Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » UFP Technologies » UFP1772065449

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (UFP1772065449)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-70
Company Score Before Incident767 / 1000
Company Score After Incident697 / 1000
Company LinkView UFP Technologies Profile
INCIDENT NUMBERUFP1772065449
Type of Cyber IncidentBreach
ATTACK VECTORNA
DATA EXPOSEDData was stolen or destroyed
INCIDENT DATE13/02/2026
STATUSOngoing

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of UFP Technologies'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 UFP Technologies 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 UFP Technologies breach identified under incident ID UFP1772065449.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of UFP Technologies's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/ufp-technologies-inc-, the number of followers: 7091, the industry type: Medical Equipment Manufacturing and the number of employees: 513 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 767 and after the incident was 697 with a difference of -70 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 UFP Technologies and their customers.

On 14 February 2024, UFP Technologies disclosed ransomware and wiper issues under the banner "UFP Technologies Cybersecurity Incident".

UFP Technologies, a publicly traded medical device manufacturer, reported a cybersecurity breach affecting its IT systems.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting billing and label production, and exposing Data was stolen or destroyed.

In response, teams activated the incident response plan, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Implemented immediately after detection, and began remediation that includes Threat actor removed from systems, while recovery efforts such as Restored access to impacted systems continue, and stakeholders are being briefed through SEC filing submitted.

The case underscores how Ongoing.

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 Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190) with moderate confidence (50%), with evidence including detected suspicious activity on February 14, and affecting its IT systems and Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate confidence (60%), with evidence including threat actor was removed from its systems, and disrupted billing and label production. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified Malicious File (T1204.002) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating nature of the attack potentially ransomware or a wiper variant. Under the Persistence tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts (T1078) with moderate confidence (60%), with evidence including threat actor was removed from its systems, and implemented containment measures. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating data was stolen or destroyed during the attack and Data Encrypted for Impact (T1486) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating nature of the attack potentially ransomware or a wiper variant. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (70%), with evidence including data was stolen or destroyed during the attack, and potential data theft. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Indicator Removal (T1070) with moderate confidence (60%), with evidence including threat actor was removed from its systems, and implemented containment measures. These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.

Initial Access
Exploit Public-Facing Application (50%)
Valid Accounts (60%)
Execution
Malicious File (70%)
Persistence
Valid Accounts (60%)
Impact
Data Destruction (80%)
Data Encrypted for Impact (70%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (70%)
Defense Evasion
Indicator Removal (60%)

Sources & References