Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » RuPay » VISRUPCOS1780793686

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (VISRUPCOS1780793686)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-201
Company Score Before Incident754 / 1000
Company Score After Incident553 / 1000
Company LinkView RuPay Profile
INCIDENT NUMBERVISRUPCOS1780793686
Type of Cyber IncidentBreach
ATTACK VECTORMalware, Cloned debit cards, SWIFT system exploitation
DATA EXPOSEDVISA and RuPay debit card...
INCIDENT DATE15/08/2018
STATUSOngoing

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of RuPay'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 RuPay 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 RuPay breach identified under incident ID VISRUPCOS1780793686.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of RuPay's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/rupay, the number of followers: 44858, the industry type: Financial Services and the number of employees: 73 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 754 and after the incident was 553 with a difference of -201 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 RuPay and their customers.

On 11 August 2018, Cosmos Bank disclosed ATM cash-out fraud and SWIFT system breach issues under the banner "Cosmos Bank Hit by ₹94.42 Crore Cyber Heist in Coordinated Global Attack".

Pune-based Cosmos Bank, one of India’s oldest urban cooperative banks, fell victim to a sophisticated cyberattack on August 11 and 13, resulting in the theft of ₹94.42 crore ($13.5 million).

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting ATM switch server, SWIFT system and Internet banking, and exposing VISA and RuPay debit card data, with nearly 14,849 fraudulent transactions records at risk, plus an estimated financial loss of ₹94.42 crore ($13.5 million).

In response, teams activated the incident response plan, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Disabled VISA and RuPay ATM services and Shut down servers and internet banking, and began remediation that includes Server inspection and SWIFT system review, while recovery efforts such as Reconciliation with VISA and RuPay (2-7 days), international recovery efforts pending continue, and stakeholders are being briefed through Customer assurance (depositor funds secure).

The case underscores how Ongoing, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering RBI inspection and assessment.

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%), supported by evidence indicating compromised the bank’s ATM switch server via malware and Exploitation for Client Execution (T1203) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating malware compromise of ATM switch server. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified User Execution: Malicious File (T1204.002) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating malware...stealing data linked to VISA and RuPay debit cards. Under the Persistence tactic, the analysis identified Server Software Component: Web Shell (T1505.003) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating aTM switch server compromise via malware. Under the Privilege Escalation tactic, the analysis identified Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating sWIFT system exploitation to transfer funds. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating cloned debit cards used for withdrawals in 28 countries and Masquerading (T1036) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating fraudulent transactions executed using cloned cards. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Input Capture: Web Portal Capture (T1056.003) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating aTM switch server compromise via malware and Brute Force: Password Cracking (T1110.002) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating cloned debit cards used for unauthorized access. Under the Discovery tactic, the analysis identified Account Discovery: Domain Account (T1087.002) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating high-value targets such as VISA and RuPay debit card data. Under the Lateral Movement tactic, the analysis identified Remote Services: Remote Desktop Protocol (T1021.001) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating sWIFT system exploitation for fund transfer. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating vISA and RuPay debit card data compromised. Under the Command and Control tactic, the analysis identified Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols (T1071.001) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating fraudulent transactions across 28 countries. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating ₹94.42 crore stolen via ATM and SWIFT transactions and Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Unencrypted/Obfuscated Non-C2 Protocol (T1048.003) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating funds transferred to Hong Kong-based bank via SWIFT. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Encrypted for Impact (T1486) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating malware compromise of ATM switch server and Financial Theft (T1657) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating ₹94.42 crore stolen in coordinated attack. 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%)
Exploitation for Client Execution (70%)
Execution
User Execution: Malicious File (70%)
Persistence
Server Software Component: Web Shell (50%)
Privilege Escalation
Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (60%)
Defense Evasion
Valid Accounts (80%)
Masquerading (70%)
Credential Access
Input Capture: Web Portal Capture (60%)
Brute Force: Password Cracking (50%)
Discovery
Account Discovery: Domain Account (60%)
Lateral Movement
Remote Services: Remote Desktop Protocol (50%)
Collection
Data from Local System (80%)
Command and Control
Application Layer Protocol: Web Protocols (60%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (90%)
Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Unencrypted/Obfuscated Non-C2 Protocol (70%)
Impact
Data Encrypted for Impact (40%)
Financial Theft (90%)