Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Rutgers University » THEYALRUTHARSTAINSPRI1778258906

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (THEYALRUTHARSTAINSPRI1778258906)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-39
Company Score Before Incident714 / 1000
Company Score After Incident675 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERTHEYALRUTHARSTAINSPRI1778258906
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTORVulnerability in teacher-specific account
DATA EXPOSEDUser information, names, email addresses,...
INCIDENT DATE30/04/2026
STATUSOngoing

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Rutgers University'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 Rutgers University 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 Rutgers University breach identified under incident ID THEYALRUTHARSTAINSPRI1778258906.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Rutgers University's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/rutgersu, the number of followers: 508551, the industry type: Higher Education and the number of employees: 18275 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 714 and after the incident was 675 with a difference of -39 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 Rutgers University and their customers.

On 01 May 2024, Harvard University disclosed Data Breach issues under the banner "Cyberattack Disrupts Canvas Learning Portal at Major Universities Worldwide".

Hackers breached Instructure Inc.’s Canvas platform this month, forcing the company to temporarily suspend services for thousands of colleges and universities globally.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Canvas learning management system, and exposing User information, names, email addresses, internal messages, student IDs, communications.

In response, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Temporary suspension of services, suspension of affected teacher accounts, while recovery efforts such as Service restoration by May 2 continue, and stakeholders are being briefed through Universities issued warnings to students and faculty.

The case underscores how Ongoing, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Universities issued warnings to students and faculty about potential data exposure and phishing risks.

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 Valid Accounts: Local Accounts (T1078.003) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating exploited a vulnerability in a teacher-specific account and Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating breached Instructure Inc.’s Canvas platform. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts (T1078) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating unauthorized access to some of the company’s websites via teacher account and Unsecured Credentials: Group Policy Preferences (T1552.006) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating teacher-specific account vulnerability exploited. Under the Lateral Movement tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating access to Canvas platform affecting multiple universities. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating names, email addresses, internal messages, student IDs compromised and Data from Information Repositories (T1213) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating canvas platform supports exams, assignments, grade tracking. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating shinyHunters claimed responsibility; known for data theft and Transfer Data to Cloud Account (T1537) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating dark web post by ShinyHunters suggests data exfiltration. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Service Stop (T1489) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating temporarily suspend services for thousands of colleges and Defacement: Internal Defacement (T1491.001) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating disrupting operations for students and faculty. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating used teacher-specific account to bypass security controls. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Valid Accounts: Local Accounts (90%)
Exploit Public-Facing Application (80%)
Credential Access
Valid Accounts (90%)
Unsecured Credentials: Group Policy Preferences (50%)
Lateral Movement
Valid Accounts (70%)
Collection
Data from Local System (80%)
Data from Information Repositories (80%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (70%)
Transfer Data to Cloud Account (50%)
Impact
Service Stop (90%)
Defacement: Internal Defacement (60%)
Defense Evasion
Valid Accounts (80%)