Zoom Breach Incident Score: Analysis & Impact (ZOO35103935112525)

In this Rankiteo incident briefing, we review the Zoom breach identified under incident ID ZOO35103935112525.

The analysis begins with a detailed overview of Zoom's information like the linkedin page: https://www.linkedin.com/company/zoom, the number of followers: 631702, the industry type: IT Services and IT Consulting and the number of employees: 11719 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 798 and after the incident was 716 with a difference of -82 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 Zoom and their customers.

Zoom Video Communications recently reported "Non-Breach Privacy Exposures and Lawsuits in Cyber Insurance", a noteworthy cybersecurity incident.

Companies face cyber exposures and lawsuits due to violations of federal/state privacy laws in data collection, handling, or sharing—without a traditional security breach.

The disruption is felt across the environment, plus an estimated financial loss of $85M (Zoom settlement, 2021).

In response, and began remediation that includes Removal of unnecessary tracking tools (e.g., pixels), Annual privacy policy updates and Opt-in consent banners on websites, while recovery efforts such as Legal Defense Strategies and Compliance Program Enhancements continue, and stakeholders are being briefed through Public Settlements (e.g., Zoom) and Regulatory Disclosures.

The case underscores how Ongoing (Industry-Wide Trend), teams are taking away lessons such as Non-breach privacy risks (e.g., wrongful data collection/sharing) are as critical as traditional breaches, Proactive website audits (e.g., tracking tools, pixels) reduce litigation risks and Clear privacy policies and opt-in consent mechanisms are essential for compliance, and recommending next steps like Conduct annual reviews of website tracking technologies (e.g., pixels, cookies), Implement opt-in consent banners for data collection and Update privacy policies to align with evolving regulations (e.g., CCPA, BIPA), with advisories going out to stakeholders covering Cyber insurers recommend proactive privacy risk assessments, Legal counsel advises on compliance with state/federal privacy laws and Underwriters focus on website data collection/sharing practices.

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 Collection tactic, the analysis identified Automated Collection (T1119) with moderate to high confidence (85%), with evidence including zoom collected, shared, and mishandled personal information without proper consent, and removal of unnecessary tracking tools (e.g., pixels). Under the Defense Evasion tactic, the analysis identified Direct Volume Access (T1006) with lower confidence (10%), supported by evidence indicating lack of transparency in data collection/sharing (implied obfuscation of tracking practices) and Indicator Removal: File Deletion (T1070.004) with lower confidence (30%), supported by evidence indicating removal of unnecessary tracking tools (e.g., pixels) (post-incident, not adversarial). Under the Exfiltration tactic, the analysis identified Exfiltration Over Alternative Protocol: Exfiltration Over Unencrypted/Obfuscated Non-C2 Protocol (T1048.003) with moderate to high confidence (75%), with evidence including wrongful data sharing with third parties (implied unauthorized transfer of user data), and violations of privacy laws... improper handling of user data. Under the Impact tactic, the analysis identified Data Encrypted for Impact (T1486) with lower confidence (5%), supported by evidence indicating no direct encryption evidence; included only to note *absence* of ransomware in this case and Defacement: External Defacement (T1491.002) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating unauthorized meeting disruptions (Zoombombing) (disruption of service integrity). Under the Initial Access tactic, the analysis identified Phishing: Spearphishing Link (T1566.002) with lower confidence (20%), supported by evidence indicating zoombombing (unauthorized meeting access *may* involve phished meeting links) and Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts (T1078.004) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating unauthorized meeting disruptions (Zoombombing) (abuse of valid meeting credentials/links). Under the Persistence tactic, the analysis identified Office Application Startup: Add-in/Extension (T1137.005) with lower confidence (40%), supported by evidence indicating tracking tools (e.g., pixels) (persistent data collection mechanisms in web apps). Under the Privilege Escalation tactic, the analysis identified Valid Accounts: Cloud Accounts (T1078.004) with moderate confidence (60%), supported by evidence indicating zoombombing (elevated access to disrupt meetings via valid but misused credentials). Under the Reconnaissance tactic, the analysis identified Gather Victim Host Information (T1592) with moderate to high confidence (80%), with evidence including zoom collected... personal information (active gathering of user data for profiling), and website tracking technology scans (post-incident, but implies prior reconnaissance) and Search Open Websites/Domains (T1593) with moderate to high confidence (70%), supported by evidence indicating tracking tools (e.g., pixels) (passive collection of user behavior from public-facing sites). These correlations help security teams understand the attack chain and develop appropriate defensive measures based on the observed tactics and techniques.