Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Portbase » POR1768238455

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (POR1768238455)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-15
Company Score Before Incident751 / 1000
Company Score After Incident736 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERPOR1768238455
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTORUSB malware deployment via insider
DATA EXPOSEDSensitive port information (camera locations,...
INCIDENT DATE31/12/2019
STATUSClosed (appeal pending)

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Portbase'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 Portbase 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 Portbase breach identified under incident ID POR1768238455.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Portbase's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/portbase, the number of followers: 10126, the industry type: Transportation, Logistics, Supply Chain and Storage and the number of employees: 169 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 751 and after the incident was 736 with a difference of -15 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 Portbase and their customers.

Port of Antwerp (container terminal) recently reported "Hacking of Belgian Port Company to Facilitate Cocaine Smuggling", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

A 44-year-old man was sentenced to seven years in prison for hacking a major port company in Belgium to help smuggle cocaine into the Netherlands.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Port container management systems, gate operations, personnel access systems, and exposing Sensitive port information (camera locations, staff photographs, terminal layouts), container management data.

Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.

The case underscores how Closed (appeal pending).

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 Replication Through Removable Media (T1091) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating convincing an employee...to insert a malware-laden USB stick and Trusted Relationship (T1199) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating insider access, malware backdoor via employee collusion. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified User Execution: Malicious File (T1204.002) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating double-click the program, wait 15 seconds, and remove the stick and Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating malware active for months, remote access to internal systems. Under the Persistence tactic, the analysis identified Account Manipulation (T1098) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating ability to issue access passes and manipulate gate systems and Create or Modify System Process: Windows Service (T1543.003) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating malware active for months, digital backdoor. Under the Privilege Escalation tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating insider access, total control over port operations. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Hide Artifacts: Hidden Files and Directories (T1564.001) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating malware active for months, USB removal after execution and Indicator Removal: File Deletion (T1070.004) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating remove the stick after 15 seconds. 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 stole sensitive port data, camera locations, staff photos. Under the Discovery tactic, the analysis identified Account Discovery (T1087) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating access to personnel access systems, staff photographs and File and Directory Discovery (T1083) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating terminal layouts, container management data compromised. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating stole camera locations, staff photos, terminal layouts and Data from Information Repositories (T1213) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating container management data, gate operations compromised. Under the Command and Control tactic, the analysis identified Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols (T1071.001) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating remote access to internal systems, digital backdoor. 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, sensitive port information stolen. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Manipulation: Stored Data Manipulation (T1565.001) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating fake emails and transport orders, manipulated gate systems and Defacement: Internal Defacement (T1491.001) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating interference with gate operations, unauthorized access. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Replication Through Removable Media (90%)
Trusted Relationship (80%)
Execution
User Execution: Malicious File (90%)
Command and Scripting Interpreter (70%)
Persistence
Account Manipulation (80%)
Create or Modify System Process: Windows Service (60%)
Privilege Escalation
Valid Accounts (80%)
Defense Evasion
Hide Artifacts: Hidden Files and Directories (70%)
Indicator Removal: File Deletion (60%)
Credential Access
Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (70%)
Discovery
Account Discovery (80%)
File and Directory Discovery (70%)
Collection
Data from Local System (90%)
Data from Information Repositories (80%)
Command and Control
Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols (70%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (80%)
Impact
Data Manipulation: Stored Data Manipulation (90%)
Defacement: Internal Defacement (60%)

Sources & References