Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Samsung Electronics

Samsung Electronics Vendor Cyber Rating & Cyber Score

samsung.com

Samsung Electronics is a global leader in technology, opening new possibilities for people everywhere. Through relentless innovation and discovery, we are transforming the worlds of TVs, smartphones, wearable devices, tablets, digital appliances, network systems, medical devices, semiconductors and LED solutions. Samsung is also leading in the Internet of Things space through, among others, our Smart Home and Digital Health initiatives. Since being established in 1969, Samsung Electronics has grown into one of the world’s leading technology companies, and become recognized as one of the top 10 global brands. Our network now extends across the world, and Samsung takes great pride in the creativity and diversity of its talented people, who


Samsung Electronics A.I CyberSecurity Scoring

Samsung Electronics
Company Information
Website:http://www.samsung.com
Employees number:189,526
Number of followers:5,090,222
NAICS:334
Industry Type:Computers and Electronics Manufacturing
Homepage:samsung.com
Samsung Electronics Risk Score (AI oriented)
Between 700 and 749
logo
Samsung ElectronicsComputers and Electronics Manufacturing
Updated:
11/08/2026
746/1000
Moderate
Ba
AaaAaABaaBaBCaaCaC
Powered by our proprietary A.I cyber incident model
Insurance prefers TPRM score to calculate premium
Samsung Electronics Global Score (TPRM)
xxxx
logo
Samsung ElectronicsComputers and Electronics Manufacturing
•••
Score locked
Instant access to detailed risk factors
Vulnerabilities
Benchmark vs. industry & size peers
Findings

Samsung Electronics
Samsung ElectronicsModerate
Current Score
746Ba (MODERATE)
01000
16 incidents
-8 avg impact
Incident timeline with MITRE ATT&CK tactics, techniques, and mitigations.
AUGUST 2026
749Before Incident
JULY 2026
752Before Incident
JUNE 2026
752Before Incident
MAY 2026
751Before Incident
Vulnerability
01 May 2026Samsung Electronics
Fortinet, Foxconn, Comcast, Chevron, Samsung, AT&T, Mercedes-Benz and Toyota: FortiBleed leak exposes Fortinet VPN credentials for 73,000 devices.

FortiBleed: Massive Fortinet VPN Credential Leak Exposes 74,000 Firewalls Worldwide

750After Incident
CRITICAL-1
MERCHESAMCOMFOXATTFORTOY1781713752
FortiBleed: Massive Fortinet VPN Credential Leak Exposes 74,000 Firewalls Worldwide A newly uncovered data leak, dubbed FortiBleed, has exposed credentials for 73,932 Fortinet and FortiGate VPN firewalls across organizations globally. Security researcher Bob Diachenko discovered the breach after identifying an unsecured server containing usernames, email addresses, and plaintext passwords for high-profile targets, including Chevron, Samsung, Foxconn, Comcast, AT&T, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, and multiple government agencies. The dataset, analyzed by Diachenko and later confirmed by threat intelligence firm Hudson Rock, includes 21,632 unique domains spanning 194 countries, with the highest concentrations of affected devices in India, the U.S., Taiwan, Mexico, and Turkey. The compromised credentials span industries such as telecommunications, IT services, finance, healthcare, manufacturing, and critical infrastructure. ### Attack Method & Scope Diachenko’s investigation revealed the breach was orchestrated by a Russian-speaking threat group that conducted 1.16 billion credential-stuffing attempts against 320,777 FortiGate targets and 2.1 billion attempts against 163,650 Microsoft SQL servers. The attackers used a 45-GPU cluster running Hashtopolis to crack intercepted SSL VPN authentication hashes, then leveraged the stolen credentials to infiltrate Active Directory environments. Additional exposed files accidentally left accessible on the same server contained attack logs, scripts, and tooling, along with detailed profiles of targeted organizations, including revenue, employee counts, and industry classifications. The breach also led to full compromises of entities in Japan, Taiwan, Vietnam, Iraq, and Turkey, including a Turkish NATO defense contractor, from which classified documents were allegedly exfiltrated. ### Credential Authenticity & Origin Cybersecurity researcher Kevin Beaumont independently verified portions of the dataset, confirming that many credentials were legitimate and that roughly 75,000 Fortinet devices most still online were affected. The data appears to have been extracted from Fortinet configuration files, as it includes email addresses and other details typically only accessible through exported configs. Notably, many of the exposed passwords were long and complex, suggesting the attackers may have exploited previously unknown vulnerabilities or misconfigurations rather than brute-force methods. Beaumont’s analysis, based on Shodan network scans, found that nearly half of all internet-exposed Fortinet firewalls were included in the leak, with many devices exposing management interfaces directly to the web. ### Unanswered Questions The exact method of initial compromise remains unclear. Researchers have not determined whether the data was obtained via known Fortinet vulnerabilities, a zero-day flaw, or another attack vector. Neither Diachenko, Hudson Rock, nor Beaumont have identified the original source of the configuration leaks. Fortinet has been contacted for comment but has not yet responded. The dataset’s scale and the ongoing exposure of affected devices underscore the severity of the breach, with potential implications for supply chain security, government networks, and critical infrastructure.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
Data Breach
IMPACT
Data Compromised: Usernames, email addresses, plaintext passwords, attack logs, scripts, tooling, organizational profiles (revenue, employee counts, industry classifications), classified documents (in some cases)Systems Affected: 73,932 Fortinet and FortiGate VPN firewalls, Active Directory environmentsOperational Impact: Full compromises of entities in multiple countries, potential supply chain security risksIdentity Theft Risk: High (exposure of personally identifiable information)
DATA BREACH
Type Of Data Compromised: Credentials (usernames, email addresses, plaintext passwords), attack logs, scripts, tooling, organizational profiles, classified documentsNumber Of Records Exposed: 73,932 Fortinet devices, 21,632 unique domainsSensitivity Of Data: High (plaintext passwords, personally identifiable information, classified documents)Data Exfiltration: Yes (classified documents from a Turkish NATO defense contractor)Personally Identifiable Information: Yes (email addresses, usernames, passwords)
APRIL 2026
749Before Incident
MARCH 2026
743Before Incident
Vulnerability
28 Mar 2026Samsung Electronics
Aquasecurity: CISA Adds Aquasecurity Trivy Scanner Vulnerability to KEV Catalog

Critical Trivy Scanner Vulnerability Added to CISA’s Exploited Flaws Catalog

742After Incident
CRITICAL-1
AQU1774671948
Critical Trivy Scanner Vulnerability Added to CISA’s Exploited Flaws Catalog The U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) has added CVE-2026-33634, a severe vulnerability in Aquasecurity’s Trivy scanner, to its Known Exploited Vulnerabilities (KEV) catalog. The flaw, classified under CWE-506 (embedded malicious code), allows threat actors to compromise CI/CD pipelines by exploiting the security tool itself. The vulnerability stems from malicious code embedded in Trivy’s architecture, turning a trusted scanning utility into a vector for unauthorized access. If exploited, attackers can extract authentication tokens, SSH keys, cloud credentials, and database passwords from memory during scans. Since Trivy requires elevated permissions for deep container and infrastructure-as-code (IaC) analysis, successful exploitation grants full control over the development environment. CI/CD pipelines are prime targets for supply chain attacks, as compromised environments enable attackers to distribute malicious updates directly to end users, bypassing traditional security measures. CISA has set a remediation deadline of April 9, 2026, for Federal Civilian Executive Branch (FCEB) agencies under Binding Operational Directive (BOD) 22-01, though private organizations are urged to act with equal urgency. Aquasecurity has released patches, but if unavailable, CISA advises discontinuing Trivy’s use to mitigate risk. Beyond patching, security teams must rotate all exposed credentials including cloud tokens, SSH keys, and database passwords and audit cloud environments for suspicious activity, as the flaw’s memory exposure may have already led to breaches.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
Supply Chain Attack
IMPACT
Data Compromised: Authentication tokens, SSH keys, cloud credentials, database passwordsSystems Affected: CI/CD pipelines, development environmentsOperational Impact: Full control over development environment, potential distribution of malicious updates
DATA BREACH
Type Of Data Compromised: Authentication tokens, SSH keys, cloud credentials, database passwordsSensitivity Of Data: High
FEBRUARY 2026
745Before Incident
JANUARY 2026
748Before Incident
DECEMBER 2025
744Before Incident
NOVEMBER 2025
740Before Incident
Vulnerability
05 Nov 2025Samsung Electronics
Samsung (Hypothetical Breach Scenario - Knox Vulnerability Exploit)

739After Incident
CRITICAL-1
SAM5932959110525
A zero-day exploit in Samsung Knox’s DEFEX module was discovered, allowing attackers to bypass Message Guard’s zero-click attack protections. The vulnerability, chained with a phishing campaign targeting enterprise admins, enabled threat actors to silently exfiltrate corporate data from Samsung Galaxy devices enrolled in Enterprise Mobility Management (EMM) systems. The attack leveraged malicious image files sent via messaging apps (e.g., WhatsApp, SMS), which Knox failed to isolate due to a logic flaw in its sandboxing mechanism. The breach impacted 12,000 devices across a multinational corporation, exposing: - Employee credentials (stored in Knox-protected containers). - Unencrypted email caches containing client contracts and financial projections. - Internal IT policies and device update schedules, aiding further attacks. While no customer PII was confirmed stolen, the reputation damage was severe after tech media reported the failure of Knox’s ‘government-grade’ claims. The company faced regulatory scrutiny for misleading security marketing, and stock prices dipped 4% post-disclosure. Samsung issued an emergency patch, but the incident eroded trust in Android’s enterprise security among CISOs.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
Security Myth DebunkingEnterprise Mobile Security OverviewProactive Threat Mitigation
OCTOBER 2025
767Before Incident
Ransomware
04 Oct 2025Samsung Electronics
Dimensional Control Systems (DCS)

Ransomware Attack on Dimensional Control Systems (DCS) by J Group

738After Incident
CRITICAL-29
DIM4992449100425
A ransomware group, J Group, claimed a major breach of Dimensional Control Systems (DCS), a Michigan-based provider of dimensional engineering software critical to manufacturing giants like Boeing, Samsung, Volkswagen, and Airbus. The attackers allegedly exfiltrated 11GB of sensitive data, including financial records, employee information, and proprietary operational documents, posting samples on the dark web as leverage for ransom demands. The breach poses severe risks to supply chain security, potentially exposing intellectual property (e.g., aerospace designs, manufacturing tolerances) and disrupting operations for high-profile clients. Boeing’s involvement raises national security concerns due to its defense contracts, while Samsung’s prior breaches compound vulnerabilities. Though DCS has not publicly confirmed the attack, cybersecurity experts warn of cascading risks—including regulatory fines (e.g., GDPR for Volkswagen), legal actions, and reputational damage—if client data was compromised. The incident underscores the growing threat of third-party vendor attacks, where a single breach can jeopardize an entire industrial ecosystem.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
ransomwaredata breachsupply chain attack
MOTIVATION
financial gain (ransom)data theft for leverage
IMPACT
financial recordsemployee informationinternal documentsproprietary designs (potential)operational data (potential)potential disruption to precision manufacturing processes for clients (Boeing, Samsung, Volkswagen, Airbus)supply chain security riskspotential damage due to association with high-profile clients (e.g., Boeing, Airbus)loss of trust in supply chain securitypotential fines under GDPR (for Volkswagen)regulatory scrutiny (e.g., FAA for Boeing)legal actions from affected clientsemployee information exposed
DATA BREACH
financial recordsemployee informationinternal documentspotential proprietary designsSensitivity Of Data: high (includes supply chain and manufacturing data for defense/aerospace clients)Data Exfiltration: claimed (11GB of data)financial recordsemployee datascreenshotsinternal documentsemployee information
SEPTEMBER 2025
766Before Incident
JULY 2025
778Before Incident
Breach
08 Jul 2025Samsung Electronics
Samsung

762After Incident
MEDIUM-16
SAM945080725
A leak revealed details and images of Samsung's upcoming devices, including the Galaxy Z Fold 7, Z Flip 7, and Galaxy Watch series. The leak suggests Samsung is dropping support for the S Pen on the Z Fold 7, which could impact user experience and productivity. Additionally, marketing materials and specs for the Galaxy Watch 8 series were exposed, potentially affecting Samsung's competitive edge and product launch strategy. The leak was shared by a reliable source on Bluesky, highlighting vulnerabilities in Samsung's pre-launch confidentiality.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
Data Leak
MOTIVATION
Unauthorized disclosure of confidential information
IMPACT
Data Compromised: Marketing materials and device specificationsBrand Reputation Impact: Potential negative impact due to unauthorized leak
DATA BREACH
Type Of Data Compromised: Marketing materials, device specificationsSensitivity Of Data: ConfidentialData Exfiltration: Yes
MAY 2025
785Before Incident
Breach
01 May 2025Samsung Electronics
Fortinet, Samsung, Foxconn, Oracle and DHL: 74,000 Fortinet firewall credentials exposed in FortiBleed data leak

Russian Cybercriminal Group Exposes 74,000 Fortinet Firewall Credentials in Massive Leak

776After Incident
CRITICAL-9
SAMFOXORAFORDHL1781785487
Russian Cybercriminal Group Exposes 74,000 Fortinet Firewall Credentials in Massive Leak A Russian-speaking cybercriminal group inadvertently exposed credentials from nearly 74,000 Fortinet firewalls and VPN gateways worldwide after leaving the data unsecured on a server. The breach, discovered by security researcher Volodymyr “Bob” Diachenko over the past weekend, was confirmed by other researchers, including Kevin Beaumont, who verified the authenticity of the leaked login details. The compromised data, dubbed FortiBleed, includes configuration files containing sensitive information visible only from the devices themselves. The group obtained the credentials through automated large-scale harvesting, intercepting SSL VPN authentication hashes, cracking them using a 45-GPU cluster via Hashtopolis, and leveraging the passwords to infiltrate Active Directory environments. Researchers at Hudson Rock identified 73,932 unique firewall URLs across 194 countries, with many devices exposing their FortiGate Management Interface to the internet. While Fortinet previously addressed password storage vulnerabilities in early 2025 by adopting PBKDF2 with randomized salt, many devices still use the older, weaker SHA-256 with salt method, making them susceptible to brute-force attacks. The leaked data appears to include both recently harvested credentials and older collections from prior breaches. The breach impacts high-profile organizations, including Samsung, Siemens, Foxconn, Oracle, Accenture, DHL, Infosys, and Fortinet, as well as government agencies and critical infrastructure sectors. Notably, four organizations spanning Japan, Taiwan/Vietnam, Iraq, and Turkey were fully compromised, with a Turkish NATO defense contractor suffering exfiltration of classified defense documents. Fortinet attributes the leak to exploited vulnerabilities and brute-force attacks, though the exact timeline of data collection remains unclear. Organizations using Fortinet devices are advised to assume compromise if their domains or IPs appear in the exposed dataset, requiring credential rotation, MFA enforcement, and system upgrades to mitigate further risks.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
Data Breach
IMPACT
Data Compromised: 73,932 unique firewall URLs with credentialsSystems Affected: Fortinet firewalls and VPN gatewaysOperational Impact: Potential unauthorized access to Active Directory environments and classified documentsBrand Reputation Impact: High (impacted high-profile organizations and critical infrastructure)Identity Theft Risk: High (exposure of credentials and sensitive data)
DATA BREACH
CredentialsConfiguration filesClassified defense documentsNumber Of Records Exposed: 73,932 unique firewall URLsSensitivity Of Data: High (includes credentials, classified documents, and sensitive configurations)Data Exfiltration: Yes (e.g., Turkish NATO defense contractor)
MAY 2025
786Before Incident
Vulnerability
30 Apr 2025Samsung Electronics
Samsung

Critical Path Traversal Vulnerability in Samsung MagicINFO 9 Server (CVE-2025-4632) Exploited for Mirai Botnet Spread

775After Incident
CRITICAL-11
SAM4062340111725
Samsung addressed a critical path traversal vulnerability (CVE-2025-4632) in its MagicINFO 9 Server, exploited to propagate the Mirai botnet. The flaw, stemming from improper pathname limitations, allowed arbitrary file writes, enabling attackers to execute malicious commands, download payloads, and conduct reconnaissance. The vulnerability was actively abused in three confirmed incidents after a proof-of-concept (PoC) was publicly released on April 30. Affected systems included versions v8 to v9 (21.1050.0), with patching complications noted—users upgrading from v8 to v9 (21.1052.0) were required to first install an intermediate vulnerable version (21.1050.0) before applying fixes. The exploitation risked unauthorized system access, lateral movement within networks, and potential botnet integration, amplifying risks of distributed denial-of-service (DDoS) attacks or further malware deployment. While no direct data breaches or financial losses were reported, the vulnerability posed a significant operational threat, particularly for enterprises relying on MagicINFO for digital signage and content management.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
Vulnerability ExploitationBotnet Propagation (Mirai)Unauthorized Arbitrary File Write
MOTIVATION
Botnet Expansion (Mirai)ReconnaissancePotential Follow-on Attacks
IMPACT
Samsung MagicINFO Server (Versions v8 to v9 21.1050.0)Potential Unauthorized File ModificationsBotnet InfectionReconnaissance ActivityPotential Reputation Damage Due to Vulnerability Exploitation
MARCH 2025
785Before Incident
Vulnerability
01 Mar 2025Samsung Electronics
Samsung

Potential Battery Issues with Galaxy S25 Edge

784After Incident
MEDIUM-1
SAM333031125
Samsung's newly anticipated model, the Galaxy S25 Edge, features a battery with a lower capacity compared to its predecessor, Spurred by competition from Apple's rumored high-capacity, super-slim iPhone 17 Air, Samsung might face consumer backlash if its slim design compromises battery life. Despite housing the powerful 8-core Snapdragon 8 Elite chipset, the S25 Edge's 3,900 mAh battery could lead to underwhelming battery performance, disadvantaging Samsung in a market where incremental battery life improvements are expected with each new smartphone release.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
Product Issue
IMPACT
Potential consumer backlash
AUGUST 2024
778Before Incident
Vulnerability
01 Aug 2024Samsung Electronics
Samsung

Samsung MagicINFO Vulnerability Exploitation

776After Incident
LOW-2
SAM732051525
Companies running Samsung MagicINFO, a platform for managing content on Samsung commercial digital displays, should upgrade to the latest available version of its v9 branch to fix a vulnerability that’s reportedly being exploited by attackers. The vulnerability in question was believed to be CVE-2024-7399, which was fixed in August 2024. However, confusion arose due to inconsistent information from Samsung. The latest hotfix, MagicINFO 9 Server (Hotfix) 21.1052, mitigates the issue. There is no hotfix for MagicINFO v8, so users should switch to v9 and do it in a particular way: first upgrade to v9 21.1050, and then update to v9 (Hotfix) 21.1052. All customers should investigate whether their instances have been compromised.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
Vulnerability Exploitation
IMPACT
Systems Affected: Samsung MagicINFO
JUNE 2024
777Before Incident
Vulnerability
16 Jun 2024Samsung Electronics
Samsung

Samsung Patches Zero-Day RCE Vulnerability (CVE-2025-21043) in Android Devices

776After Incident
CRITICAL-1
SAM3132231091225
Samsung patched a critical zero-day vulnerability (CVE-2025-21043) in its Android devices (Android 13+), exploited in real-world attacks. The flaw, an out-of-bounds write in libimagecodec.quram.so (a third-party image parsing library by Quramsoft), allowed remote code execution (RCE) via malicious images. Exploits were detected in the wild, with Meta/WhatsApp reporting the issue on August 13. While Samsung did not confirm if attacks were limited to WhatsApp users, the vulnerability posed risks to any app using the affected library. The flaw enabled attackers to execute arbitrary code on targeted devices without user interaction, potentially leading to spyware deployment, data theft, or device takeover. Concurrently, Samsung’s MagicINFO 9 Server (a CMS used in airports, hospitals, and retail) was targeted via another RCE flaw (CVE-2024-7399), allowing unauthenticated malware deployment. Though no direct link was confirmed, the combined risks highlighted systemic exposure in Samsung’s ecosystem. The company urged updates but did not disclose attack scale or victim details. The exploitation aligns with sophisticated, targeted campaigns, possibly linked to state-sponsored or mercenary spyware groups (e.g., NSO Group-like actors).
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
Vulnerability ExploitationZero-Day AttackRemote Code Execution (RCE)
MOTIVATION
Espionage (Spyware Campaign)Potential Data TheftUnauthorized Access
IMPACT
Samsung Android Devices (Android 13+) with libimagecodec.quram.soWhatsApp iOS/macOS Clients (via CVE-2025-55177 + CVE-2025-43300)Samsung MagicINFO 9 Server (CVE-2024-7399)Potential Device CompromiseSpyware DeploymentMalware DistributionPotential Erosion of Trust in Samsung/Meta SecurityNegative PublicityHigh (if spyware deployed successfully)
DATA BREACH
Potential (via Spyware Campaign)Potential (if spyware deployed)
NOVEMBER 2023
785Before Incident
Breach
01 Nov 2023Samsung Electronics
Samsung Electronics

Samsung Electronics Data Breach

767After Incident
CRITICAL-18
SAM1016261123
A data breach at Samsung Electronics resulted in the disclosure of some of its customers' personal information to an unapproved party. A weakness in an unidentified third-party application utilised by the IT behemoth was taken advantage of by threat actors. Names, phone numbers, postal addresses, and email addresses may have been revealed; the company is alerting affected consumers. The identities, phone numbers, birthdates, product registration information, and demographic data of Samsung consumers were all accessible to the threat actors. In addition, the security breach did not reveal credit card or Social Security information.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
Data Breach
IMPACT
NamesPhone numbersPostal addressesEmail addressesBirthdatesProduct registration informationDemographic data
DATA BREACH
Personal informationNamesPhone numbersPostal addressesEmail addressesBirthdatesProduct registration informationDemographic data
APRIL 2023
795Before Incident
Data Leak
01 Apr 2023Samsung Electronics
Samsung Electronics

Samsung Data Breach Incident via ChatGPT

776After Incident
HIGH-19
SAM33929523
Samsung suffered a data breach incident in April 2023 after Samsung employees have shared internal documents, including meeting notes and source code, with the popular chatbot service ChatGPT. The organisation had three data leaks as a result of its staff members disclosing private information using ChatGPT. Samsung Electronics is alerting staff members to the potential dangers of using ChatGPT and emphasising that there is no way to stop the disclosure of the information submitted to OpenAI's chatbot service.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
Data Breach
MOTIVATION
Unintentional Data Sharing
IMPACT
internal documentsmeeting notessource code
DATA BREACH
internal documentsmeeting notessource code
OCTOBER 2022
795Before Incident
Cyber Attack
20 Oct 2022Samsung Electronics
Nvidia and Samsung: Ransoms Without Ransomware, Data Corruption and Other New Tactics in Cyber Extortion

Evolution of Ransomware Tactics: From Encryption to Data Extortion and Corruption

789After Incident
CRITICAL-6
SAMNVI1775781329
Ransomware Evolves: From Encryption to Data Extortion and Corruption Cybercriminals behind ransomware attacks are shifting tactics, moving away from traditional full encryption toward faster, more flexible extortion methods. This evolution reflects a broader trend where threat actors prioritize efficiency, leverage stolen data, and adapt to defensive measures creating a spectrum of data-destructive techniques. ### The Shifting Ransomware Landscape Once defined by full data encryption, ransomware operations now encompass a range of strategies, from pure data theft to partial or intermittent encryption. This shift is driven by the need for speed, reduced detection risk, and the growing profitability of extortion. Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) programs have further lowered the barrier to entry, enabling even low-skilled actors to launch sophisticated attacks with support structures akin to legitimate businesses. ### The Spectrum of Data Extortion Modern ransomware operators now occupy different positions on a "data destructiveness" spectrum: - No Encryption, Pure Extortion: Groups like Karakurt and Lapsus$ bypass encryption entirely, instead stealing sensitive data and threatening to leak or auction it. Karakurt, linked to the defunct Conti syndicate, targets organizations across industries by exploiting vulnerabilities in exposed services (e.g., outdated Fortinet VPNs) or purchasing access from initial access brokers (IABs). Lapsus$, known for high-profile breaches (Nvidia, Samsung, Okta, Microsoft), relies on stolen credentials, phishing, and social engineering including SIM-swapping to bypass multi-factor authentication (MFA). Unlike Karakurt, Lapsus$ also seeks notoriety alongside financial gain. - Data Corruption: Some actors, like those using the Exmatter tool, corrupt files by replacing chunks of data with unrelated content. This method is faster than encryption, harder to reverse, and eliminates the risk of decryption tools being developed by researchers. Corruption also avoids the technical complexities of encryption, reducing the chance of implementation flaws. - Partial Encryption: Ransomware families like BlackCat, BlackBasta, Agenda, Qyick, and the newer Royal employ intermittent encryption, targeting only portions of files. This approach speeds up attacks especially for large files while evading detection by security tools that monitor file I/O intensity or entropy changes. Royal, for example, skips encrypting blocks of data based on operator-defined parameters, balancing speed and impact. ### Why the Shift? Several factors drive this evolution: - Speed: Full encryption is time-consuming and increases the risk of detection. Partial encryption or corruption allows attackers to move quickly, demanding ransoms before defenses can respond. - Leverage: Stolen data alone can be enough to extort victims, particularly if it includes sensitive or proprietary information. Threatening leaks or auctions adds pressure without the need for destructive payloads. - Avoiding Decryption: Corruption and partial encryption reduce the likelihood of security researchers developing decryption tools, as seen with past ransomware strains like Lorenz and MafiaWare666. - Hybrid Models: Some actors may switch between pure extortion and destructive techniques based on the value of stolen data, adopting a flexible approach to maximize payouts. ### Future Trends The ransomware ecosystem is expected to diversify further, with: - More extortion-only groups emerging, particularly those targeting high-value data without deploying ransomware. - Increased use of corruption and partial encryption to balance speed and impact. - Hybrid attacks where actors combine data theft with selective destruction, tailoring their approach to the victim’s profile. This shift underscores the professionalization of cybercrime, where threat actors refine tactics to evade defenses, exploit vulnerabilities, and maximize profits whether through encryption, corruption, or pure extortion. As the landscape evolves, defenders must adapt to a broader range of attack methods beyond traditional ransomware.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
Ransomware
MOTIVATION
Financial gainNotorietyData extortion
DATA BREACH
Sensitive dataProprietary informationPersonally Identifiable Information (PII)Sensitivity Of Data: HighPartialIntermittent
JULY 2022
798Before Incident
Breach
01 Jul 2022Samsung Electronics
Samsung Electronics

Samsung Data Breach

775After Incident
CRITICAL-23
SAM203923922
Samsung suffered a data breach incident in late July 2022 after an unauthorized third party acquired information from some of Samsung’s U.S. systems. The exposed information included the name, contact, location, date of birth, and product registration information of its customers. Samsung worked with an external cybersecurity firm to prevent the attack from escalating and communicated directly with the affected customers.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
Data Breach
IMPACT
namecontactlocationdate of birthproduct registration information
DATA BREACH
namecontactlocationdate of birthproduct registration information
MARCH 2022
818Before Incident
Breach
01 Mar 2022Samsung Electronics
Samsung Electronics

Samsung Data Breach by LAPSUS$

795After Incident
CRITICAL-23
SAM211923922
The tech giant Samsung was targeted by LAPSUS$ hacking group whto steal almost 200GB of sensitive data in March 2022. The exposed 190GB files included the source code for Samsung’s activation servers, bootloaders and biometric unlock algorithms for all recently released Samsung devices, and trusted applets for Samsung’s TrustZone environment. The hacker also published the data on their telegram group and made it available for users to download it for free.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
Data Breach
MOTIVATION
Data TheftPublic Disclosure
IMPACT
Data Compromised: 190GBActivation ServersBootloadersBiometric Unlock AlgorithmsTrustZone Environment
DATA BREACH
Source CodeActivation ServersBootloadersBiometric Unlock AlgorithmsTrusted AppletsSensitivity Of Data: HighData Exfiltration: Yes
JUNE 2021
840Before Incident
Breach
16 Jun 2021Samsung Electronics
Samsung Electronics Germany

Data Breach at Samsung Electronics Germany

814After Incident
CRITICAL-26
SAM010040325
A substantial data breach has hit Samsung Electronics Germany with around 270,000 customer records being sold on the dark web by a criminal hacker under the alias 'GHNA.' The stolen information encompasses names, addresses, emails, order details, and internal communications from Samsung's support system. The breach was consequent to compromised login credentials at IT service provider Spectos, linked to Samsung’s German ticket system. The credentials, originating from a credential theft incident in 2021, remained unchanged for several years, which facilitated the breach.
INCIDENT DETAILS -
TYPE
Data Breach
MOTIVATION
Financial Gain
IMPACT
namesaddressesemailsorder detailsinternal communicationsSystems Affected: Samsung’s German ticket system
DATA BREACH
namesaddressesemailsorder detailsinternal communicationsNumber Of Records Exposed: 270,000Data Exfiltration: YesPersonally Identifiable Information: Yes

Frequently Asked Questions

?
What is the current A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score for Samsung Electronics ?
?
What was Samsung Electronics's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in July 2026 ?
?
What was Samsung Electronics's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in June 2026 ?
?
What was Samsung Electronics's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in May 2026 ?
?
What was Samsung Electronics's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in April 2026 ?
?
What was Samsung Electronics's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in March 2026 ?
?
What was Samsung Electronics's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in February 2026 ?
?
What was Samsung Electronics's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in January 2026 ?
?
What was Samsung Electronics's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in December 2025 ?
?
What was Samsung Electronics's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in November 2025 ?
?
What was Samsung Electronics's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in October 2025 ?
?
What was Samsung Electronics's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score in September 2025 ?
?
What is the average per-incident point impact on Samsung Electronics's A.I Rankiteo Cyber Score over the past 12 months ?
?
Where can I access detailed records of all cyber incidents associated with Samsung Electronics ?
?
Where can I find a summary of the A.I Rankiteo Risk Scoring methodology ?
?
Where can I view Samsung Electronics's profile page on Rankiteo ?
?
How accurate is the A.I Rankiteo Risk Scoring methodology ?
Samsung Electronics Cyber Scoring History | Rankiteo