Published Date: 2017-10-12
| Postmortem Analysis | |
|---|---|
| Timeline | 1. The software failure incident mentioned in the article happened in 2017. [Article 63872] |
| System | The software failure incident described in the article did not involve a specific system failure. Instead, the article discusses potential vulnerabilities in various systems and devices due to the exploitation of bugs or flaws in code-reader apps, DNA sequencers, 3-D printing quality sensing systems, and QR code readers. Therefore, the specific system(s) that failed in this incident are unknown. |
| Responsible Organization | 1. Cyberattackers exploited cameras and sensors in phones and other devices to cause the software failure incident by finding a bug in a code-reader app that allowed certain precisely formatted text to be executed [63872]. |
| Impacted Organization | 1. Users scanning QR codes with their phones [63872] |
| Software Causes | 1. The failure incident was caused by a vulnerability in code-reader apps that allowed certain precisely formatted text to be executed when scanning a QR code [63872]. 2. The incident was also attributed to the potential for attackers to embed malicious software in physical objects, such as 3-D printed objects, which could be scanned and processed by software systems, leading to a compromise [63872]. |
| Non-software Causes | 1. Lack of screening of sensed data before processing [63872] 2. Insufficient consideration of potential manipulation of sensed data by hackers [63872] 3. Failure to ensure secure handling of sensed data [63872] |
| Impacts | unknown |
| Preventions | 1. Ensuring that software developers and computer administrators screen sensed data before processing and handle them securely to prevent unexpected hijacking [63872]. 2. Developing secure software to prevent attacks that exploit vulnerabilities in code-reader apps when scanning QR codes [63872]. 3. Implementing intrusion detection systems to look for common attacks, unusual behavior, and unexpected activities to detect and prevent cyber intrusions [63872]. |
| Fixes | 1. Implementing secure software development practices to identify and fix bugs in code-reader apps that allow for the execution of malicious code [63872]. 2. Screening sensed data before processing to prevent unexpected hijacking and ensuring secure handling of data [63872]. 3. Developing and deploying intrusion detection systems to detect common attacks, unusual behavior, and unexpected activities to enhance security [63872]. | References | 1. Research on 3-D modeling and assessing 3-D printed objects [63872] 2. University of Washington researchers [63872] 3. North Dakota State University researchers [63872] |
| Category | Option | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Recurring | one_organization | (a) The software failure incident having happened again at one_organization: - The article discusses the potential risks associated with scanning QR codes and how cyberattackers could exploit cameras and sensors in phones and other devices by finding bugs in code-reader apps that allow for the execution of malicious code [63872]. - It mentions the importance of being aware of the risks associated with transmitting infection through various means, including scanning QR codes and processing data from scanned objects [63872]. - The article highlights the need for software developers to consider the potential for hackers to manipulate sensed data and the importance of screening sensed data before processing to prevent unexpected hijacking [63872]. (b) The software failure incident having happened again at multiple_organization: - The article does not specifically mention similar incidents happening at multiple organizations. Therefore, based on the provided information, there is no evidence of the same software failure incident occurring at multiple organizations. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) | design, operation | (a) The article discusses the potential for software failure incidents related to the design phase. It mentions the possibility of attackers exploiting bugs in code-reader apps that process QR codes, allowing for the execution of malicious code [63872]. This highlights how vulnerabilities introduced during the design and development of software can lead to cyber attacks. (b) The article also touches upon software failure incidents related to the operation phase. It mentions how attackers may target users through phishing emails or by triggering viruses through routine software activities [63872]. This indicates that software can fail during operation due to factors such as human error or misuse of the system. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) | within_system, outside_system | (a) within_system: The software failure incident discussed in the articles is related to vulnerabilities within the system itself. For example, attackers could exploit bugs in code-reader apps that allow certain precisely formatted text to be executed when scanning a QR code [63872]. Additionally, the articles mention the possibility of storing malicious computer code in the physical world, such as in 3-D printing instructions or the structure of an item being scanned, which could potentially lead to system vulnerabilities [63872]. (b) outside_system: The software failure incident also involves contributing factors that originate from outside the system. For instance, attackers may use external methods to trick users into triggering malware, such as sending deceptive emails or embedding viruses in DNA that could potentially infect computer systems [63872]. This highlights the importance of considering external threats and manipulations of sensed data to prevent unexpected hijacking and system compromise [63872]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) | non-human_actions, human_actions | (a) The software failure incident occurring due to non-human actions: The articles discuss the potential for software failure incidents to occur due to non-human actions, such as exploiting vulnerabilities in systems through methods like scanning QR codes or processing sensed data. For example, attackers could exploit bugs in code-reader apps that allow certain text to be executed instead of just scanned and processed [63872]. Additionally, the articles mention the possibility of embedding malicious code in physical objects like 3-D printed items or DNA strands, which could lead to software vulnerabilities when scanned or processed [63872]. (b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions: The articles also highlight the role of human actions in contributing to software failure incidents. For instance, attackers may target individuals by sending emails containing malware or tricking users into triggering viruses through routine software activities [63872]. Furthermore, the articles mention the importance of screening sensed data before processing to prevent unexpected hijacking, emphasizing the need for programmers and computer administrators to handle data securely to avoid compromising systems [63872]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) | hardware, software | (a) The articles discuss the potential for software failure incidents related to hardware vulnerabilities. For example, the articles mention the possibility of attackers exploiting cameras and sensors in phones and other devices to execute malicious actions [63872]. This indicates that hardware vulnerabilities in devices like cameras and sensors could contribute to software failure incidents. (b) The articles also highlight the risk of software failure incidents originating from vulnerabilities in software itself. Specifically, they mention the possibility of attackers finding bugs in code-reader apps that allow for the execution of certain precisely formatted text, leading to cyber attacks [63872]. This indicates that software vulnerabilities, such as bugs in code-reader apps, can contribute to software failure incidents. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) | malicious, non-malicious | (a) The articles discuss the potential for malicious software attacks through various means such as scanning QR codes, embedding malware in DNA, and designing objects to exploit vulnerabilities in systems like 3-D printing quality sensing [63872]. These attacks involve human actors with the intent to harm computer systems and devices. (b) The articles also mention non-malicious software failures, such as viruses being triggered by routine software activities or unintentionally embedded in DNA for testing purposes [63872]. Additionally, the importance of screening sensed data before processing to prevent unexpected hijacking is highlighted as a preventive measure against non-malicious failures [63872]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) | poor_decisions, accidental_decisions | The intent of the software failure incident discussed in the articles is related to potential cyberattacks exploiting cameras and sensors in phones and other devices. This could lead to failure due to contributing factors introduced by poor decisions, such as attackers finding bugs in code-reader apps that allow for the execution of malicious code when scanning QR codes [63872]. Additionally, the articles mention the need for software developers to screen sensed data before processing to prevent unexpected hijacking, indicating failure due to accidental decisions if proper screening measures are not implemented [63872]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) | development_incompetence, accidental | (a) The articles discuss the potential for software failure incidents due to development incompetence. They mention the possibility of attackers exploiting bugs in code-reader apps that allow certain text to be executed instead of just scanned and processed [63872]. This highlights the importance of professional competence in developing secure software to prevent such vulnerabilities that could lead to cyber attacks. (b) The articles also touch upon the accidental introduction of contributing factors that could lead to software failure incidents. For example, they mention how attackers might send emails with malicious content or viruses designed to be unwittingly triggered by routine software activities [63872]. These accidental actions by users could inadvertently lead to software failures or security breaches. |
| Duration | unknown | The articles do not provide specific information about a software failure incident being either permanent or temporary. |
| Behaviour | byzantine, other | (a) crash: The articles do not specifically mention a software failure incident related to a crash where the system loses state and does not perform any of its intended functions. (b) omission: The articles do not specifically mention a software failure incident related to omission where the system omits to perform its intended functions at an instance(s). (c) timing: The articles do not specifically mention a software failure incident related to timing where the system performs its intended functions correctly, but too late or too early. (d) value: The articles do not specifically mention a software failure incident related to value where the system performs its intended functions incorrectly. (e) byzantine: The articles discuss the potential for attackers to embed malicious software in the physical world, such as in QR codes or 3-D printed objects, which could lead to inconsistent responses and interactions when scanned or processed by devices [63872]. (f) other: The articles mention the possibility of attackers exploiting vulnerabilities in code-reader apps that process QR codes, potentially allowing for the execution of precisely formatted text or harmful actions instead of just scanning and processing the code [63872]. |
| Layer | Option | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Perception | sensor, processing_unit, embedded_software | (a) sensor: The articles discuss the vulnerability of sensors in cyber physical systems to potential attacks. They mention that sensors may have less precision than DNA sequencers, and small variations in sensed data could render encoded malware inoperable. However, some systems, like QR code readers, include methods for correcting anomalies in sensed data, making them susceptible to attacks through sensor manipulation [63872]. (b) actuator: The articles do not specifically mention any incidents or vulnerabilities related to actuators in cyber physical systems. (c) processing_unit: The articles discuss the potential for attackers to exploit bugs in code-reader apps that process data from QR codes, leading to cyber attacks. They also mention the possibility of storing malicious code in 3-D printing instructions or in the structure of an item being scanned, which involves processing the collected data. Additionally, the articles highlight the importance of screening sensed data before processing to prevent unexpected hijacking, indicating a focus on secure processing to prevent cyber attacks [63872]. (d) network_communication: The articles touch upon the concept of attackers manipulating sensed data to infect or compromise devices. They mention the need for sensed data to be screened before processing and handled securely to prevent unexpected hijacking, which could involve network communication errors if the data is not securely transmitted or received. However, the articles do not provide specific examples of network communication failures in cyber physical systems. (e) embedded_software: The articles discuss the potential for attackers to embed malicious code in physical objects, such as 3-D printed items, which could then be scanned and processed by systems. This scenario involves the interaction with embedded software in the systems that process the data from the scanned objects. Additionally, the articles mention the possibility of placing malicious code in DNA strands that, when sequenced, could attack the software used for analysis, highlighting the risks associated with embedded software vulnerabilities [63872]. |
| Communication | unknown | The articles do not provide specific information about a software failure incident related to the communication layer of the cyber physical system that failed. Therefore, it is unknown whether the failure was at the link_level or connectivity_level. |
| Application | FALSE | The articles do not provide specific information about a software failure incident related to the application layer of a cyber physical system that meets the definition provided. Therefore, the specific details regarding such a failure are unknown based on the given articles. |
| Category | Option | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Consequence | harm, property, non-human, theoretical_consequence | (a) death: There is no mention of people losing their lives due to the software failure incident in the provided article [63872]. (b) harm: The article discusses the potential for harm due to cyberattacks exploiting cameras and sensors in phones and other devices. It mentions the possibility of attackers designing objects for scanning that could cause harm to the software used for analysis [63872]. (c) basic: There is no mention of people's access to food or shelter being impacted due to the software failure incident in the provided article [63872]. (d) property: The article discusses the potential for attackers to embed malicious software in the physical world, waiting for unsuspecting people to scan it with a smartphone or specialized device, which could impact people's material goods, money, or data [63872]. (e) delay: There is no mention of people having to postpone an activity due to the software failure incident in the provided article [63872]. (f) non-human: The article discusses the vulnerability of 3-D printing to potential malware hidden in 3-D printing instructions or encoded in the structure of an item being scanned, impacting non-human entities like the 3-D printing quality sensing system [63872]. (g) no_consequence: The article does not mention that there were no real observed consequences of the software failure incident [63872]. (h) theoretical_consequence: The article discusses potential consequences of cyberattacks exploiting cameras and sensors in phones and other devices, such as storing malicious computer code in the physical world and the possibility of attacks including physical and electronic elements [63872]. (i) other: The article does not mention any other specific consequences of the software failure incident beyond those discussed in the options (a) to (h) [63872]. |
| Domain | information, manufacturing, knowledge, government | (a) The articles discuss the potential vulnerability of systems involved in 3-D modeling and scanning, which could be related to the production and distribution of information [63872]. (b) The articles do not specifically mention any systems related to transportation. (c) The articles do not specifically mention any systems related to natural resources. (d) The articles do not specifically mention any systems related to sales. (e) The articles do not specifically mention any systems related to construction. (f) The articles mention the vulnerability of 3-D printing systems, which could be related to the manufacturing industry [63872]. (g) The articles do not specifically mention any systems related to utilities. (h) The articles do not specifically mention any systems related to finance. (i) The articles mention the research on 3-D modeling and scanning, which could be related to knowledge industries such as education and research [63872]. (j) The articles do not specifically mention any systems related to health. (k) The articles do not specifically mention any systems related to entertainment. (l) The articles mention the example of Iranian government hackers capturing a U.S. spy drone, which could be related to government and defense industries [63872]. (m) The articles discuss the potential vulnerability of systems involved in 3-D modeling and scanning, which could be related to an industry not explicitly described in the options provided. |
Article ID: 63872