Rankiteo Logo
Rankiteo
Leader in Cyber Underwriting
Loading...
NEWRankiteo Cyber Underwriting Desktop - Score, price, and bind from your desktop
WindowsmacOSLinux
Download
Analyze » The Vatican » VAT1785184303

Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (VAT1785184303)

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

Rankiteo Score Impact Analysis

Rankiteo Incident Impact-49
Company Score Before Incident836 / 1000
Company Score After Incident787 / 1000
INCIDENT NUMBERVAT1785184303
Type of Cyber IncidentBreach
ATTACK VECTORAPI Misconfiguration
DATA EXPOSEDNames, email addresses, dates of...
INCIDENT DATE23/07/2026
STATUSResolved

Key Highlights From The Incident Analysis

  • Timeline of The Vatican'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 The Vatican 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 The Vatican breach identified under incident ID VAT1785184303.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of The Vatican's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/vatican, the number of followers: 0, the industry type: Government Administration and the number of employees: 411 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 836 and after the incident was 787 with a difference of -49 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 The Vatican and their customers.

On 24 July 2026, Click To Pray (Vatican) disclosed Data Breach issues under the banner "Vatican’s Click To Pray App Exposed 700,000 Users’ Data Due to Basic API Flaw".

The Vatican’s *Click To Pray* app, personally endorsed by Pope Francis in 2019, leaked the personal data of over 700,000 users for months due to an elementary API vulnerability.

The disruption is felt across the environment, affecting Click To Pray app backend API, and exposing Names, email addresses, dates of birth, countries, account roles, with nearly 700,000 records at risk.

In response, moved swiftly to contain the threat with measures like Restricted API access to user’s own data, exposed only public-facing details for others, and began remediation that includes Implemented authentication controls for API access, and stakeholders are being briefed through Silent patch after public disclosure.

The case underscores how Resolved, teams are taking away lessons such as Basic security oversights (e.g., missing authentication) can lead to large-scale breaches, especially when compounded by delayed responses from institutions. Foundational security practices (e.g., rate limiting, proper API authentication) are critical for all applications, regardless of their perceived sensitivity, and recommending next steps like Implement authentication and authorization controls for all APIs, enforce rate limiting, conduct regular security audits, and establish a clear vulnerability disclosure process with timely responses.

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%), with evidence including elementary API vulnerability, and sequential user ID system in the app’s backend API. Under the Credential Access tactic, the analysis identified Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (T1552.006) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating aPI endpoint allowed access to full user profiles without authentication. Under the Collection tactic, the analysis identified Data from Local System (T1005) with high confidence (90%), supported by evidence indicating names, email addresses, dates of birth, countries, and account roles exposed and Automated Collection (T1119) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating lack of rate limiting, allowing automated scraping of the entire dataset. Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (T1041) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating data exfiltration possible via automated scraping and Automated Exfiltration (T1020) with moderate to high confidence (80%), supported by evidence indicating lack of rate limiting enabled automated data scraping. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Destruction (T1485) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating potential phishing risks due to exposed PII and Data Manipulation: Stored Data Manipulation (T1565.001) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating highly convincing phishing campaigns could be crafted using exposed data. Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (T1562.001) with moderate confidence (50%), supported by evidence indicating lack of authentication or rate limiting in API. 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%)
Credential Access
Unsecured Credentials: Credentials In Files (70%)
Collection
Data from Local System (90%)
Automated Collection (80%)
Exfiltration
Exfiltration Over C2 Channel (70%)
Automated Exfiltration (80%)
Impact
Data Destruction (30%)
Data Manipulation: Stored Data Manipulation (40%)
Defense Evasion
Impair Defenses: Disable or Modify Tools (50%)

Sources & References