Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » Uranium » URA1775060765

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (URA1775060765)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-76
Company Score Before Incident793 / 1000
Company Score After Incident717 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERURA1775060765
Type of Cyber IncidentBreach
ATTACK VECTORSmart contract vulnerability exploitation
DATA EXPOSEDNA
INCIDENT DATE30/03/2026
STATUSOngoing (charges filed)

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of Uranium'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 Uranium 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 Uranium breach identified under incident ID URA1775060765.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Uranium's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/uranium-finance, the number of followers: 0, the industry type: Technology, Information and Internet and the number of employees: 5 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 793 and after the incident was 717 with a difference of -76 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 Uranium and their customers.

Uranium Finance recently reported "Maryland Man Charged in $53M Cryptocurrency Heist Targeting Uranium Finance", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

A 36-year-old Maryland man, Jonathan Spalletta, has been charged with stealing over $53 million from the Uranium Finance cryptocurrency exchange in two separate attacks in April 2021.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Uranium Finance cryptocurrency exchange, plus an estimated financial loss of $53.3 million.

In response, while recovery efforts such as Asset seizure ($31 million recovered) continue.

The case underscores how Ongoing (charges filed), teams are taking away lessons such as Risks of vulnerabilities in decentralized finance platforms.

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 high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating exploited vulnerabilities in the platform’s smart contract code. Under the Execution tactic, the analysis identified Serverless Execution (T1648) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating manipulated a rewards system to withdraw $1.4 million via smart contract. Under the Persistence tactic, the analysis identified Compromise Client Software Binary (T1554) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating exploited a coding error to siphon funds from 26 liquidity pools. Under the Privilege Escalation tactic, the analysis identified Domain or Tenant Policy Modification (T1484) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating drained nearly 90% of its assets by exploiting smart contract code. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts (T1078.004) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating negotiated a fraudulent $386,000 bug bounty and Hide Artifacts: Hidden Window (T1564.003) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating laundered through decentralized exchanges and Tornado Cash mixer. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Unsecured Credentials: Bash History (T1552.003) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating exploited a coding error in liquidity pools to siphon funds. Under the Lateral Movement tactic, the analysis identified Use Alternate Authentication Material: Pass the Hash (T1550.002) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating accessed 26 liquidity pools to drain funds. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Information Repositories: Sharepoint (T1213.002) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating drained nearly 90% of its assets from the platform. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating stolen cryptocurrency was laundered through decentralized exchanges and Automated Exfiltration (T1020) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating $53.3 million stolen in two separate attacks. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Encrypted for Impact (T1486) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating platform shutdown due to drained assets and Defacement: Internal Defacement (T1491.001) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating drained nearly 90% of its assets, forcing shutdown. 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 (90%)
Execution
Serverless Execution (80%)
Persistence
Compromise Client Software Binary (60%)
Privilege Escalation
Domain or Tenant Policy Modification (70%)
Defense Evasion
Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts (50%)
Hide Artifacts: Hidden Window (70%)
Credential Access
Unsecured Credentials: Bash History (60%)
Lateral Movement
Use Alternate Authentication Material: Pass the Hash (50%)
Collection
Data from Information Repositories: Sharepoint (40%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (90%)
Automated Exfiltration (80%)
Impact
Data Encrypted for Impact (30%)
Defacement: Internal Defacement (70%)

Sources & References