Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Peter Green Chilled » THEHARMARPET1770508437

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (THEHARMARPET1770508437)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-20
Company Score Before Incident619 / 1000
Company Score After Incident599 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERTHEHARMARPET1770508437
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTORPhishing, SIM-swapping, Help desk impersonation, Exploitation of legitimate remote access tools
DATA EXPOSEDNA
INCIDENT DATE22/05/2025
STATUSpublished

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Peter Green Chilled'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 Peter Green Chilled 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 Peter Green Chilled breach identified under incident ID THEHARMARPET1770508437.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Peter Green Chilled's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/peter-green-chilled, the number of followers: 1257, the industry type: Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage and the number of employees: 62 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 619 and after the incident was 599 with a difference of -20 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 Peter Green Chilled and their customers.

Peter Green Chilled recently reported "Ransomware Attack on Peter Green Chilled Disrupts UK Food Supply Chain", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

A ransomware attack on Peter Green Chilled, a key distributor of refrigerated goods to major UK supermarkets, has caused significant disruptions to food deliveries across the country.

Impact assessments are still underway, so the full scope is not yet clear.

Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.

The case underscores how teams are taking away lessons such as The attack underscores the high stakes of cybersecurity in retail, where even brief outages can ripple through digital and physical operations. Retailers must adopt a layered defense strategy, including enforced multi-factor authentication (MFA), restricted remote access, and employee training to recognize social engineering attempts, and recommending next steps like Enforced multi-factor authentication (MFA), Restricted remote access and Employee training to recognize social engineering attempts.

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 (90%), with evidence including attack vector such as Phishing, and scattered Spider known for phishing tactics, Trusted Relationship (T1199) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating exploitation of legitimate remote access tools, and External Remote Services (T1133) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating exploitation of legitimate remote access tools. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified User Execution (T1204) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating help desk impersonation as attack vector. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Brute Force (T1110) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating sIM-swapping as attack vector and Modify Authentication Process (T1556) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating help desk impersonation to bypass authentication. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating exploitation of legitimate remote access tools and Use Alternate Authentication Material (T1550) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating sIM-swapping and help desk impersonation. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Encrypted for Impact (T1486) with high confidence (95%), supported by evidence indicating ransomware such as data encryption such as Yes and Defacement (T1491) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating disruptions to food deliveries, potential shortages. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating scattered Spider known for data 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 (90%)
Trusted Relationship (70%)
External Remote Services (80%)
Execution
User Execution (70%)
Credential Access
Brute Force (60%)
Modify Authentication Process (70%)
Defense Evasion
Valid Accounts (80%)
Use Alternate Authentication Material (70%)
Impact
Data Encrypted for Impact (95%)
Defacement (50%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (60%)

Sources & References