| Recurring |
multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident having happened again at one_organization:
The article does not provide specific information about the software failure incident happening again within the same organization or with its products and services. Therefore, it is unknown if a similar incident has occurred again at one organization.
(b) The software failure incident having happened again at multiple_organization:
The article mentions that the most widely used insecure code blocks were found in more than 2,800 separate projects on the Github website. This indicates that the software failure incident related to insecure code snippets has occurred in multiple projects across different organizations that utilize code from Github [90965]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The article discusses a software failure incident related to the design phase where lazy developers who copied code snippets from Stack Overflow and other websites introduced security vulnerabilities into their apps and programs. The copied code lacked basic checks to prevent common attacks, used obsolete functions, and did not adequately validate user responses, leading to potential security risks in over 2,800 projects on Github [90965].
(b) The article also touches upon a software failure incident related to the operation phase, where developers who were informed about the security risks in their code blocks on Github showed reluctance to fix the issues. Only 13% of the developers contacted said they had fixed the problematic code, while some even believed the code was safe because users could not change it once the app was running. This indicates a failure in addressing and rectifying issues introduced during the operation or maintenance of the system [90965]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) The software failure incident discussed in the article is primarily within the system. Lazy developers copying insecure code snippets from platforms like Stack Overflow and using them in their applications are creating vulnerabilities within the software itself. The lack of basic checks in the copied code chunks and the presence of obsolete functions contribute to the security risks within the system [90965]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to non-human actions:
The article discusses how lazy developers who simply copy code solutions from websites like Stack Overflow without implementing proper security checks are creating apps vulnerable to attacks. The copied code chunks lacked basic checks to prevent common attacks, used obsolete functions, and did not adequately validate user responses, leading to security risks in the applications [90965].
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions:
The research team informed developers who were using insecure code chunks on Github about the security risks they introduced into their apps and programs. However, only 13% of the developers contacted said they had fixed the code, and some even declined to address the bugs. This highlights the human action aspect where developers were aware of the security issues but did not take necessary actions to rectify them [90965]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The article does not provide information about a software failure incident occurring due to contributing factors originating in hardware.
(b) The article discusses a software failure incident related to insecure code blocks in apps and programs. Lazy developers who copied code snippets from Stack Overflow without implementing basic security checks created vulnerable applications susceptible to attacks. The study found that many of the most copied code snippets lacked necessary security measures, such as using obsolete functions, inadequate user response checks, and neglecting attempts to break the application [90965]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident discussed in the article is non-malicious. It highlights how lazy developers who copy code snippets from sources like Stack Overflow without implementing proper security measures are inadvertently creating vulnerable apps susceptible to attacks. The study found that many of the most copied code snippets lacked basic security checks, used obsolete functions, and did not adequately protect against common attacks. The incident was a result of developers taking shortcuts and not prioritizing secure coding practices, rather than any malicious intent [90965]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
The intent of the software failure incident discussed in the article is related to poor_decisions. The failure was attributed to lazy developers who copied code without implementing basic security checks, leading to vulnerable apps susceptible to attacks [90965]. The study highlighted that the copied code lacked necessary security measures, such as using obsolete functions, insufficient user response checks, and neglecting attempts to break the application, indicating poor decision-making in software development. Additionally, the researchers found that a significant number of developers did not address the security risks identified in their code, further emphasizing the consequences of poor decisions in software development [90965]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence |
(a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence is highlighted in the article [90965]. It discusses how lazy developers who copy solutions from Stack Overflow without understanding the code are creating apps vulnerable to attacks. The copied code lacks basic security checks, uses obsolete functions, and does not adequately protect against common attacks. The study found that many insecure code blocks were widely used in various projects on Github, indicating a lack of professional competence in ensuring secure coding practices. Additionally, the researchers contacted developers using problematic code but found that only a small percentage fixed the issues, while some believed the code was safe because users could not change it once the app was running. This lack of response and understanding of security risks further points to development incompetence in addressing software vulnerabilities. |
| Duration |
unknown |
The articles do not provide specific information about the duration of the software failure incident in terms of being permanent or temporary. |
| Behaviour |
value, other |
(a) crash: The article does not specifically mention a software failure incident related to a crash.
(b) omission: The article does not specifically mention a software failure incident related to omission.
(c) timing: The article does not specifically mention a software failure incident related to timing.
(d) value: The article mentions that lazy developers who copy code snippets from Stack Overflow created apps that were vulnerable to attack due to lacking basic checks, using obsolete functions, and not checking user responses properly. This behavior can lead to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly [90965].
(e) byzantine: The article does not specifically mention a software failure incident related to a byzantine behavior.
(f) other: The behavior described in the article is related to software vulnerabilities introduced by developers copying insecure code snippets, which can lead to security risks in apps and programs. This behavior can be categorized as a failure due to developers not implementing secure coding practices, potentially leading to system vulnerabilities and exploitation [90965]. |