Incident: Data Breach at Uber's Computer Network: Slack Hack Incident

Published Date: 2017-11-21

Postmortem Analysis
Timeline 1. The software failure incident at Uber occurred in October 2016 as mentioned in [Article 64883]. 2. The incident was also reported in October 2016 as per [Article 103825]. 3. The breach was discovered on Thursday, as reported in [Article 132162]. Therefore, the software failure incident at Uber happened in October 2016.
System 1. Uber's computer network 2. Internal communications and engineering systems 3. Slack system 4. Internal software tools 5. Cloud-based systems 6. Authentication manager 7. Microsoft's automation and management program PowerShell 8. Thycotic access management system [Citation: <Article 132162>, <Article 132404>, <Article 132435>, <Article 132585>, <Article 132643>, <Article 132653>]
Responsible Organization 1. Two hackers accessed Uber's log-in credentials to Amazon Web Services, leading to the software failure incident [65000]. 2. Brandon Charles Glover and Vasile Mereacre were convicted for cyberattacks against Uber, indicating their involvement in the software failure incident [103825]. 3. An individual claiming to be an 18-year-old hacker took responsibility for the attack on Uber, leading to the software failure incident [132585]. 4. A lone hacker used social engineering to trick an Uber employee into surrendering their credentials, ultimately causing the software failure incident [132653].
Impacted Organization 1. Uber's count of 57 million users [64883] 2. Uber employees globally [132404] 3. Uber's internal communications and engineering systems [132162, 132435] 4. Uber admin accounts [132643]
Software Causes 1. The software failure incident at Uber was caused by developers publishing code containing usernames and passwords on a private account of the software repository Github, leading to immediate access for hackers [64883]. 2. The breach involved a hacker compromising a worker's Slack account and using it to send a message claiming a data breach, indicating a vulnerability in Uber's internal systems [132162, 132404]. 3. The breach involved a hacker gaining access by posing as a colleague and tricking an Uber employee into surrendering their credentials, highlighting a social engineering vulnerability [132653]. 4. Screenshots shared by the hacker indicated access to highly privileged security accounts within Uber's systems, suggesting a lack of proper access control and security measures [132404, 132585].
Non-software Causes 1. Social engineering tactics used by the hacker to trick an Uber employee into surrendering their credentials [132653] 2. Phishing attack to obtain the password of an Uber employee [132653]
Impacts 1. Personal data of users, including email addresses and driver's license numbers, were compromised, affecting roughly 600,000 drivers [Article 65854]. 2. Uber's internal communications and engineering systems were compromised, leading to the company taking them offline for investigation [Article 132162, Article 132404, Article 132435, Article 132643]. 3. Uber employees were instructed not to use the workplace messaging app Slack, and some internal systems were temporarily disabled [Article 132404, Article 132435, Article 132643]. 4. The breach resulted in a major data breach, with a hacker gaining access to sensitive customer and financial data stored in cloud-based systems [Article 132653]. 5. The incident led to disruptions in Uber's services, with riders and food delivery customers being unable to request rides or place orders in certain locations [Article 132404].
Preventions 1. Avoid sharing credentials in code repositories like Github, as this can lead to unauthorized access [64883]. 2. Implement strict access controls and restrictions on how and where credentials are shared within software [64883]. 3. Conduct regular security audits and monitoring of internal systems to detect any unauthorized access or breaches [132404]. 4. Enhance employee training on social engineering tactics to prevent phishing attacks and unauthorized access [132653]. 5. Utilize multi-factor authentication and hardware security keys for user authentication to enhance security [132653].
Fixes 1. Implementing stronger authentication measures such as FIDO physical security keys to prevent unauthorized access [Article 132653]. 2. Enhancing real-time monitoring in cloud-based systems to detect intruders promptly [Article 132653]. 3. Conducting thorough security training for employees to prevent falling victim to social engineering attacks like phishing [Article 132653]. 4. Enhancing internal security protocols to restrict access to sensitive customer and financial data [Article 132653].
References 1. The New York Times [Article 132162, Article 132404, Article 132435, Article 132585, Article 132643, Article 132653] 2. Bloomberg [Article 64883] 3. CNET [Article 65854] 4. HackerOne [Article 132404, Article 132643] 5. Twitter [Article 132643] 6. BBC [Article 132643] 7. The Associated Press [Article 132653]

Software Taxonomy of Faults

Category Option Rationale
Recurring one_organization, multiple_organization (a) The software failure incident having happened again at one_organization: - Uber experienced a software failure incident in 2016 due to a breach where hackers gained access to sensitive data [64883]. - Uber faced another software failure incident in 2022 when its computer network was breached, leading to the compromise of internal systems and data [132162]. - The incident in 2022 involved a hacker gaining access to Uber's systems through social engineering, posing as a colleague to trick an employee into surrendering their credentials [132653]. (b) The software failure incident having happened again at multiple_organization: - The incident involving Uber's breach in 2022 highlighted the issue of social engineering as an increasingly effective method for hackers to gain unauthorized access to systems [132653]. - The cybersecurity community reacted strongly to Uber's breach in 2022, indicating that similar security culture and engineering failures could potentially lead to breaches in other organizations as well [132653].
Phase (Design/Operation) design, operation (a) The software failure incident related to the design phase: - Uber's 2016 breach occurred when hackers discovered that the company's developers had published code that included their usernames and passwords on a private account of the software repository Github, leading to immediate access to sensitive Uber servers [Article 64883]. - The breach involved compromising many of Uber’s internal systems, with a hacker gaining access to email, cloud storage, and code repositories [Article 132162]. - The hacker claimed to have breached several Uber databases and cloud services, indicating a deep compromise of Uber's systems [Article 132585]. (b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase: - The hacker gained access to Uber's systems by tricking an employee into surrendering their credentials, highlighting a social engineering attack during the operation of the system [Article 132653]. - Uber temporarily disabled systems like Slack and internal tools due to the hack, affecting the operation of internal communications and services [Article 132404]. - The breach led to internal communications and engineering systems being taken offline for investigation, impacting the operation of Uber's computer network [Article 132435].
Boundary (Internal/External) within_system, outside_system (a) within_system: - The software failure incident at Uber was primarily due to factors originating from within the system. Hackers gained access to Uber's internal systems by compromising an employee's credentials through social engineering techniques [Article 132585]. - The breach involved the hacker tricking an Uber employee into surrendering their credentials, allowing them to access privileged information within the company's network [Article 132653]. (b) outside_system: - The breach at Uber was facilitated by the hacker posing as a colleague to trick an employee into surrendering their credentials, indicating an external factor (social engineering) that contributed to the incident [Article 132653].
Nature (Human/Non-human) non-human_actions, human_actions (a) The software failure incident occurring due to non-human actions: - The software failure incident at Uber was due to a hacker gaining unauthorized access to the company's computer network and breaching internal systems [Article 132162]. - The hacker compromised a worker's Slack account and used it to send messages claiming responsibility for the hack and listing compromised internal databases [Article 132162]. - The hacker used social engineering techniques to gain access to Uber's systems, such as persuading an employee to hand over a password through deceptive means [Article 132585]. - Screenshots leaked by the attacker indicated that Uber's systems may have been deeply compromised, suggesting a significant breach [Article 132585]. - The hacker was able to locate passwords on the network and gain privileged access to cloud-based systems storing sensitive customer and financial data [Article 132653]. (b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions: - Uber's initial mistake was sharing credentials in Github code, which allowed hackers to access the private Github account [Article 64883]. - Uber's subsequent cover-up of the incident was highlighted as a human action that could lead to further trouble [Article 64883]. - The hacker gained access to Uber's systems by tricking an employee into surrendering their credentials, showcasing the impact of human vulnerability to social engineering attacks [Article 132653].
Dimension (Hardware/Software) software (a) The articles do not provide information about the software failure incident occurring due to hardware issues. (b) The software failure incident in the articles occurred due to contributing factors that originated in software. For example, in Article 64883, it is mentioned that Uber's 2016 breach occurred when hackers discovered that the company's developers had published code containing usernames and passwords on a private account of the software repository Github. This software-related mistake allowed hackers immediate access to privileged accounts on Uber's network. Additionally, in Article 132585, the attacker claimed to have gained access to company systems by targeting an individual employee and using social engineering techniques, exploiting weaknesses in the software authentication process. [Citations: Article 64883, Article 132585]
Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) malicious (a) The software failure incident in the provided articles is malicious in nature. The incident involved a hacker gaining unauthorized access to Uber's computer network through social engineering tactics, tricking an employee into surrendering their credentials [Article 132643, Article 132653]. The hacker obtained full access to sensitive customer and financial data stored in Uber's cloud-based systems, indicating a deliberate attempt to breach the company's security [Article 132653]. Additionally, the incident involved attempts to cover up the breach by making it appear as if the payout to the hacker was part of a "bug bounty" program, which is a common practice among technology companies [Article 64916]. The hacker also allegedly contacted an Uber worker pretending to be a corporate IT person to gain access to the systems, demonstrating a premeditated effort to infiltrate the company's network [Article 132162]. Furthermore, the hacker's actions were described as highly skilled and motivated, highlighting the deliberate and targeted nature of the breach [Article 132643]. (b) There is no clear indication of a non-malicious software failure incident in the provided articles.
Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) poor_decisions (a) The intent of the software failure incident: - The incident involving Uber's software failure was primarily due to poor decisions made by the company. This includes the initial mistake of sharing credentials in Github code, subsequent cover-up attempts, failure to publicly disclose the breach for over a year, and violating breach disclosure laws [Article 64883]. - The breach at Uber highlighted poor security culture and engineering failures, such as the hacker gaining access through social engineering by posing as a colleague and tricking an employee into surrendering their credentials [Article 132653].
Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) development_incompetence, accidental (a) The software failure incident occurring due to development incompetence: - Uber's 2016 breach occurred when hackers discovered that the company's developers had published code containing usernames and passwords on a private account of the software repository Github, leading to immediate access to sensitive Uber servers [Article 64883]. - The hacker in the Uber breach gained access by posing as a colleague and tricking an Uber employee into surrendering their credentials, highlighting a serious security culture and engineering failure within the company [Article 132653]. (b) The software failure incident occurring accidentally: - The hacker who breached Uber's systems claimed to have done so because the company had weak security, suggesting that the breach may have occurred accidentally due to vulnerabilities in Uber's systems [Article 132643].
Duration permanent (a) The software failure incident in the articles appears to be temporary as it involved a breach in Uber's computer network that led to the company taking several internal communications and engineering systems offline for investigation [132162]. The incident was described as a major data breach, but Uber stated that all its services were operational following the breach, indicating that the disruption was not permanent [132653]. (b) The software failure incident could be considered permanent in the sense that it highlighted systemic security culture and engineering failures within Uber, as mentioned by security professionals [132653]. This suggests that the contributing factors leading to the breach were introduced by all circumstances within Uber's security practices.
Behaviour crash, omission, value, byzantine (a) crash: Article 132162 reports that Uber's computer network was breached, leading the company to take several internal communications and engineering systems offline as it investigated the extent of the hack. This indicates a crash where the system lost its state and was not performing its intended functions. (b) omission: Article 132653 describes how the hacker gained access to Uber's system by tricking an employee into surrendering their credentials. This employee omission to recognize the phishing attempt led to the breach. (c) timing: There is no specific information in the articles indicating a timing-related failure. (d) value: Article 132585 mentions that screenshots leaked by the attacker indicate that Uber's systems may have been deeply compromised, suggesting a failure where the system performed its intended functions incorrectly. (e) byzantine: Article 132653 highlights the hacker's ability to gain privileged access reserved for system administrators, indicating a byzantine behavior where the system behaved erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. (f) other: The articles do not provide information on any other specific behavior of the software failure incident.

IoT System Layer

Layer Option Rationale
Perception None None
Communication None None
Application None None

Other Details

Category Option Rationale
Consequence property, non-human, theoretical_consequence (a) death: There is no mention of any deaths resulting from the software failure incident in the provided articles. (b) harm: The articles do not mention any physical harm caused to individuals due to the software failure incident. (c) basic: The incident did not impact people's access to food or shelter. (d) property: The software failure incident led to the exposure of sensitive data, including driver data, which could potentially be exploited by fraudsters [64883, 64916]. (e) delay: There is no mention of any activities being postponed due to the software failure incident. (f) non-human: The software failure incident impacted Uber's computer systems and internal communications [132162, 132404, 132435, 132585, 132643, 132653]. (g) no_consequence: The software failure incident had real consequences, such as the exposure of sensitive data and the need to take systems offline for investigation. (h) theoretical_consequence: The articles discuss potential consequences of the software failure incident, such as the erosion of personal information control, violation of breach disclosure rules, and potential legal implications for Uber [64883, 64916]. (i) other: There are no other consequences mentioned in the articles beyond those related to data exposure, system disruption, and potential legal ramifications.
Domain information, transportation, finance (a) The failed system in the software failure incident was related to the production and distribution of information. The incident involved a data breach at Uber, where sensitive customer information was compromised, leading to significant consequences for the company [64883, 64916, 65000, 132162, 132585]. (b) The transportation industry was also impacted by the software failure incident, as Uber's ride-hailing service faced a breach that compromised internal systems and potentially exposed user data [64916, 132162, 132404, 132653]. (h) The finance industry was indirectly affected by the software failure incident at Uber, as the breach involved potential violations of breach disclosure laws and the handling of sensitive financial information [64883, 64916, 103825]. (m) The incident also had implications for other industries, such as cybersecurity, as it highlighted the importance of robust security measures and the risks associated with data breaches and social engineering attacks [132162, 132643].

Sources

Back to List