1790678268
Dutch Police Arrest 24-Year-Old in ShinyHunters Cybercrime Probe On September 28, 2026, Dutch authorities confirmed the arrest of a 24-year-old Amsterdam man as part of an investigation into ShinyHunters, the prolific extortion group behind a wave of high-profile breaches in 2026. The suspect, identified by his employer as Pepijn van der Stap, worked as an offensive-security lead at Amsterdam-based cybersecurity firm Neo Security. His arrest followed a dramatic raid involving stun grenades at the company’s office, according to reports from Reuters and KrebsOnSecurity. Van der Stap, who previously used the online handle "Umbreon" and had a prior cybercrime conviction, is alleged to have ties to ShinyHunters’ operations. However, the group itself denied his affiliation in a statement to NL Times, creating a contradiction between law enforcement suspicions and the group’s claims. ### Key Details of the Investigation - Arrest Timeline: The suspect was reportedly detained around September 16, with Dutch police publicly confirming the arrest on September 28. He is scheduled to appear in a Rotterdam court, though no formal charges have been announced. - Suspected Links: Dutch investigators are examining a possible connection to the February 2026 cyberattack on Odido, a major Dutch telecom carrier, for which ShinyHunters claimed responsibility. However, no direct evidence ties the suspect to the FBI breach claimed by ShinyHunters shortly after his arrest involving the agency’s job-application portal (apply.fbijobs.gov) and the alleged theft of 5,000+ employee records. - Employer’s Role: Neo Security’s CEO, Benjamin Korper, publicly confirmed the raid and the suspect’s identity, a rare move in cybercrime cases where companies typically avoid comment. ### ShinyHunters’ 2026 Campaigns The group has been one of the most disruptive extortion crews this year, targeting: - Odido (February 2026) – Dutch telecom breach. - Oracle PeopleSoft – Exploiting a CVSS 9.8 vulnerability via a WAF bypass. - Rockstar Games – Leaking 8.1GB of anti-cheat source code. - FBI systems – Multiple claims, including the job-portal breach and alleged 3TB data theft. ShinyHunters operates differently from traditional ransomware groups, favoring data theft and extortion over encryption. Reports suggest overlap with Russian ransomware group Cl0p, reflecting a broader trend of loosely affiliated cybercriminal networks sharing infrastructure. ### Unresolved Questions & Next Steps - Legal Process: Dutch prosecutors must decide whether to file formal charges, with updates likely emerging from the Rotterdam court proceedings. - FBI Breach Link: No evidence currently connects the suspect to the FBI incident, leaving the group’s claims unverified. - Industry Impact: The case has reignited debates over background checks for offensive-security professionals, particularly those with prior convictions. The arrest marks a rare law enforcement success against ShinyHunters, though the group’s denial and the lack of confirmed charges leave key aspects of the case unresolved. Dutch authorities continue to investigate, with the telecom breach serving as the most concrete lead.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
Data Breach, Extortion
MOTIVATION
Extortion, Data Theft
IMPACT
Data Compromised: 5,000+ employee records (FBI job portal), 8.1GB source code (Rockstar Games), 3TB data (alleged FBI breach)Odido telecom systemsOracle PeopleSoftRockstar Games anti-cheat systemsFBI job-application portalBrand Reputation Impact: High (Neo Security, Odido, FBI, Rockstar Games)Identity Theft Risk: High (employee records, PII)
DATA BREACH
Employee recordsSource codePersonally Identifiable Information (PII)Number Of Records Exposed: 5,000+ (FBI), 8.1GB (Rockstar Games), 3TB (alleged FBI breach)Sensitivity Of Data: High (PII, government employee data, proprietary source code)Data Exfiltration: YesSource codeEmployee recordsPersonally Identifiable Information: Yes (FBI employee records)
AUGUST 2026
442Before Incident
JULY 2026
437Before Incident
JUNE 2026
436Before Incident
Vulnerability
16 Jun 2026 • Oracle Security
Mozilla and Oracle: Assume You Will Be Hacked

AI-Powered Cyberattacks Surge as Hackers Outpace Defenses

432After Incident
CRITICAL-4
ORAMOZ1781656969
AI-Powered Cyberattacks Surge as Hackers Outpace Defenses In 2025, cyberattacks have escalated at an unprecedented rate, fueled by AI’s ability to automate and refine malicious software. Cybersecurity firm Palo Alto Networks reported a fourfold increase in daily attacks among its clients compared to 2024, with hackers leveraging AI to develop adaptive malware, accelerate data theft, and bypass traditional defenses. Former Yahoo and Facebook security chief Alex Stamos warned of a "crazy amount of offensive activity," noting that organizations including banks, hospitals, and government agencies are being breached daily. The shift stems from AI’s dual role in both offense and defense. Advanced models like Anthropic’s Claude Mythos Preview and OpenAI’s GPT-5.5-Cyber have demonstrated near-human hacking capabilities, prompting their restricted release to select government and corporate partners. These tools have already uncovered thousands of long-standing vulnerabilities in open-source software, with Mozilla using Mythos to patch 400+ bugs in Firefox in April alone 20 times its typical monthly rate. Yet, despite these efforts, the window to respond to threats has collapsed: Moody’s Ratings found that attackers now exploit known vulnerabilities in just 44 days, down from over 700 days in 2020. The threat landscape is further complicated by open-source AI hacking tools, which lower the barrier for less skilled criminals. The hacking group ShinyHunters, linked to AI-assisted attacks, recently disrupted Canvas (impacting thousands of schools) and breached Oracle’s HR system, potentially exposing data from over 100 organizations. Meanwhile, the U.S. government has restricted public access to Mythos, limiting its defensive applications. Legacy systems and under-resourced sectors such as hospitals, utilities, and municipal agencies are particularly vulnerable. Many rely on outdated code written by retired or deceased developers, lacking the funds or expertise to modernize. Hospitals, already targeted by ransomware, face heightened risks as AI amplifies attacks. Experts warn of potential blackouts, banking disruptions, or large-scale data breaches in the coming years, with Anthropic estimating that a single attack on one of its partners could affect 100 million people. While AI-driven security tools offer some defense, the pace of innovation has outstripped preparedness. Mozilla’s CTO, Raffi Krikorian, compared the urgency to Y2K-scale upgrades, but with months not years to act. As AI continues to evolve, the cycle of discovery and exploitation may persist, leaving organizations and individuals scrambling to adapt.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
AI-powered cyberattackdata breachransomware
MOTIVATION
data theftfinancial gaindisruption
IMPACT
Data Compromised: potentially exposed data from over 100 organizations (Oracle HR system)Canvas (education platform)Oracle’s HR systembankshospitalsgovernment agenciesutilitiesmunicipal agenciesdisruption of educational services (Canvas)potential blackoutsbanking disruptions
DATA BREACH
HR datapotentially sensitive organizational dataSensitivity Of Data: high
JUNE 2026
443Before Incident
Vulnerability
11 Jun 2026 • Oracle Security
ThemeREX, Joomla, Simple File List, WP File Manager, Oracle and DigitalOcean: Exposed Hacker Server Reveals WP-SHELLSTORM Backdooring Thousands of WordPress Sites

WP-SHELLSTORM Cybercrime Group's Exposed Server Reveals Mass Webshell Operation Targeting 1.4 Million Sites

436After Incident
CRITICAL-7
ORAJOOMANWPMDIGTHE1783693992
Cybercrime Crew’s Exposed Server Reveals Mass Webshell Operation Targeting 1.4 Million Sites A cybercrime group, tracked as WP-SHELLSTORM, inadvertently exposed its operations for three weeks after leaving an unsecured server online. The incident, discovered by researchers at SOCRadar and Ctrl-Alt-Intel, provided an unprecedented look into a webshell access brokerage a scheme where attackers compromise websites en masse, install backdoors, and sell access to other criminals. ### The Exposure On June 11, 2026, SOCRadar identified an unprotected server (IP: 137.175.93[.]126) hosting 800MB of data, including: - Hacking tools (exploit scripts, webshells) - Activity logs (command histories, scan results) - Target lists naming 1.4 million websites (WordPress, Joomla, and others) - Command-and-control (C2) configurations The server, rented in the U.S., was left open due to a Python web server left running for 22 days a simple but costly oversight. Ctrl-Alt-Intel independently analyzed the same directory, publishing findings on June 22, before SOCRadar’s July 9 report. ### The Attack Method The group exploited 27 known vulnerabilities, primarily in WordPress plugins, to deploy webshells small scripts granting remote control over compromised servers. Key flaws included: - Breeze caching plugin (CVE-2026-3844) – Exploited against 45,000+ sites, successfully backdooring 17,000+ (only effective with a non-default setting enabled). - Joomla JCE editor (CVE-2026-48907) – Targeted 560,000+ sites but only breached 77. - Other WordPress plugins (e.g., ThemeREX Addons, Simple File List, WP File Manager). The attackers used FOFA, a Chinese search engine for internet-connected systems, to build target lists. Their toolkit included: - down.php – A heavily obfuscated webshell derived from BestShell (open-source Chinese malware). - VShell – A stealthy backdoor disguised as a kernel process ([kworker/0:2]) to evade detection. ### Compromise Scale While the 1.4 million figure represents targets, not breaches, researchers confirmed: - Ctrl-Alt-Intel: 25,195 sites with evidence of compromise. - SOCRadar: 5,700+ active webshells. ### Earlier Corporate Espionage Campaign Before the WordPress spree, the same group ran a quieter operation in May 2026, targeting Java-based corporate systems via a Nacos configuration server flaw (CVE-2021-29441). They extracted: - 613 configuration files from 11 systems across nine companies (fintech, e-commerce, logistics, gaming, electronics). - Cloud credentials (AWS, Alibaba, Oracle, Tencent, DigitalOcean). - Database passwords and Alipay RSA private keys. SOCRadar suggests this was a "funding round" before scaling up the higher-volume webshell operation. ### Attribution & Sloppy Tradecraft Researchers assess with medium-to-high confidence that the group is Chinese or Chinese-speaking, citing: - Simplified Chinese in code and command logs. - Use of FOFA (requiring a Chinese phone number for registration). - Tools like Godzilla and VShell, common in Chinese-speaking cybercrime forums. Despite a sophisticated toolchain, the group made basic errors: - Left the server unprotected for weeks. - Exposed a FOFA config file, traceable via law enforcement. - Failed to sanitize command histories, revealing the full operation. When alerted, the group deleted log entries between July 2–4, but the damage was already done. ### Broader Implications WP-SHELLSTORM stands out not for its technical sophistication, but for its scale and opportunism. Using publicly known vulnerabilities and automated scanning, the group compromised thousands of sites without needing zero-days. The incident mirrors a March 2026 exposure of Russia’s APT28 (Fancy Bear), where an open directory revealed phishing tools and logs. In both cases, human error not advanced hacking led to the unraveling of major cybercrime operations.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
Webshell AttackData BreachCybercrime Brokerage
MOTIVATION
Financial gainCybercrime brokerageCorporate espionage
IMPACT
Configuration filesCloud credentials (AWS, Alibaba, Oracle, Tencent, DigitalOcean)Database passwordsAlipay RSA private keysWebsite backdoor accessWordPress sites (45,000+ targeted, 17,000+ compromised)Joomla sites (560,000+ targeted, 77 compromised)Java-based corporate systems (11 systems across 9 companies)Operational Impact: Mass compromise of websites for resale of access; potential data exfiltration and further attacks by buyersBrand Reputation Impact: Potential reputational damage to affected entities due to compromise and data exposureIdentity Theft Risk: High (due to exposure of PII and credentials)Payment Information Risk: High (Alipay RSA private keys exposed)
DATA BREACH
Configuration filesCloud credentialsDatabase passwordsAlipay RSA private keysWebshell access logsNumber Of Records Exposed: 613 configuration files from 11 systems; 1.4 million websites targetedSensitivity Of Data: High (credentials, private keys, PII)Data Exfiltration: Yes (data sold on dark web implied)Configuration filesLogsWebshell scriptsPersonally Identifiable Information: Likely (credentials and private keys)
MAY 2026
517Before Incident
Breach
15 May 2026 • Oracle Security
Federal Bureau of Investigation: ShinyHunters claims FBI breach was revenge for “false” report

ShinyHunters Claims FBI Breach, Denies Harassment Tactics in Defiant Post

437After Incident
CRITICAL-80
DSF1790166275
ShinyHunters Claims FBI Breach, Denies Harassment Tactics in Defiant Post The extortion group ShinyHunters has publicly accused the FBI of spreading "false information" about its operations, claiming to have breached the agency in retaliation. In a lengthy post on its leak site, the group targeted FBI Cyber Division Assistant Director Brett Leatherman and Director Kash Patel, demanding the removal of a May 2026 FBI/IC3 advisory that alleged the group engages in harassment tactics including threatening messages, swatting, and exaggerated claims of possessing compromising material. ShinyHunters denied all such allegations, calling them "disinformation" and asserting it has never conducted swatting attacks, sent threats to victims' families, or falsely claimed to hold sensitive personal data. The group also rejected associations with "The Com", a decentralized cybercrime network, labeling it a fabrication by the cybersecurity industry. As proof of its breach, ShinyHunters claimed to have accessed sensitive data on nearly all FBI agents and job applicants, including names, home addresses, phone numbers, and details about spouses. 404 Media reportedly verified a sample of the data, which included information on roughly 5,000 agents, though the full extent of the breach remains unconfirmed. The group also defaced the FBI’s jobs website (FBIjobs.gov), though the agency stated it is investigating the claims without confirming a full breach. The FBI has not yet disclosed what data may have been exposed or who might be affected. The advisory in question, titled "ShinyHunters: Cyber Criminal Group Attacks Learning Management System", was issued on May 15, 2026, and warned of the group’s alleged tactics though ShinyHunters disputed its classification as a "FLASH report", noting it was labeled a Public Service Announcement (PSA). The group’s post framed the breach as a First Amendment exercise, insisting it was not financially motivated but rather a correction of perceived defamation. It also threatened journalists it accused of spreading "false narratives" about its operations, offering to provide its side of the story via an OnionMail address. The FBI has not publicly responded to the claims beyond acknowledging the investigation into unauthorized activity on its systems.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
Data Breach, Defacement, Extortion
MOTIVATION
Retaliation for perceived defamation, First Amendment exercise (claimed), Correction of disinformation (claimed)
IMPACT
Data Compromised: Names, home addresses, phone numbers, details about spouses, job applicant informationSystems Affected: FBIjobs.gov (defaced), FBI internal systems (claimed)Operational Impact: Investigation ongoing, potential exposure of sensitive personnel dataBrand Reputation Impact: Potential reputational damage to FBI due to data exposure and defacementIdentity Theft Risk: High (exposure of PII for FBI agents and applicants)
DATA BREACH
Personally Identifiable Information (PII)Employment-related dataNumber Of Records Exposed: ~5,000 (claimed)Sensitivity Of Data: High (home addresses, phone numbers, spousal details)Data Exfiltration: Claimed (unconfirmed)Personally Identifiable Information: Names, home addresses, phone numbers, spousal details
APRIL 2026
515Before Incident
MARCH 2026
510Before Incident
FEBRUARY 2026
505Before Incident
JANUARY 2026
573Before Incident
Vulnerability
01 Jan 2026 • Oracle Security
Totolink, Oracle and BeyondTrust: Google: Vulnerability disclosures double to 10,000 per month as AI fuels exploitation

AI-Driven Surge in Vulnerability Disclosures and Exploitation Reaches Record Highs in 2026

496After Incident
CRITICAL-77
TOTORABEY1790799910
AI-Driven Surge in Vulnerability Disclosures and Exploitation Reaches Record Highs in 2026 Google’s Threat Intelligence Group (GTIG) reported a dramatic spike in vulnerability disclosures, with numbers doubling from 5,045 in January to 10,740 in August 2026 surpassing annual totals from 2025. The year has already seen 141 exploited vulnerabilities, exceeding last year’s 127, as threat actors increasingly leverage AI to accelerate discovery and weaponization. The rise is attributed to rapid, targeted exploitation of high-risk flaws rather than a surge in zero-day attacks. Hackers are using AI tools to analyze patches, vulnerability disclosures, and proof-of-concept (PoC) code to automate the weaponization of n-day vulnerabilities patched flaws that remain exploitable due to delayed updates. GTIG researchers noted that AI-assisted techniques are making it easier for attackers to identify and exploit critical bugs at scale, particularly in enterprise and perimeter systems. A key example is CVE-2026-1731, a high-severity flaw in BeyondTrust software discovered by Hacktron AI, an autonomous research agent. Within four days of disclosure, multiple threat clusters exploited the vulnerability in initial-access campaigns, deploying malware like SNOWLIGHT, SPARKRAT, and cryptominers for privilege escalation and data exfiltration. The incident underscores how AI-driven research agents are uncovering and weaponizing high-impact vulnerabilities faster than ever. Most AI-discovered flaws fall into medium or high-risk categories, defined by their potential for direct, large-scale exploitation without significant mitigating factors. Vendors like Totolink and Oracle have been frequent sources of disclosed vulnerabilities, while 14% of exploited flaws targeted edge and security appliances, reflecting threat actors’ focus on exposed enterprise services. The trend aligns with broader industry data: CISA reported over 67,000 new CVEs in 2026, projecting a year-end total of 96,000 a 263% increase in annual submissions since 2020. The first three months of 2026 alone saw one-third more CVEs than the same period in 2025, signaling an accelerating pace of vulnerability discovery and exploitation.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
Vulnerability Exploitation
MOTIVATION
Initial accessPrivilege escalationData exfiltrationCryptomining
IMPACT
Enterprise systemsPerimeter systemsEdge and security appliancesOperational Impact: Large-scale exploitation of vulnerabilities
DATA BREACH
Data Exfiltration: Yes
DECEMBER 2025
573Before Incident
NOVEMBER 2025
570Before Incident
OCTOBER 2025
755Before Incident
Breach
19 Oct 2025 • Oracle Security
F5

Oracle E-Business Suite Remotely Exploitable Vulnerability (CVE-2025-61884)Microsoft Zero-Day Exploits (CVE-2025-24990, CVE-2025-59230, CVE-2025-47827)F5 Data Breach: Nation-State Attackers Stole BIG-IP Source CodeAdobe Experience Manager 'Perfect' Vulnerability (CVE-2025-54253)Microsoft Revokes 200 Certificates Used for Malicious Teams Installers (Vanilla Tempest Ransomware)Cisco Zero-Day Rootkit Deployment on Network Switches (CVE-2025-20352)U.S. Seizes $15B in Bitcoin Linked to Forced-Labor Crypto ScamUnitree G1 Humanoid Robot Bluetooth Vulnerability (Espionage Risk)Healthcare Cybersecurity Breakdown: 93% of U.S. Organizations Attacked (Patient Care Disruptions)

565After Incident
CRITICAL-190
F50032500101925
US tech company F5 confirmed a data breach in which nation-state attackers stole the source code and vulnerability information related to its BIG-IP family of networking and security products. BIG-IP is a critical infrastructure component used by enterprises for traffic management, load balancing, and security, making this breach particularly severe. The stolen data could enable adversaries to identify and exploit undiscovered flaws in BIG-IP systems, potentially leading to supply-chain attacks, unauthorized network access, or large-scale disruptions in organizations relying on F5’s solutions. The breach underscores the escalating risks of state-sponsored cyber espionage targeting foundational IT infrastructure, with implications for global cybersecurity resilience. F5 has not disclosed whether customer data was compromised, but the theft of proprietary code and vulnerability details poses a long-term threat to its product ecosystem and the broader digital supply chain.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
VulnerabilityZero-Day ExploitsData BreachVulnerabilityMalware Distribution (Ransomware)Zero-Day Exploit (Rootkit)Cryptocurrency FraudHardware Vulnerability (Espionage)Cyberattack Campaign (Healthcare)
MOTIVATION
Cyber Espionage (Source Code Theft)Financial Gain (Ransomware)Financial Gain (Crypto Fraud)Espionage/Data Theft
IMPACT
$15 billion (Seized)BIG-IP Source Code & Vulnerability InfoRobot Sensor/Data LeaksOracle E-Business SuiteMicrosoft Products (Multiple)F5 BIG-IP Networking/Security ProductsAdobe Experience Manager (JEE)Microsoft Teams (Malicious Installers)Cisco Network Switches (IOS/IOS XE)Cryptocurrency Wallets/ExchangesUnitree G1 Humanoid RobotsPatient Care Disruptions (72% of Incidents)Source Code Integrity RiskMalware Distribution InfrastructureNetwork Compromise (Rootkits)Fraud Operation ShutdownEspionage Risk (China-Linked)High (Healthcare)High (F5)High (Microsoft)High (Cisco)Severe (Crypto Scam)High (Unitree/Alias Robotics)Severe (Healthcare Sector)Criminal Charges (Forced Labor)HIPAA/Regulatory ViolationsHigh (Patient Data)High
DATA BREACH
Source Code & Vulnerability DetailsRobot Sensor DataHigh (Proprietary Code)High (Espionage Risk)High (PHI/PII)Yes (Source Code)Yes (China-Linked)Likely (Ransomware)Yes (Patient Data)
MAY 2025
755Before Incident
Breach
01 May 2025 • Oracle Security
Fortinet, Samsung, Foxconn, Oracle and DHL: 74,000 Fortinet firewall credentials exposed in FortiBleed data leak

Russian Cybercriminal Group Exposes 74,000 Fortinet Firewall Credentials in Massive Leak

672After Incident
CRITICAL-83
SAMFOXORAFORDHL1781785487
Russian Cybercriminal Group Exposes 74,000 Fortinet Firewall Credentials in Massive Leak A Russian-speaking cybercriminal group inadvertently exposed credentials from nearly 74,000 Fortinet firewalls and VPN gateways worldwide after leaving the data unsecured on a server. The breach, discovered by security researcher Volodymyr “Bob” Diachenko over the past weekend, was confirmed by other researchers, including Kevin Beaumont, who verified the authenticity of the leaked login details. The compromised data, dubbed FortiBleed, includes configuration files containing sensitive information visible only from the devices themselves. The group obtained the credentials through automated large-scale harvesting, intercepting SSL VPN authentication hashes, cracking them using a 45-GPU cluster via Hashtopolis, and leveraging the passwords to infiltrate Active Directory environments. Researchers at Hudson Rock identified 73,932 unique firewall URLs across 194 countries, with many devices exposing their FortiGate Management Interface to the internet. While Fortinet previously addressed password storage vulnerabilities in early 2025 by adopting PBKDF2 with randomized salt, many devices still use the older, weaker SHA-256 with salt method, making them susceptible to brute-force attacks. The leaked data appears to include both recently harvested credentials and older collections from prior breaches. The breach impacts high-profile organizations, including Samsung, Siemens, Foxconn, Oracle, Accenture, DHL, Infosys, and Fortinet, as well as government agencies and critical infrastructure sectors. Notably, four organizations spanning Japan, Taiwan/Vietnam, Iraq, and Turkey were fully compromised, with a Turkish NATO defense contractor suffering exfiltration of classified defense documents. Fortinet attributes the leak to exploited vulnerabilities and brute-force attacks, though the exact timeline of data collection remains unclear. Organizations using Fortinet devices are advised to assume compromise if their domains or IPs appear in the exposed dataset, requiring credential rotation, MFA enforcement, and system upgrades to mitigate further risks.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
Data Breach
IMPACT
Data Compromised: 73,932 unique firewall URLs with credentialsSystems Affected: Fortinet firewalls and VPN gatewaysOperational Impact: Potential unauthorized access to Active Directory environments and classified documentsBrand Reputation Impact: High (impacted high-profile organizations and critical infrastructure)Identity Theft Risk: High (exposure of credentials and sensitive data)
DATA BREACH
CredentialsConfiguration filesClassified defense documentsNumber Of Records Exposed: 73,932 unique firewall URLsSensitivity Of Data: High (includes credentials, classified documents, and sensitive configurations)Data Exfiltration: Yes (e.g., Turkish NATO defense contractor)

Frequently Asked Questions

?
What is the current A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score for Oracle Security ?
?
What was Oracle Security's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in September 2026 ?
?
What was Oracle Security's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in August 2026 ?
?
What was Oracle Security's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in July 2026 ?
?
What was Oracle Security's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in June 2026 ?
?
What was Oracle Security's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in May 2026 ?
?
What was Oracle Security's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in April 2026 ?
?
What was Oracle Security's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in March 2026 ?
?
What was Oracle Security's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in February 2026 ?
?
What was Oracle Security's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in January 2026 ?
?
What was Oracle Security's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in December 2025 ?
?
What was Oracle Security's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in November 2025 ?
?
What is the average per-incident point impact on Oracle Security's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score over the past 12 months ?
?
Where can I access detailed records of all cyber incidents associated with Oracle Security ?
?
Where can I find a summary of the A.I Rankiteo Risk Scoring methodology ?
?
Where can I view Oracle Security's profile page on Rankiteo ?
?
How accurate is the A.I Rankiteo Risk Scoring methodology ?