Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Star San Duo » STAHAC1777905270

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (STAHAC1777905270)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-55
Company Score Before Incident747 / 1000
Company Score After Incident692 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERSTAHAC1777905270
Type of Cyber IncidentCyber Attack
ATTACK VECTORSocial Engineering (Pig Butchering), Fake Investment Websites, Android Banking Trojan, Approval Phishing
DATA EXPOSEDBanking Credentials, Cryptocurrency Wallet Access,...
INCIDENT DATE31/12/2023
STATUSOngoing (Kok An at large, additional scam centers may exist)

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Star San Duo'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 Star San Duo 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 Star San Duo breach identified under incident ID STAHAC1777905270.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Star San Duo's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/star-san-duo, the number of followers: 142, the industry type: Transportation Equipment Manufacturing and the number of employees: 16 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 747 and after the incident was 692 with a difference of -55 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 Star San Duo and their customers.

On 01 April 2026, Ko Thet Company disclosed Cryptocurrency Scam, Fraud and Human Trafficking issues under the banner "Global Crackdown on Cryptocurrency Scam Centers (Operation Level Up)".

A sweeping international operation led by Dubai Police, in collaboration with the FBI and China’s Ministry of Public Security, dismantled nine cryptocurrency scam centers, arrested 276 suspects, and seized $701 million in funds linked to fraud schemes targeting Americans.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Cryptocurrency Wallets, Banking Systems and Mobile Devices (Android), and exposing Banking Credentials, Cryptocurrency Wallet Access and Personal Identifiable Information (PII), with nearly 20,000+ (Operation Atlantic) records at risk, plus an estimated financial loss of $562 million (prevented losses).

In response, teams activated the incident response plan, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Arrests of 276 suspects, Seizure of 503 fake investment websites and Freezing of $701 million in cryptocurrency, and began remediation that includes Shutdown of Telegram recruitment channel (@pogojobhiring2023), Sanctions against Kok An and associates and Cambodia’s new anti-scam law, while recovery efforts such as Victim notifications (9,000+) and Asset recovery efforts continue.

The case underscores how Ongoing (Kok An at large, additional scam centers may exist), teams are taking away lessons such as Need for international collaboration to combat cross-border cybercrime, Rise of 'pig butchering' scams and human trafficking in cyber fraud and Expansion of Android banking trojans targeting global victims, and recommending next steps like Enhance cross-border law enforcement cooperation, Implement stricter regulations for cryptocurrency platforms and Improve public awareness of social engineering scams, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering U.S. Treasury’s cybersecurity initiative for digital asset firms to share threat intelligence.

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 social Engineering (Pig Butchering), fake Job Offers, and phishing Domains, Phishing: Spearphishing Link (T1566.001) with moderate to high confidence (80%), with evidence including 503 fake investment websites seized, and approval Phishing, and Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190) with moderate to high confidence (70%), with evidence including fake investment websites, and malicious APKs distributed via fake domains. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified User Execution: Malicious File (T1204.002) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating android Banking Trojan distributed via fake domains and Command and Scripting Interpreter (T1059) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating approval phishing to hijack cryptocurrency wallets. Under the Persistence tactic, the analysis identified Boot or Logon Autostart Execution (T1547) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating android Banking Trojan likely established persistence. Under the Privilege Escalation tactic, the analysis identified Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism (T1548) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating approval phishing to gain wallet access. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Masquerading (T1036) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including fake government/banking domains, and 400 new lure domains in 2025 and Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (T1562.001) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating android trojan likely disabled security features. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Credentials from Password Stores (T1555) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating android Banking Trojan stole banking credentials and Brute Force (T1110) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating approval phishing to hijack wallets. Under the Discovery tactic, the analysis identified Account Discovery (T1087) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating targeted Americans and cryptocurrency investors and File and Directory Discovery (T1083) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating android trojan likely scanned for sensitive data. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating banking credentials and PII compromised and Automated Collection (T1119) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating android trojan automated credential theft. Under the Command and Control tactic, the analysis identified Application Layer Protocol (T1071) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating android trojan likely used C2 channels. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including $701M seized from money laundering, and 20,000+ victims and Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol (T1048) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating cryptocurrency wallet hijacking. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Encrypted for Impact (T1486) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating cryptocurrency wallets drained and Defacement (T1491) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating fake investment websites. 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 Link (80%)
Exploit Public-Facing Application (70%)
Execution
User Execution: Malicious File (80%)
Command and Scripting Interpreter (60%)
Persistence
Boot or Logon Autostart Execution (50%)
Privilege Escalation
Abuse Elevation Control Mechanism (60%)
Defense Evasion
Masquerading (90%)
Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (50%)
Credential Access
Credentials from Password Stores (80%)
Brute Force (60%)
Discovery
Account Discovery (70%)
File and Directory Discovery (60%)
Collection
Data from Local System (80%)
Automated Collection (70%)
Command and Control
Application Layer Protocol (70%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (90%)
Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol (70%)
Impact
Data Encrypted for Impact (40%)
Defacement (30%)

Sources & References