Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Snap Inc. » SNA1767973005

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (SNA1767973005)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-61
Company Score Before Incident733 / 1000
Company Score After Incident672 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERSNA1767973005
Type of Cyber IncidentBreach
ATTACK VECTORPhishing, Impersonation, Social Engineering
DATA EXPOSEDPrivate photos, personal information (emails,...
INCIDENT DATE31/01/2021
STATUSOngoing (FBI seeking additional information from potential victims)

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Snap Inc.'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 Snap Inc. 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 Snap Inc. breach identified under incident ID SNA1767973005.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Snap Inc.'s information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/snap-inc-co, the number of followers: 537234, the industry type: Software Development and the number of employees: 8406 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 733 and after the incident was 672 with a difference of -61 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 Snap Inc. and their customers.

Snapchat (users) recently reported "Phishing Operation Targeting Snapchat Accounts to Steal Private Photos", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

U.S.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Snapchat accounts, and exposing Private photos, personal information (emails, phone numbers, Snapchat usernames), with nearly 570+ accounts, 59+ accounts with downloaded content records at risk.

Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.

The case underscores how Ongoing (FBI seeking additional information from potential victims), teams are taking away lessons such as Need for stronger authentication measures (e.g., multi-factor authentication), awareness of social engineering tactics, and vigilance against impersonation attacks, and recommending next steps like Implement multi-factor authentication for all accounts, Educate users on recognizing phishing and social engineering attempts and Monitor for unauthorized access or suspicious activity on accounts.

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 Phishing (T1566) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including orchestrating a phishing operation, and trick targets into sharing access codes and Phishing: Spearphishing via Service (T1566.003) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating impersonated Snapchat representatives to trick targets. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified User Execution (T1204) with moderate to high confidence (70%), with evidence including victims sharing access codes, and human error (victims sharing access codes). Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Unsecured Credentials (T1552) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating obtain victims emails, phone numbers, and usernames and Brute Force (T1110) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating accessed at least 59 accounts without authorization. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including download private images, and private photos, personal information compromised. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating data exfiltration such as Yes (stolen content sold or traded online) and Exfiltration Over Web Service (T1567) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating advertised his hacking services on platforms like Reddit. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Encrypted for Impact (T1486) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating no evidence of encryption, but private content was stolen and Data Manipulation (T1565) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating stolen content sold or traded online (potential misuse). Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Modify Authentication Process (T1556) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating impersonated Snapchat representatives to gain access and Masquerading (T1036) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating impersonated Snap representatives to trick targets. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Phishing (90%)
Phishing: Spearphishing via Service (80%)
Execution
User Execution (70%)
Credential Access
Unsecured Credentials (80%)
Brute Force (50%)
Collection
Data from Local System (90%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (80%)
Exfiltration Over Web Service (70%)
Impact
Data Encrypted for Impact (30%)
Data Manipulation (40%)
Defense Evasion
Modify Authentication Process (60%)
Masquerading (70%)

Sources & References