Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » TalkTalk » TAL1780937547

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (TAL1780937547)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-105
Company Score Before Incident700 / 1000
Company Score After Incident595 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERTAL1780937547
Type of Cyber IncidentBreach
ATTACK VECTORThird-Party Platform Compromise
DATA EXPOSEDNames, email addresses, IP addresses,...
INCIDENT DATE26/01/2025
STATUSOngoing

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of TalkTalk'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 TalkTalk 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 TalkTalk breach identified under incident ID TAL1780937547.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of TalkTalk's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/talktalk, the number of followers: 68779, the industry type: Telecommunications and the number of employees: 1688 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 700 and after the incident was 595 with a difference of -105 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 TalkTalk and their customers.

TalkTalk recently reported "TalkTalk Data Breach via Third-Party Platform", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

UK telecommunications provider TalkTalk confirmed a data breach after a threat actor claimed responsibility on a cybercrime forum.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting CSG’s Ascendon SaaS platform, and exposing Names, email addresses, IP addresses, phone numbers, PINs, with nearly 18.8 million (claimed), disputed by TalkTalk records at risk.

In response, teams activated the incident response plan, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Immediate containment measures taken, and stakeholders are being briefed through Public statement issued.

The case underscores how Ongoing, teams are taking away lessons such as Risks of third-party vulnerabilities in supply chain security.

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 Supply Chain Compromise (T1195) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including breach originated from a third-party platform, and cSG’s Ascendon SaaS platform compromised and Compromise Software Supply Chain (T1195.002) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating third-party platform (CSG’s Ascendon SaaS) used by TalkTalk was compromised. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Unsecured Credentials (T1552) with moderate confidence (60%), with evidence including pINs included in compromised data, and third-party platform may have stored credentials insecurely. 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, IP addresses, phone numbers, PINs compromised. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating threat actor alleged theft of data belonging to 18.8M subscribers and Transfer Data to Cloud Account (T1537) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating threat actor claimed responsibility on a cybercrime forum. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating no details on extent of breach or data integrity and Data Manipulation: Transmitted Data Manipulation (T1565.002) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating disputed claim of 18.8M records may indicate manipulation. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Supply Chain Compromise (90%)
Compromise Software Supply Chain (80%)
Credential Access
Unsecured Credentials (60%)
Collection
Data from Local System (80%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (70%)
Transfer Data to Cloud Account (50%)
Impact
Data Destruction (30%)
Data Manipulation: Transmitted Data Manipulation (40%)

Sources & References