Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Ostium » OST1784593704

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (OST1784593704)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-59
Company Score Before Incident765 / 1000
Company Score After Incident706 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBEROST1784593704
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTOROff-chain price manipulation
DATA EXPOSEDNA
INCIDENT DATE15/07/2026
STATUSOngoing

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Ostium'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 Ostium 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 Ostium breach identified under incident ID OST1784593704.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Ostium's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ostium-labs, the number of followers: 2151, the industry type: Technology, Information and Internet and the number of employees: 34 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 765 and after the incident was 706 with a difference of -59 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 Ostium and their customers.

On 16 July 2023, Ostium disclosed Exploit issues under the banner "Ostium Trading Platform Hit by $23.75 Million Exploit via Off-Chain Price Manipulation".

Ostium, a decentralized trading platform built on the Arbitrum blockchain, suffered a $23.75 million exploit after attackers compromised its off-chain infrastructure used for price feeds.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Liquidity provider vault, trading operations, plus an estimated financial loss of $23.75 million.

In response, teams activated the incident response plan, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Paused trading within 60 minutes, froze existing positions, and began remediation that includes Securing infrastructure, and stakeholders are being briefed through Public disclosure, promise of 24-hour notice before resuming operations.

The case underscores how Ongoing, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Detailed post-mortem analysis expected in the coming days.

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 Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating compromised its off-chain infrastructure used for price feeds. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified Content Injection (T1659) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating manipulated price reports to open and close large positions artificially. Under the Privilege Escalation tactic, the analysis identified Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism (T1548) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating siphoning funds from Ostium’s liquidity provider vault. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating off-chain infrastructure compromise implies valid access and Hide Artifacts: Hidden Window (T1564.003) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating price manipulation likely automated and obscured. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Unsecured Credentials (T1552) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating off-chain infrastructure compromise suggests credential exposure. Under the Lateral Movement tactic, the analysis identified Use Alternate Authentication Material: Pass the Hash (T1550.002) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating compromised off-chain infrastructure for price feeds. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating siphoning funds from Ostium’s liquidity provider vault. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating attacker swapped USDC for 12,080 ETH before depositing into TornadoCash and Exfiltration Over Web Service: Exfiltration to Cloud Storage (T1567.002) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating deposited 10,540 ETH into TornadoCash to obscure funds’ origin. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Defacement: Internal Defacement (T1491.001) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating manipulated price reports to open and close large positions artificially and Data Encrypted for Impact (T1486) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating trading halted, positions frozen. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Exploit Public-Facing Application (80%)
Execution
Content Injection (90%)
Privilege Escalation
Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism (70%)
Defense Evasion
Valid Accounts (60%)
Hide Artifacts: Hidden Window (50%)
Credential Access
Unsecured Credentials (70%)
Lateral Movement
Use Alternate Authentication Material: Pass the Hash (60%)
Collection
Data from Local System (80%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (90%)
Exfiltration Over Web Service: Exfiltration to Cloud Storage (70%)
Impact
Defacement: Internal Defacement (80%)
Data Encrypted for Impact (50%)