| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident has happened again at one_organization:
The article reports that after the Meltdown and Spectre flaws, researchers have uncovered yet another flaw in Intel's chips, which can allow attackers to eavesdrop on sensitive data. This new set of attacks, named Microarchitectural Data Sampling (MDS), represents a serious flaw in Intel's hardware that may require disabling some of its features. Intel had asked researchers to keep their findings secret until fixes were released, similar to the previous incidents [84765].
(b) The software failure incident has happened again at multiple_organization:
The article mentions that the MDS attacks affect Intel chips going back as early as 2008, and Intel's chips that were tested were all affected. However, AMD and ARM chips do not appear to be vulnerable to these attacks. The researchers who discovered the MDS attacks come from various organizations including TU Graz, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, the University of Michigan, and security firms like Cyberus and BitDefender. This collaboration highlights that the vulnerability is not limited to a single organization but affects multiple entities in the tech industry [84765]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident related to the design phase is evident in the article discussing the discovery of new vulnerabilities in Intel's chips, specifically the MDS attacks. Researchers uncovered flaws in the deep-seated features of Intel's chips, allowing attackers to eavesdrop on sensitive data processed by the CPU. These vulnerabilities were a result of how Intel chips perform speculative execution, a design feature aimed at speeding up the chip's performance. The flaws were present in Intel's chips dating back to 2008, indicating a design issue that persisted over several chip generations [84765].
(b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase is highlighted by the fact that attackers could exploit the MDS vulnerabilities by running a program on a target chip, whether through a malicious application, a virtual machine on the same cloud server, or a rogue website running Javascript in the target's browser. This indicates that the operation or misuse of the system, such as running untrusted programs on a chip, could lead to the leakage of sensitive data due to the identified vulnerabilities in Intel's chips [84765]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
The software failure incident related to the MDS attacks on Intel chips can be categorized as a failure originating from within the system ([84765]). The vulnerabilities exploited by the MDS attacks were found in the deep-seated features of Intel's chips, specifically related to how the processors handle speculative execution and data buffers within the chip itself. The attacks took advantage of these internal mechanisms to leak sensitive data, showcasing a flaw in the hardware design of the Intel chips. Intel released fixes for the vulnerabilities in both hardware and software to address the issue, indicating that the root cause of the failure was within the system itself. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is primarily due to non-human actions, specifically flaws in the deep-seated features of Intel's chips that allowed for a new class of security vulnerability to be exploited by attackers. The vulnerabilities, named variants like ZombieLoad, Fallout, and RIDL, were discovered by researchers from various universities and security firms. These vulnerabilities allowed attackers to eavesdrop on sensitive data by taking advantage of how Intel chips perform speculative execution, a feature that guesses ahead of time at operations and data to speed up performance. The attacks focused on exploiting buffers between chip components, allowing attackers to siphon potentially sensitive data from a computer's CPU to an attacker [84765].
(b) However, human actions also played a role in the software failure incident. Intel had asked the researchers who discovered the vulnerabilities to keep their findings secret until fixes could be released. There was a disagreement between the researchers and Intel regarding the severity of the problem and how to address it. Intel released fixes for the vulnerabilities in both hardware and software, with a software patch clearing data from buffers to prevent theft and leakage. There was also a disagreement between the researchers and Intel on whether hyperthreading should be disabled to mitigate the vulnerabilities, with Intel insisting that disabling the feature was unnecessary [84765]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident reported in the articles is primarily related to hardware vulnerabilities in Intel's chips. The incident involves a new class of security vulnerability in Intel's chips, specifically the Microarchitectural Data Sampling (MDS) attacks, which allow attackers to eavesdrop on sensitive data processed by the CPU [84765].
(b) The software failure incident is also related to software in the sense that software patches were developed to mitigate the hardware vulnerability. Intel released software patches that clear data from buffers to prevent data leakage and implemented fixes in both hardware and software to address the MDS vulnerabilities [84765]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
malicious |
(a) The software failure incident discussed in the articles is malicious in nature. The incident involves a new class of security vulnerability in Intel's chips, allowing attackers to eavesdrop on sensitive data by exploiting flaws in how Intel chips perform speculative execution. The vulnerabilities were discovered by security researchers and named variants of the exploit techniques ZombieLoad, Fallout, and RIDL. The attacks can be carried out by running a malicious program on a target chip, a rogue website running JavaScript in the target's browser, or a virtual machine hosted on the same cloud server as the target. The attacks can potentially reveal sensitive information like passwords, website browsing activities, and secret keys [84765].
(b) The incident is non-malicious in the sense that the vulnerabilities were not intentionally introduced by individuals with the intent to harm the system. Instead, they were inherent flaws in the design and functioning of Intel's chips that were discovered by researchers. Intel itself had asked the researchers to keep their findings secret until fixes could be released. The vulnerabilities were not limited to a specific model of chip but affected a wide range of Intel chips dating back to 2008. The incident highlights the ongoing challenges in ensuring the security of hardware components and the complexity involved in addressing such vulnerabilities [84765]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
(a) The software failure incident related to the MDS attacks on Intel's chips can be attributed to poor decisions made by Intel in the design and implementation of their processors. The vulnerabilities exploited by the MDS attacks were a result of flaws in how Intel chips perform speculative execution, a feature designed to speed up the chip's performance. Researchers found that Intel's processors could be tricked into grabbing sensitive data moving between different components of the chip, allowing attackers to eavesdrop on this data. Despite being aware of these vulnerabilities, Intel asked researchers to keep their findings secret for over a year until fixes could be released. Additionally, there was a disagreement between Intel and the researchers regarding the severity of the issue and how to address it, with Intel downplaying the severity of the vulnerabilities [84765].
(b) On the other hand, the software failure incident can also be linked to accidental decisions or unintended consequences. The MDS attacks were not intentionally designed by Intel but rather exploited unintended behaviors in the speculative execution feature of their processors. The vulnerabilities were discovered by researchers who were working independently and were not part of Intel's initial design considerations. The fact that Intel had to scramble to release fixes and downplay the severity of the bugs suggests that these were unintended consequences of the chip design rather than deliberate actions [84765]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, accidental |
(a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence is evident in the article as it discusses the discovery of a new class of security vulnerability in Intel's chips, known as Microarchitectural Data Sampling (MDS) attacks. The article highlights that Intel had asked researchers to keep their findings secret for more than a year until fixes could be released, indicating a lack of transparency and potentially delayed response to addressing the vulnerabilities [84765].
(b) The software failure incident related to accidental factors is demonstrated by the discovery of the MDS attacks in Intel's chips. The article explains that the attacks take advantage of a quirk in how Intel's chips perform speculative execution, which was not initially considered a security risk by the chip designers. This unintentional vulnerability allowed attackers to eavesdrop on sensitive data, showcasing how accidental design choices can lead to significant security flaws [84765]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident discussed in the articles is temporary. The incident involves a new class of security vulnerability in Intel's chips, specifically the MDS attacks, which allow attackers to eavesdrop on sensitive data processed by a victim's processor. Intel has released fixes for the flaw in both hardware and software to address the vulnerability [84765]. |
| Behaviour |
omission, value, other |
(a) crash: The articles do not mention a software failure incident related to a crash.
(b) omission: The software failure incident mentioned in the articles is related to the omission of performing its intended functions at an instance(s). The vulnerability allowed attackers to eavesdrop on virtually every bit of raw data that a victim's processor touches, potentially leaking sensitive information like passwords and secret keys [84765].
(c) timing: The articles do not mention a software failure incident related to timing issues.
(d) value: The software failure incident mentioned in the articles is related to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly. The vulnerability allowed attackers to extract sensitive data from the CPU's buffers, potentially compromising user data and security [84765].
(e) byzantine: The articles do not mention a software failure incident related to a byzantine behavior.
(f) other: The software failure incident described in the articles involves a new class of security vulnerability that allows attackers to siphon potentially sensitive data from a computer's CPU using a technique that leverages speculative execution in Intel chips. This behavior is not explicitly categorized in the options provided [84765]. |