| Recurring |
one_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to the hijacking of high-profile Twitter accounts by Insinia Security has not been reported to have happened again within the same organization or with its products and services. The incident was a one-time demonstration by Insinia Security to expose flaws in Twitter's handling of messages posted by phone numbers [79246].
(b) The incident of hijacking high-profile Twitter accounts to demonstrate a vulnerability in Twitter's system has not been reported to have occurred at other organizations or with their products and services. Insinia Security's demonstration was aimed at highlighting a specific flaw in Twitter's handling of messages sent from accounts linked to phone numbers [79246]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident in the articles can be attributed to the design phase. Insinia Security hijacked high-profile Twitter accounts by exploiting a flaw in the way Twitter handles messages posted by phone numbers. They were able to send messages from accounts they did not control by analyzing the social network's interaction with smartphones when messages are sent. This flaw in the design of Twitter's system allowed Insinia to inject messages onto targeted accounts, leading to the temporary hijacking of these accounts [79246].
(b) The software failure incident can also be linked to the operation phase. Users were advised to remove their phone numbers from their Twitter accounts as a precaution to prevent falling victim to spoofing attacks like the one carried out by Insinia Security. This recommendation highlights the importance of proper operation and security measures by users to mitigate the risks associated with such vulnerabilities in the system [79246]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident reported in the articles is primarily within the system. Insinia Security was able to hijack high-profile Twitter accounts by exploiting a vulnerability in the way Twitter handles messages posted by phone numbers. This internal flaw allowed the security firm to inject messages onto the targeted accounts, making it appear as if they were sent by the real account owners. Insinia Security highlighted this vulnerability to demonstrate the issue and called on Twitter to issue a fix to prevent such attacks in the future [79246]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in the articles was primarily due to non-human actions. Insinia Security was able to briefly hijack high-profile Twitter accounts by exploiting a vulnerability in the way Twitter handles messages posted by phone numbers. This non-human action allowed the security firm to inject messages onto the targeted accounts without actually gaining access to the accounts or compromising any data [79246].
(b) The incident also involved human actions. Insinia Security, the firm behind the demonstration, took deliberate actions to exploit the vulnerability in Twitter's handling of messages sent from phone numbers. While the firm claimed it was a demonstration to highlight the issue, some experts criticized the approach as irresponsible and potentially breaching the Computer Misuse Act. Additionally, the firm's CEO defended the actions as ethical and not malicious, stating that they did not access any Twitter accounts or view any direct messages [79246]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident related to hardware:
- The incident involved a security firm hijacking high-profile Twitter accounts by exploiting a vulnerability in the way Twitter handles messages posted by phone numbers [79246].
- The security firm, Insinia, was able to inject messages onto targeted accounts by analyzing how the social network interacted with smartphones when messages were sent, indicating a hardware-related vulnerability [79246].
(b) The software failure incident related to software:
- The software failure incident was primarily due to flaws in the way Twitter handles messages posted by phone numbers, indicating a software-related issue [79246].
- Insinia Security, the firm behind the hijacking, highlighted the vulnerability in Twitter that allowed them to post messages appearing to come from the real account owners, showcasing a software flaw [79246]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
malicious |
(a) The software failure incident described in the articles is malicious in nature. Insinia Security hijacked high-profile Twitter accounts to expose alleged flaws in the service by exploiting a vulnerability in the way Twitter handles messages posted by phone numbers. The firm injected messages onto the targeted accounts without permission, leading to concerns about potential misuse of the vulnerability for spreading fake news, disinformation, or installing malware on devices [79246]. The act was criticized as irresponsible, unethical, and potentially a breach of the Computer Misuse Act by cyber-security experts [79246]. The incident was intentional and aimed at highlighting a security flaw in Twitter's system.
(b) There is no indication in the articles that the software failure incident was non-malicious. The actions taken by Insinia Security to hijack the Twitter accounts were deliberate and aimed at demonstrating a security vulnerability in the system. The incident was not accidental or unintentional but rather a planned demonstration to showcase the potential risks associated with the identified flaw in Twitter's handling of messages posted by phone numbers [79246]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
(a) The intent of the software failure incident related to poor_decisions:
- Insinia Security hijacked high-profile Twitter accounts to expose alleged flaws in the service by analyzing the way Twitter handles messages posted by phone [79246].
- Insinia Security's actions were criticized for being irresponsible and unacceptable by cyber-security experts, as interfering with many people's accounts in this way is considered irresponsible [79246].
- The security firm Insinia called on Twitter to issue a fix for the vulnerability it exploited, stating that the shortcomings could be used to send fake news or spread disinformation, as well as install advanced malware to remotely control devices [79246].
(b) The intent of the software failure incident related to accidental_decisions:
- Insinia Security claimed that it had only "passive interaction" with the Twitter accounts it targeted and denied breaking the law, stating that nothing had been maliciously hacked and they had not accessed any Twitter account or seen any direct messages [79246].
- Insinia reassured the victims of its demonstration by stating that the user of the targeted accounts had not lost access, no data was compromised, and they were not under attack [79246]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence |
(a) The software failure incident in the articles can be attributed to development incompetence. Insinia Security hijacked high-profile Twitter accounts to expose flaws in the service by analyzing the way Twitter handles messages posted by phone numbers. They were able to send messages from accounts they did not control by exploiting this vulnerability [79246].
(b) The software failure incident can also be categorized as accidental. Insinia Security's actions were described as a "proof of concept" by hacking into accounts without permission, which was criticized as irresponsible and unacceptable by cyber-security experts. The firm reassured that they had only "passive interaction" with the targeted Twitter accounts and denied any malicious hacking or unethical behavior [79246]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
(a) The software failure incident in the articles was temporary. Insinia Security briefly hijacked several high-profile Twitter accounts to expose alleged flaws in the service. The spoofed messages appeared on the targeted accounts late on 27 December but were reassured by Insinia that the users had not lost access to their accounts, no data was compromised, and they were not under attack [79246].
(b) The software failure incident was temporary as it was a demonstration by Insinia Security to highlight vulnerabilities in Twitter's handling of messages posted by phone numbers. The firm managed to inject messages onto the targeted accounts by analyzing how Twitter interacts with smartphones when messages are sent. This incident was not a permanent failure but rather a temporary demonstration of a security flaw [79246]. |
| Behaviour |
omission, value, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident described in the articles does not involve a crash where the system loses state and does not perform any of its intended functions. The incident involved the hijacking of high-profile Twitter accounts to expose alleged flaws in the service, with messages being posted without the account owners' permission [79246].
(b) omission: The incident can be categorized as an omission failure as the system omitted to perform its intended functions at instances when unauthorized messages were posted on high-profile Twitter accounts without the account owners' consent. This omission led to the exposure of a vulnerability in Twitter's handling of messages posted by phone numbers [79246].
(c) timing: The incident does not align with a timing failure where the system performs its intended functions but does so too late or too early. The unauthorized messages posted on the Twitter accounts were not related to timing issues but rather to the exploitation of a vulnerability in the system's handling of messages [79246].
(d) value: The software failure incident can be classified as a value failure as the system performed its intended functions incorrectly by allowing unauthorized messages to be posted on high-profile Twitter accounts, leading to the exposure of a security flaw in the service [79246].
(e) byzantine: The incident does not exhibit characteristics of a byzantine failure where the system behaves erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. The unauthorized messages posted on the Twitter accounts were part of a demonstration by a security firm to highlight a vulnerability in Twitter's message handling process [79246].
(f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident can be described as an unauthorized demonstration of a security vulnerability rather than a typical failure mode. The incident involved the hijacking of Twitter accounts to showcase a flaw in the system's handling of messages, leading to unauthorized posts on high-profile accounts [79246]. |