TINEXTA S.P.A. Breach Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (TIN4992049111725)

In this Rankiteo incident briefing, we review the TINEXTA S.P.A. breach identified under incident ID TIN4992049111725.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of TINEXTA S.P.A.'s information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/tinexta, the number of followers: 27400, the industry type: IT Services and IT Consulting and the number of employees: 2198 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 753 and after the incident was 751 with a difference of -2 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 TINEXTA S.P.A. and their customers.

Tinexta InfoCert S.p.A. recently reported "Critical Vulnerabilities in GoSign Desktop Allow Man-in-the-Middle Attacks and Arbitrary Code Execution", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

A significant security vulnerability has been discovered in GoSign Desktop, a widely used solution for qualified electronic signatures developed by Tinexta InfoCert S.p.A.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting GoSign Desktop (Windows/macOS/Linux - assumed), and exposing Credentials, Authentication Tokens and Digitally Signed Documents.

In response, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Disconnect GoSign Desktop from internet-facing services, Restrict network access of the application and Monitor for unexpected update activity, and began remediation that includes Transition to SaaS version (if feasible).

The case underscores how Ongoing (no public patch timeline from vendor), teams are taking away lessons such as Critical importance of TLS certificate validation in security-sensitive applications, Mandatory code signing for software updates, especially in high-trust contexts and Need for transparent vulnerability disclosure and patch timelines, and recommending next steps like Immediate: Isolate GoSign Desktop from untrusted networks, Short-term: Migrate to SaaS version (QC2-certified) where possible and Long-term: Implement rigorous code signing and TLS validation in development lifecycle, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Recommended: Notify all GoSign Desktop users of risks and Coordinate with legal teams on signature validity.

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.

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: Compromise Software Update Chain (T1195.002) with high confidence (95%), with evidence including unverified update mechanism enabling malicious updates, and arbitrary code execution via malicious update packages and Adversary-in-the-Middle: TLS Hijacking (T1557.002) with high confidence (95%), with evidence including disabled TLS certificate validation enabling man-in-the-middle (MitM) attacks, and intercept or tamper with encrypted traffic. Under the Persistence tactic, the analysis identified Create or Modify System Process: Windows Service (T1543.003) with moderate to high confidence (85%), with evidence including goSign Desktop... often with administrator-level privileges, and malicious update packages could install persistent services. Under the Privilege Escalation tactic, the analysis identified Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including often with administrator-level privileges, and arbitrary code execution via unverified updates. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Subvert Trust Controls: Code Signing (T1553.005) with high confidence (95%), with evidence including lack of Code Signing in update mechanism, and unverified Update Mechanism and Indicator Removal: Network Share Connection Removal (T1070.004) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating intercept or tamper with encrypted traffic (MitM could hide traces). Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Credentials from Password Stores: Credentials from Web Browsers (T1555.003) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including intercept... credentials, authentication tokens via MitM, and high identity theft risk if credentials intercepted and OS Credential Dumping: NTDS (T1003.003) with moderate to high confidence (75%), with evidence including administrator-level privileges could enable credential dumping, and sensitive data leaks include authentication tokens. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with high confidence (95%), with evidence including intercept... documents, authentication tokens, and digitally Signed Documents and Sensitive Business/Government Data at risk. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with high confidence (90%), with evidence including data exfiltration such as Possible via MitM attacks, and credentials, documents, authentication tokens intercepted and Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Unencrypted/Obfuscated Non-C2 Protocol (T1048.003) with moderate to high confidence (85%), with evidence including tLS encryption bypassed due to validation flaw, and mitM could redirect traffic to attacker-controlled channels. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Defacement: Internal Defacement (T1491.002) with moderate to high confidence (80%), with evidence including document tampering, fraud via manipulated digital signatures, and legal liability from compromised documents and Data Destruction (T1485) with moderate to high confidence (70%), with evidence including potential fraud via manipulated digital signatures, and tampering could invalidate critical documents. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.