| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to the Voatz voting app has happened again within the same organization. Voatz, the company behind the app, faced security flaws in its smartphone-based voting app that could potentially allow hackers to manipulate ballots. The company defended itself by stating that all previous pilot elections conducted with the app were safe and secure [95640].
(b) The incident also highlights concerns about the use of apps and online voting tools in the 2020 election, following the failure of reporting tools in the Iowa caucuses. This indicates that similar incidents or concerns about software failures in election-related apps may have occurred in multiple organizations or contexts [95640]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident related to the design phase can be seen in the flaws reported in the smartphone-based voting app developed by Voatz. Security researchers identified vulnerabilities that could allow nation-state hackers to view, block, or change smartphone ballots before they are counted. The flaws were attributed to the design of the app by Voatz, which raised concerns about the security of the election process [95640].
(b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase is evident in the criticism Voatz faced regarding the security and transparency of its technology. Critics highlighted the lack of transparency in Voatz's technology and the company's handling of independent audits. There were concerns about the operation and misuse of the system, leading to tensions between Voatz and independent security experts regarding the disclosure of information and the company's reaction to security reports [95640]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system, outside_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident related to the Voatz voting app was primarily due to vulnerabilities and flaws within the app itself. Security researchers identified issues within the app that could allow hackers to view, block, or change smartphone ballots before they are counted [95640]. The researchers conducted a detailed analysis of the app's Android version in a simulated environment, revealing potential security risks such as ballot alteration and candidate preference identification [95640]. Voatz, the company behind the app, disputed the researchers' findings, claiming that some of the identified issues had already been patched in updated versions of the software [95640].
(b) outside_system: The software failure incident also involved external factors such as the actions and responses of independent security experts, government agencies, and the company itself. There was tension between Voatz and independent security experts regarding the transparency of Voatz's technology and the handling of prior research attempts [95640]. The company's reaction to the report, including accusations of hypothetical claims and outdated software usage by the researchers, highlighted a lack of openness and disclosure in addressing the identified issues [95640]. Additionally, the involvement of government agencies like the Department of Homeland Security as a clearinghouse for election integrity information demonstrated external oversight and scrutiny of the software's security [95640]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in the articles is primarily related to non-human actions, specifically flaws and vulnerabilities in the smartphone-based voting app developed by Voatz. Security researchers at MIT identified vulnerabilities in the app that could potentially allow nation-state hackers to view, block, or change smartphone ballots before they are counted [95640]. The flaws were discovered through a reverse-engineered version of Voatz's Android app, which was run in a simulated environment, indicating that the failure was due to technical weaknesses in the software itself rather than human actions.
(b) While the articles do not explicitly mention any software failure incident resulting from human actions, there are references to the company Voatz defending its technology and accusing the researchers of deliberately disrupting the election process, spreading fear and confusion, and making hypothetical claims based on their simulation [95640]. This suggests a conflict between the company's stance on the security of its app and the researchers' findings, highlighting potential disagreements or human actions influencing the perception of the software failure incident. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The articles do not mention any software failure incident occurring due to contributing factors originating in hardware. Hence, there is no information available to address this option.
(b) The software failure incident reported in the articles is related to flaws in a smartphone-based voting app designed by Voatz. Security researchers identified vulnerabilities in the app that could allow nation-state hackers to view, block, or change smartphone ballots before they are counted. The vulnerabilities were found in the software of the Voatz app, indicating a software failure incident [95640]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
malicious |
(a) The software failure incident related to the voting app developed by Voatz can be categorized as malicious. Security researchers identified vulnerabilities in the app that could potentially allow nation-state hackers to view, block, or even change smartphone ballots before they are counted [95640]. The researchers' findings were based on a reverse-engineered version of Voatz's Android app, indicating that the vulnerabilities were not accidental but rather introduced with the potential intent to disrupt the election process and manipulate voting outcomes. Additionally, the company Voatz accused the researchers of making "hypothetical" claims based on their simulation, suggesting a deliberate attempt to discredit the security concerns raised by the researchers [95640].
(b) The incident can also be considered non-malicious as the company Voatz defended its technology, stating that all governmental pilot elections conducted with the app had been safe and secure with no reported issues [95640]. Voatz emphasized that the researchers' aim was to disrupt the election process and spread fear and confusion, indicating that the company viewed the security concerns as unfounded and not originating from unintentional flaws in the software. Additionally, Voatz mentioned that some of the issues identified by the researchers had already been patched, implying a proactive approach to addressing potential vulnerabilities in the app [95640]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
(a) The intent of the software failure incident was related to poor_decisions. The incident involved flaws in a smartphone-based voting app designed by Voatz, which could potentially allow nation-state hackers to manipulate smartphone ballots before they are counted [95640]. Voatz criticized the report by security researchers, calling it "flawed" and accusing the researchers of deliberately disrupting the election process and spreading fear and confusion [95640]. Additionally, Voatz accused the researchers of using an outdated version of the software and making "hypothetical" claims based on their simulation, rather than having the app interact with an actual Voatz server [95640]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, unknown |
(a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence is evident in the article. Security researchers identified flaws in a smartphone-based voting app developed by Voatz, which could potentially allow nation-state hackers to manipulate smartphone ballots [95640]. The company Voatz defended its technology, stating that all pilot elections conducted so far were safe and secure, despite the researchers' findings. This incident highlights the potential risks associated with software development incompetence leading to vulnerabilities in critical systems like election infrastructure.
(b) The software failure incident related to accidental factors is not explicitly mentioned in the articles provided. |
| Duration |
permanent |
(a) The software failure incident in this case appears to be more permanent in nature. The security researchers identified flaws in the smartphone-based voting app designed by Voatz, which could potentially allow nation-state hackers to manipulate smartphone ballots [95640]. Voatz defended its technology but did not deny the existence of the vulnerabilities identified by the researchers. Additionally, there were concerns raised about the app's security risks and the lack of transparency from Voatz in allowing independent audits of its technology [95640]. These factors indicate that the software failure incident is more permanent in nature, as the underlying vulnerabilities in the app need to be addressed and resolved to ensure the security and integrity of the voting process. |
| Behaviour |
omission, value, byzantine, other |
(a) crash: The articles do not mention any specific instance of the software crashing and losing its state [95640].
(b) omission: The software failure incident related to the voting app by Voatz could be categorized under omission as it failed to ensure the security and integrity of the voting process by allowing vulnerabilities that could potentially alter or block ballots [95640].
(c) timing: There is no indication in the articles that the software failure incident was related to timing issues [95640].
(d) value: The software failure incident can be attributed to a value failure as the system was performing its intended functions incorrectly by allowing potential manipulation of ballots by hackers [95640].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident could also be classified as a byzantine failure as the system was behaving erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions, potentially allowing hackers to interfere with the voting process [95640].
(f) other: The other behavior exhibited by the software failure incident is the lack of transparency and openness by Voatz in addressing the security concerns raised by independent researchers. This lack of cooperation and transparency can be considered as another aspect of the software failure incident [95640]. |