Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » RTX » RTX1789165418

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (RTX1789165418)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-9
Company Score Before Incident761 / 1000
Company Score After Incident752 / 1000
Company LinkView RTX Profile
INCIDENT NUMBERRTX1789165418
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTORNA
DATA EXPOSEDNA
INCIDENT DATE31/07/2026
STATUSpublished

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of RTX'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 RTX 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 RTX breach identified under incident ID RTX1789165418.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of RTX's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/rtx, the number of followers: 844927, the industry type: Aviation and Aerospace Component Manufacturing and the number of employees: 141560 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 761 and after the incident was 752 with a difference of -9 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 RTX and their customers.

U.S. Airlines recently reported "DOT Rule Exempts Airlines from Compensation for Cyberattack-Related Delays", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

Starting next month, the U.S.

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 Cybersecurity incidents are now classified as 'not controllable' under DOT rules, reducing airline compensation obligations. Airlines must demonstrate compliance with cybersecurity regulations to qualify for exemptions, and recommending next steps like Airlines should ensure robust cybersecurity measures to avoid legal liabilities and maintain passenger trust. Consumer advocacy groups recommend public transparency and accountability in cybersecurity practices, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Airlines must comply with existing cybersecurity regulations to qualify for compensation exemptions under the new DOT rule.

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%), with evidence including cyberattack causes a flight delay, and collins Aerospace breach in Europe and Trusted Relationship (T1199) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating aviation sector entities due to persistent threats. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Endpoint Denial of Service: Application or System Exploitation (T1499.004) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating flight cancellations or delays due to cyberattack and Service Stop (T1489) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating downtime such as Flight cancellations or delays. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Endpoint Denial of Service (T1499) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating cybersecurity incidents classified as not controllable. 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%)
Trusted Relationship (40%)
Impact
Endpoint Denial of Service: Application or System Exploitation (80%)
Service Stop (70%)
Defense Evasion
Endpoint Denial of Service (60%)

Sources & References