Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Under Armour » NIKADIUND1769229125

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (NIKADIUND1769229125)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-264
Company Score Before Incident364 / 1000
Company Score After Incident100 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERNIKADIUND1769229125
Type of Cyber IncidentRansomware
ATTACK VECTORNA
DATA EXPOSEDCustomer details such as names,...
INCIDENT DATE31/10/2023
STATUSOngoing (Nike); Under Armour assessing impact

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Under Armour's Ransomware 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 Under Armour 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 Under Armour breach identified under incident ID NIKADIUND1769229125.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Under Armour's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/under-armour, the number of followers: 946514, the industry type: Retail Apparel and Fashion and the number of employees: 12755 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 364 and after the incident was 100 with a difference of -264 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 Under Armour and their customers.

Nike recently reported "Nike and Under Armour Hit by Ransomware Attacks", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

Nike and Under Armour have become the latest high-profile victims of ransomware attacks, with cybercriminals leveraging extortion tactics to demand payments.

The disruption is felt across the environment, and exposing Customer details such as names, emails, and birthdates (Nike); email addresses (Under Armour), with nearly 72 million (disputed, likely a fraction) records at risk.

Formal response steps have not been shared publicly yet.

The case underscores how Ongoing (Nike); Under Armour assessing impact, with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Nike: 'We always take consumer privacy and data security very seriously.' Under Armour: Confirmed breach but emphasized UA.com and payment systems remain unaffected.

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%), supported by evidence indicating adidas confirmed a breach via a third-party customer service provider and External Remote Services (T1133) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating the North Face faced a credential-stuffing attack. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified User Execution: Malicious File (T1204.002) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating ransomware attacks typically involve customer details compromise. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Brute Force: Password Spraying (T1110.003) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating the North Face faced a credential-stuffing attack and Credentials from Password Stores (T1555) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating credential-stuffing attack implies reused credentials. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating customer details such as names, emails, and birthdates compromised. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating worldLeaks threatened to release stolen data unless ransom paid and Exfiltration Over Web Service: Exfiltration to Cloud Storage (T1567.002) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating ransomware groups often leak data via public platforms. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Encrypted for Impact (T1486) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating ransomware attacks typically involve data encryption and Defacement: Internal Defacement (T1491.001) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating ransomware groups threaten public leaks for extortion. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Obfuscated Files or Information (T1027) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating ransomware often uses obfuscation to evade detection and Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (T1562.001) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating ransomware may disable security tools during attack. 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%)
External Remote Services (60%)
Execution
User Execution: Malicious File (70%)
Credential Access
Brute Force: Password Spraying (70%)
Credentials from Password Stores (60%)
Collection
Data from Local System (80%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (90%)
Exfiltration Over Web Service: Exfiltration to Cloud Storage (60%)
Impact
Data Encrypted for Impact (80%)
Defacement: Internal Defacement (50%)
Defense Evasion
Obfuscated Files or Information (60%)
Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (50%)