| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to Intel's chips being vulnerable to attacks has happened again within the same organization. The articles discuss vulnerabilities in Intel chips, such as the Foreshadow attack and the exploit allowing unauthorized access to install malicious firmware on the chip [74307, 121094]. These incidents highlight the ongoing challenges Intel faces in securing its products against potential attacks.
(b) The software failure incident related to vulnerabilities in Intel chips has also been observed at other organizations or with their products and services. The articles mention that researchers have uncovered vulnerabilities in Intel products, such as SGX and Boot Guard, which act as in-silicon digital vaults for securing sensitive data [121094]. Additionally, concerns about the reliability and performance overhead of Intel's security features have led organizations like Google to seek alternatives for building trusted computing bases [121094]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) In the articles, there is information related to a software failure incident occurring due to the development phase, specifically in the design aspect. The vulnerability known as Foreshadow was discovered by a team of researchers who found a Spectre-like vulnerability that undermines the most secure element of recent Intel chips, specifically the Software Guard Extensions feature (SGX) [74307]. This vulnerability allowed for a speculative execution attack that could access SGX-protected memory and expose secret cryptographic keys, compromising the integrity of the system [74307].
(b) Regarding a software failure incident occurring due to the operation phase, there is information about a vulnerability that unauthorized individuals with physical access could exploit to install malicious firmware on Intel chips. This vulnerability could defeat various protections, including those provided by Bitlocker, trusted platform modules, and anti-copying restrictions [121094]. The attack required brief physical access to the vulnerable device, highlighting a scenario where operational security measures like TPM and Bitlocker are designed to mitigate such risks [121094]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident discussed in the articles is primarily within the system. The vulnerabilities and flaws, such as Foreshadow and the exploit allowing the installation of malicious firmware on Intel chips, originate from within the system itself. For example, the Foreshadow vulnerability affects Intel Core Skylake and Kaby Lake processors, which incorporate SGX, and the exploit allows attackers to access SGX-protected memory [74307]. Similarly, the vulnerability in Intel CPUs on certain platforms allows skilled hackers with physical access to run the chip in debug and testing modes, leading to the extraction of encryption keys and defeating protections like Bitlocker and TPM [121094].
(b) outside_system: The articles do not mention any contributing factors originating from outside the system that led to the software failure incident. The vulnerabilities and flaws discussed are all related to internal system components and features, indicating that the failures are primarily within the system. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to non-human actions:
- The articles discuss vulnerabilities such as Spectre, Meltdown, and Foreshadow that exploit flaws in computing techniques like speculative execution, which are introduced without human participation [74307].
- The vulnerability in Intel CPUs that allows skilled hackers to run the chip in debug and testing modes, extract encryption keys, and defeat protections like Bitlocker and TPM is another example of a failure due to non-human actions [121094].
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions:
- The articles do not specifically mention any software failure incident caused by contributing factors introduced by human actions. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The articles discuss software failure incidents related to hardware vulnerabilities. For example, Article 74307 talks about the Spectre and Meltdown vulnerabilities affecting Intel chips, specifically undermining the Software Guard Extensions (SGX) feature [74307]. Additionally, Article 121094 mentions a vulnerability in Intel CPUs that allows unauthorized individuals with physical access to install malicious firmware on a chip, defeating various protections [121094].
(b) The articles also touch upon software-related failures. Article 74307 discusses the Foreshadow vulnerability, which is a software-related attack that can bypass the defenses of Intel's SGX feature [74307]. Additionally, Article 121094 mentions vulnerabilities in Intel CPUs related to firmware and software features like the Intel Management Engine and Software Guard eXtensions (SGX) [121094]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
malicious, non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident discussed in the articles is malicious in nature. The vulnerability discovered in Intel chips allows skilled hackers with physical access to install malicious firmware on a chip, defeating various protections such as Bitlocker, trusted platform modules, and anti-copying restrictions [Article 121094]. The attack requires brief physical access to the vulnerable device, and once in developer mode, an attacker can extract encryption keys, defeat protections, and backdoor the chip [Article 121094].
(b) The software failure incident is non-malicious in the sense that it involves vulnerabilities and flaws in Intel chips that were not intentionally introduced to harm the system. For example, the Foreshadow vulnerability discovered in Intel chips allowed for speculative execution attacks that could access SGX-protected memory, compromising sensitive data and cryptographic keys [Article 74307]. These vulnerabilities were not intentionally created to harm the system but were exploited by researchers to uncover weaknesses in the hardware. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
unknown |
(a) The intent of the software failure incident:
- The vulnerability discovered in Intel chips that allowed unauthorized individuals to install malicious firmware on a chip to defeat various protections was not due to poor decisions but rather a flaw in the chip architecture itself [Article 121094].
- The Foreshadow vulnerability that affected Intel chips and allowed attackers to access SGX-protected memory and cryptographic keys was also not a result of poor decisions but rather a flaw in the speculative execution technique used in processors [Article 74307]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence |
(a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence can be seen in the article [74307]. The article discusses the discovery of a vulnerability named Foreshadow that undermines the most secure element of recent Intel chips, specifically the Software Guard Extensions feature (SGX). The vulnerability was found by a team of researchers from various academic institutions around the world, indicating that despite Intel's efforts to create secure enclaves on their processors, a flaw was discovered due to the researchers' expertise in microarchitecture security and speculative execution techniques.
(b) The software failure incident related to accidental factors is evident in the article [121094]. The vulnerability discussed in this article involves unauthorized individuals with physical access being able to exploit a flaw in Intel CPUs on certain platforms to install malicious firmware. The vulnerability was discovered by researchers who found a way to extract a key used to encrypt data stored in the TPM enclave, leading to potential bypassing of security measures like Bitlocker and code-signing restrictions. The discovery of this vulnerability was not intentional but rather a result of researchers exploring the firmware and performance features of Intel products. |
| Duration |
temporary |
(a) The articles do not mention any software failure incident that resulted in a permanent failure due to contributing factors introduced by all circumstances.
(b) Article 121094 discusses a vulnerability in Intel CPUs that allows skilled hackers with physical access to run the chip in debug and testing modes, enabling them to extract encryption keys and defeat protections like Bitlocker and trusted platform modules. This vulnerability requires brief physical access to the device and takes about 10 minutes to exploit, indicating a temporary failure due to specific circumstances [121094]. |
| Behaviour |
omission, value, byzantine, other |
(a) crash:
- Article 74307 discusses the Spectre and Meltdown vulnerabilities that exploit flaws in speculative execution, which can ultimately lead to accessing data and system privileges meant to be off-limits. These vulnerabilities are complex and difficult to carry out in practice, and Intel emphasizes that none have been seen in the real world [74307].
(b) omission:
- Article 121094 mentions a vulnerability in Intel CPUs that allows skilled hackers with physical access to run the chip in debug and testing modes, potentially extracting encryption keys and defeating protections like Bitlocker and TPM. This vulnerability could lead to the omission of performing the intended functions of protecting data and preventing unauthorized access [121094].
(c) timing:
- There is no specific mention of a software failure incident related to timing issues in the provided articles.
(d) value:
- Article 121094 discusses a vulnerability in Intel CPUs that could allow attackers to extract encryption keys and defeat protections like Bitlocker and TPM, leading to performing the intended functions incorrectly [121094].
(e) byzantine:
- Article 74307 discusses the Foreshadow vulnerability that can bypass Intel's Software Guard Extensions (SGX) and expose cryptographic keys, potentially compromising the integrity of the system. This behavior can be considered as behaving erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions [74307].
(f) other:
- The behavior of the software failure incident in the articles can also be categorized as a sophisticated attack exploiting hardware vulnerabilities to gain unauthorized access, extract sensitive information, and potentially compromise the security of systems [74307, 121094]. |