Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Fondazione Palazzo Strozzi » CENPAL1775206485

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (CENPAL1775206485)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-113
Company Score Before Incident762 / 1000
Company Score After Incident649 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERCENPAL1775206485
Type of Cyber IncidentRansomware
ATTACK VECTORNA
DATA EXPOSEDPasswords, alarm codes, internal maps,...
INCIDENT DATE27/01/2026
STATUSOngoing

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Fondazione Palazzo Strozzi's Ransomware 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 Fondazione Palazzo Strozzi 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 Fondazione Palazzo Strozzi breach identified under incident ID CENPAL1775206485.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Fondazione Palazzo Strozzi's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/palazzostrozzi, the number of followers: 15888, the industry type: Museums, Historical Sites, and Zoos and the number of employees: 63 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 762 and after the incident was 649 with a difference of -113 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 Fondazione Palazzo Strozzi and their customers.

On 03 February 2024, Uffizi Galleries disclosed Ransomware issues under the banner "Cyberattack on Florence’s Uffizi Galleries".

Florence’s Uffizi Galleries, home to masterpieces like Botticelli’s *Birth of Venus* and Michelangelo’s *Doni Tondo*, suffered a severe cyberattack in late January or early February 2024.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Administrative systems, servers for Uffizi, Palazzo Pitti, and Boboli Gardens, and exposing Passwords, alarm codes, internal maps, digital archive of images and documents.

In response, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Emergency exits sealed, Treasury closed to the public, transfer of valuable jewels to Bank of Italy, and stakeholders are being briefed through Limited public comment, closure attributed to 'extraordinary maintenance'.

The case underscores how Ongoing, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Treasury closed to the public for 'extraordinary maintenance'.

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 confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating breach compromised the museum’s administrative systems and Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating hackers allegedly stealing passwords. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified User Execution: Malicious File (T1204.002) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating servers were reportedly emptied (likely via ransomware execution). Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified OS Credential Dumping (T1003) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating passwords, alarm codes, and internal maps stolen and Credentials from Password Stores (T1555) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating hackers allegedly stealing passwords. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating theft of the photographic department’s entire digital archive and Data from Information Repositories (T1213) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating digital archive of images and documents stolen. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating data exfiltration confirmed, including digital archive. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Encrypted for Impact (T1486) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating ransomware attack, servers reportedly emptied and Defacement (T1491) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating administrative systems compromised (potential defacement risk). Under the Command and Control tactic, the analysis identified Application Layer Protocol (T1071) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating ransom demand issued directly to director’s personal phone. 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 (50%)
Valid Accounts (60%)
Execution
User Execution: Malicious File (40%)
Credential Access
OS Credential Dumping (70%)
Credentials from Password Stores (60%)
Collection
Data from Local System (80%)
Data from Information Repositories (70%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (80%)
Impact
Data Encrypted for Impact (90%)
Defacement (30%)
Command and Control
Application Layer Protocol (60%)

Sources & References