Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Pocket Bitcoin » POC1788457320

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (POC1788457320)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-94
Company Score Before Incident752 / 1000
Company Score After Incident658 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERPOC1788457320
Type of Cyber IncidentBreach
ATTACK VECTORNA
DATA EXPOSEDEmail addresses, customer inquiry records,...
INCIDENT DATE15/08/2026
STATUSForensic investigation conducted

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Pocket Bitcoin's Breach 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 Pocket Bitcoin 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 Pocket Bitcoin breach identified under incident ID POC1788457320.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Pocket Bitcoin's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/pocketbitcoin, the number of followers: 1308, the industry type: Financial Services and the number of employees: 11 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 752 and after the incident was 658 with a difference of -94 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 Pocket Bitcoin and their customers.

On 03 September 2024, Pocket Bitcoin disclosed Data Breach issues under the banner "Swiss Bitcoin Service Pocket Bitcoin Suffers Data Breach Impacting 5,400 Users".

Swiss-based Bitcoin trading platform Pocket Bitcoin disclosed a data breach affecting over 5,400 users, with personal information exposed in an attack detected last month.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Internal database, and exposing Email addresses, customer inquiry records, bank transfer details, copies of identification documents, residential addresses, proof-of-funds materials, Bitcoin transaction addresses, with nearly 5400 records at risk.

In response, teams activated the incident response plan, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Blocked hacker’s access to systems, and began remediation that includes Patched the vulnerability, implemented additional security measures, and stakeholders are being briefed through Notified affected customers about specific details involved.

The case underscores how Forensic investigation conducted, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Affected customers were notified about the specific details involved.

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 (60%), with evidence including vulnerability exploited in internal database, and patched the vulnerability and External Remote Services (T1133) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating bitcoin trading platform with customer inquiry records accessed. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (T1552.001) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating bank transfer details, copies of identification documents exposed. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating personal data stored in its internal database was copied and Data from Information Repositories (T1213) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating customer inquiry records, Bitcoin transaction addresses compromised. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (70%), with evidence including data breach affecting over 5,400 users, and data exfiltration such as Yes. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (T1562.001) with moderate confidence (60%), with evidence including blocked the hacker’s access to its systems, and patched the vulnerability. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating no evidence that leaked data has been exploited for malicious activities. 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 (60%)
External Remote Services (50%)
Credential Access
Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (70%)
Collection
Data from Local System (80%)
Data from Information Repositories (70%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (70%)
Defense Evasion
Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (60%)
Impact
Data Destruction (30%)

Sources & References