Incident: Twitter Hack: Massive Account Takeover by Insiders, Impacting Celebrities

Published Date: 2020-07-16

Postmortem Analysis
Timeline 1. The software failure incident happened in July 2020 [102502, 102586, 102547].
System 1. Twitter's internal tools that allowed employees and contractors to change user account settings and hand control to others [102586]. 2. Twitter's internal systems and tools that were compromised due to a coordinated social engineering attack on employees with access to internal systems and tools [102547]. 3. Lack of proper access control and oversight within Twitter's security practices, allowing more than 1,000 employees and contractors to have access to internal tools that could change user account settings [102586]. 4. Insufficient security measures to prevent unauthorized access to sensitive Twitter accounts, leading to the hacking incident involving high-profile accounts like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Elon Musk, and others [102502].
Responsible Organization 1. A group of young people, including individuals with screen names "Kirk," "lol," and "ever so anxious," who were obsessed with owning early or unusual screen names on Twitter [102502]. 2. Cybercriminals who regularly traded in novelty handles, especially rare one-or-two character account names, and had access to Twitter insiders [102586]. 3. Hackers who compromised a Twitter employee's account and targeted some of Twitter's employees with access to internal systems and tools [102547].
Impacted Organization 1. Political, corporate, and cultural elites, including former President Barack Obama, Joseph R. Biden Jr., Elon Musk, and many other celebrities were impacted by the software failure incident [102502]. 2. Prominent users such as Barack Obama, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Kanye West, and Jeff Bezos were impacted by the hacking spree on Twitter [102547].
Software Causes 1. The software failure incident was caused by hackers compromising an employee's account at Twitter, allowing them to access internal systems and tools, leading to the hijacking of prominent Twitter accounts [102547]. 2. The incident involved a group of young hackers gaining access to Twitter's most sensitive tools, enabling them to take control of almost any Twitter account, including those of high-profile individuals like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Elon Musk [102502]. 3. The incident highlighted vulnerabilities in Twitter's security practices, with over a thousand employees and contractors having access to internal tools that could change user account settings and hand control to others, making it challenging to defend against such hacks [102586].
Non-software Causes 1. Lack of proper access control and oversight within Twitter, allowing over 1,000 employees and contractors to have access to internal tools that could change user account settings and hand control to others [Article 102586]. 2. Insider threat from lower-paid outside support staff, highlighting the constant worry for companies serving large numbers of users [Article 102586].
Impacts 1. The Twitter hacking incident targeting political, corporate, and cultural elites had significant impacts on Twitter's security reputation and the confidence in security provided by other technology companies [102502]. 2. The incident led to a breach that allowed hackers to tweet from verified accounts of high-profile individuals like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Elon Musk, and others, causing a disruption in the platform's normal operations [102502]. 3. The hackers were able to manipulate a small number of Twitter employees and use their credentials to access and control 45 accounts, potentially compromising direct messages to and from 36 accounts [102586]. 4. The incident raised concerns about the number of Twitter employees and contractors with access to internal tools that could change user account settings, highlighting the need for better security practices and access control within the company [102586]. 5. The hacking spree on Twitter involved compromising an employee's account, indicating a coordinated social engineering attack that targeted employees with access to internal systems and tools, leading to a breach of sensitive information [102547]. 6. Lawmakers demanded answers from Twitter, with concerns about the security of user privacy and data security following the breach, emphasizing the potential threat to millions of users relying on Twitter for communication and privacy [102547].
Preventions 1. Limiting access to internal tools: Limiting access to internal tools that can change user account settings and hand control to others to a smaller, more restricted group of employees could have prevented the software failure incident [Article 102586]. 2. Implementing stricter access controls: Implementing stricter access controls and requiring more than one person to agree to make the most sensitive account changes could have enhanced security and prevented the hacking incident [Article 102586]. 3. Increasing oversight and monitoring: Increasing oversight and monitoring of employee activities, especially those with access to critical systems, could have helped detect and prevent unauthorized access and misuse of internal tools [Article 102586]. 4. Enhancing employee training: Providing better training to employees on resisting social engineering tactics and tricks from outsiders could have made it more difficult for hackers to manipulate employees into granting access to internal systems [Article 102586]. 5. Strengthening logging and alarm systems: Strengthening logging systems and implementing alarm systems that can detect suspicious activities in real-time could have helped prevent the breach by alerting security teams to unauthorized access attempts [Article 102586]. 6. Implementing multifactor authentication: Implementing multifactor authentication for accessing internal tools and systems could have added an extra layer of security to prevent unauthorized access by hackers who compromised employee accounts [Article 102547].
Fixes 1. Limit access to internal tools: Twitter should restrict access to internal tools that can change user account settings and hand control to others. This would prevent unauthorized individuals from manipulating user accounts [Article 102586]. 2. Implement stricter access controls: Twitter should adopt a policy where more than one person is required to agree to make the most sensitive account changes. This would ensure that critical actions are not carried out by a single individual [Article 102586]. 3. Enhance oversight and monitoring: The company should increase oversight and monitoring of employee activities, especially those with access to sensitive tools. Regular reviews and alarms should be in place to detect any suspicious activities [Article 102586]. 4. Improve security training: Twitter should provide comprehensive security training to its employees to help them resist social engineering tactics and external threats. This would enhance the overall security posture of the organization [Article 102586]. 5. Enhance protection for high-profile accounts: Twitter should consider expanding the number of protected accounts, especially those with a large number of followers. Implementing additional security measures, such as requiring multiple individuals to change key settings, can help safeguard important accounts [Article 102586]. 6. Increase transparency and communication: Twitter should be transparent about security incidents and investigations. Clear communication with users, regulators, and law enforcement can help build trust and demonstrate a commitment to addressing security issues [Article 102547].
References 1. Twitter employees and contractors [Article 102586] 2. Former employees familiar with Twitter security practices [Article 102586] 3. Cyber security experts [Article 102586] 4. Security researchers like Allison Nixon and Nick Bax [Article 102586] 5. Michael Borohovski, director of software engineering at Synopsys [Article 102547] 6. Hackers forum for selling highly-desired Twitter handles [Article 102547] 7. Dave Kennedy, founder of cybersecurity company TrustedSec [Article 102547] 8. Lawmakers, specifically Sen. Josh Hawley [Article 102547]

Software Taxonomy of Faults

Category Option Rationale
Recurring one_organization, multiple_organization (a) The software failure incident having happened again at one_organization: - The incident of Twitter accounts being hacked is not the first time such a security breach has occurred on the platform. Twitter experiences frequent account takeovers [Article 102547]. - Twitter had previous stumbles related to security, including an employee accused of spying for the government of Saudi Arabia [Article 102586]. (b) The software failure incident having happened again at multiple_organization: - The incident involving the Twitter hacking scheme targeting political, corporate, and cultural elites was carried out by a group of young individuals who were connected through their obsession with owning early or unusual screen names [Article 102502]. - The incident involving the Twitter hacking spree where hackers took over accounts of prominent users to promote a Bitcoin scam suggests a coordinated effort beyond a simple SIM jacking attack [Article 102547].
Phase (Design/Operation) design, operation (a) The software failure incident related to the design phase can be seen in the Twitter hacking incident reported in Article 102502. The incident involved hackers gaining access to Twitter's internal tools, which allowed them to take control of valuable Twitter accounts, including those of high-profile individuals like Barack Obama and Elon Musk. The hackers exploited vulnerabilities in Twitter's system design, particularly in the access control mechanisms and internal tools, to carry out the attack [102502]. (b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase can be observed in the Twitter hacking incident reported in Article 102586. The breach occurred due to hackers manipulating Twitter employees' credentials to log into internal tools and gain access to user accounts. This highlights a failure in the operational security practices of Twitter, where too many employees and contractors had access to internal tools that could change user account settings, making it easier for the hackers to carry out the attack [102586].
Boundary (Internal/External) within_system, outside_system (a) within_system: The software failure incident involving the Twitter hacking scheme was primarily due to contributing factors that originated from within the system. The incident involved hackers compromising Twitter employees' accounts and using their credentials to log into internal tools, allowing them to take control of verified accounts and tweet from them [102586]. The hackers were able to access Twitter's internal systems and tools, demonstrating a breach within the system itself. Additionally, the incident involved manipulation of a small number of employees to gain access to sensitive tools, indicating an internal security vulnerability [102586]. (b) outside_system: The software failure incident also had contributing factors that originated from outside the system. The hackers involved in the Twitter hacking scheme were a group of young individuals who got to know each other through their shared interest in owning early or unusual screen names on social media platforms [102502]. This external factor of individuals with malicious intent targeting the platform for personal gain played a significant role in the software failure incident. Additionally, the incident involved social engineering attacks on Twitter employees, which can be considered an external threat to the system's security [102547].
Nature (Human/Non-human) non-human_actions, human_actions (a) The software failure incident occurring due to non-human actions: - The Twitter hacking incident was initiated by a group of young individuals who were obsessed with owning early or unusual screen names on Twitter. They were able to gain access to valuable Twitter accounts, including those of high-profile individuals, by exploiting vulnerabilities in Twitter's systems and tools [102502]. - Hackers compromised Twitter accounts, including those of prominent users like Barack Obama, Bill Gates, and Elon Musk, to promote a Bitcoin scam. The attack was believed to have originated from hackers compromising an employee's account at Twitter, indicating a breach in the back end or service layer of the Twitter application [102547]. (b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions: - More than a thousand Twitter employees and contractors had access to internal tools that could change user account settings and hand control to others, making it challenging to defend against the hacking incident. The breach involved manipulation of employees' credentials to log into tools and turn over access to accounts, indicating a human factor in the security breach [102586]. - The incident highlighted the potential involvement of low-level cybercriminals who had access to Twitter insiders, suggesting a human element in facilitating the hacking spree. The forums where these hackers were active contained references to "Twitter plugs" or "Twitter reps," indicating cooperation from Twitter employees in the security breach [102586].
Dimension (Hardware/Software) software (a) The software failure incident related to hardware: - The incident involved a Twitter hacking scheme where hackers targeted high-profile accounts like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Elon Musk by taking control of valuable Twitter accounts, which would require insider access to the company's computer network [102502]. - More than a thousand Twitter employees and contractors had access to internal tools that could change user account settings and hand control to others, making it hard to defend against the hacking that occurred [102586]. (b) The software failure incident related to software: - The incident involved hackers compromising one of Twitter's employee's accounts through a coordinated social engineering attack, allowing them to access internal systems and tools [102547]. - The attack on Twitter accounts, including those of prominent users like Barack Obama and Bill Gates, was likely due to hackers being able to hack into the back end or service layer of the Twitter application, indicating a software-related failure [102547].
Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) malicious (a) The software failure incident reported in the articles is malicious in nature. The incident involved a Twitter hacking scheme where hackers targeted high-profile Twitter accounts, including those of political figures, celebrities, and tech executives, to promote a Bitcoin scam [102502, 102586, 102547]. The hackers gained access to internal tools and systems of Twitter by manipulating employees and using their credentials to take control of the accounts [102586, 102547]. The attack was described as a coordinated social engineering attack by individuals who targeted Twitter employees with access to internal systems and tools [102547]. The incident involved compromising the security of Twitter's application and back end, allowing the attackers to take over verified accounts and post fraudulent messages [102547]. The hackers were able to access sensitive information such as email addresses, account activity, and phone numbers associated with the compromised accounts [102547]. (b) The incident does not involve non-malicious factors as the failure was a result of intentional actions by the hackers to exploit vulnerabilities in Twitter's systems and manipulate employees to gain unauthorized access to internal tools [102502, 102586, 102547]. The attack was not accidental or unintentional but rather a deliberate effort to carry out a large-scale hacking scheme for financial gain through fraudulent activities on the platform.
Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) poor_decisions (a) The intent of the software failure incident: The software failure incident involving the Twitter hacking scheme appears to be a result of poor decisions made by the hackers who targeted high-profile Twitter accounts. The hackers, including individuals with screen names like "Kirk," "lol," and "ever so anxious," engaged in a coordinated social engineering attack by targeting Twitter employees with access to internal systems and tools [102502]. This allowed them to compromise the accounts of prominent users like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Elon Musk, and others to promote a Bitcoin scam [102547]. The hackers' intent was to take control of valuable Twitter accounts and engage in fraudulent activities, demonstrating a lack of ethical behavior and disregard for the security and privacy of the affected users [102502]. Additionally, the incident highlighted poor decisions made by Twitter in terms of security practices and access control. More than a thousand Twitter employees and contractors had access to internal tools that could change user account settings and hand control to others, making it challenging to defend against the hacking [102586]. The former employees familiar with Twitter security practices mentioned that too many people had access to sensitive tools, indicating a lack of proper access control and oversight within the company [102586]. Therefore, the software failure incident involving the Twitter hacking scheme can be attributed to poor decisions made by both the hackers and Twitter in terms of security practices and ethical behavior.
Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) development_incompetence (a) The software failure incident occurring due to development incompetence: - The incident involving the Twitter hacking scheme was a result of a group of young individuals, not a sophisticated group of hackers, who were obsessed with owning early or unusual screen names on social media platforms like Twitter [102502]. - Twitter had over a thousand employees and contractors with access to internal tools that could change user account settings, making it hard to defend against the hacking incident that occurred [102586]. (b) The software failure incident occurring accidentally: - The Twitter hacking incident was a result of hackers compromising one of Twitter's employee accounts through a coordinated social engineering attack, allowing them to access internal systems and tools [102547]. - The incident involved hackers successfully targeting some of Twitter's employees with access to internal systems and tools, suggesting an accidental breach due to social engineering tactics [102547].
Duration permanent, temporary The software failure incident related to the Twitter hacking scheme reported in the articles can be considered as both temporary and permanent: Temporary: - The temporary aspect of the software failure incident is evident in the fact that the hackers were able to take control of Twitter accounts temporarily, including those of prominent users like Barack Obama, Bill Gates, Elon Musk, etc. [102502, 102586] - The incident involved a breach that allowed hackers to repeatedly tweet from verified accounts, indicating a temporary loss of control over the affected accounts. [102586] - Twitter mentioned that the attackers could have read direct messages to and from 36 accounts but did not identify the affected users, suggesting a temporary breach of privacy. [102586] Permanent: - The permanent aspect of the software failure incident is highlighted by the fact that the hackers were able to manipulate a small number of employees and use their credentials to log into tools and turn over access to 45 accounts. This indicates a more permanent impact on the affected accounts. [102586] - The incident raised concerns about the number of people with access to internal tools at Twitter, indicating a potential permanent vulnerability in the system that could be exploited in the future. [102586] - Lawmakers expressed concerns that the event may represent a successful attack on the security of Twitter itself, suggesting a more permanent impact on the platform's overall security. [102547]
Behaviour crash, omission, timing, value, other (a) crash: - The Twitter hacking incident led to a crash in the system's security, causing a loss of control over valuable Twitter accounts [102502]. - The breach allowed hackers to repeatedly tweet from verified accounts of prominent individuals, indicating a crash in the system's security controls [102586]. (b) omission: - The Twitter incident involved hackers taking over accounts to promote a Bitcoin scam, suggesting an omission in the system's ability to prevent unauthorized access [102547]. - The breach allowed hackers to tweet from verified accounts without the users' consent, indicating an omission in the system's security measures [102586]. (c) timing: - The hackers in the Twitter incident were able to take control of accounts and post tweets before the company could effectively respond, indicating a timing issue in the system's incident response [102502]. - The incident involving the hacking of high-profile Twitter accounts raised concerns about the timing of Twitter's response and the potential impact on the upcoming U.S. election [102586]. (d) value: - The Twitter incident involved hackers manipulating user account settings and posting tweets from verified accounts, indicating a failure in the system's ability to maintain the integrity of user data and content [102586]. - The breach allowed hackers to access internal tools and compromise accounts, leading to tweets promoting a Bitcoin scam, showcasing a failure in the system's value delivery [102547]. (e) byzantine: - The Twitter incident involved a coordinated social engineering attack by hackers who targeted employees with access to internal systems and tools, leading to inconsistent responses and interactions within the system [102547]. - The involvement of cybercriminals trading in novelty handles and boasting about access to Twitter insiders suggests a byzantine behavior within the hacking community related to Twitter [102586]. (f) other: - The Twitter incident highlighted a failure in the system's access control, with over a thousand employees and contractors having access to internal tools that could be misused by hackers [102586]. - The incident raised concerns about the oversight and access rights within Twitter's security practices, indicating a need for better controls and restrictions on internal tools to prevent future breaches [102586].

IoT System Layer

Layer Option Rationale
Perception None None
Communication None None
Application None None

Other Details

Category Option Rationale
Consequence property, other (a) death: People lost their lives due to the software failure - There is no mention of any deaths resulting from the software failure incident reported in the articles [102502, 102586, 102547]. (b) harm: People were physically harmed due to the software failure - There is no mention of any physical harm to individuals resulting from the software failure incident reported in the articles [102502, 102586, 102547]. (c) basic: People's access to food or shelter was impacted because of the software failure - There is no mention of people's access to food or shelter being impacted due to the software failure incident reported in the articles [102502, 102586, 102547]. (d) property: People's material goods, money, or data was impacted due to the software failure - The software failure incident led to hackers taking control of valuable Twitter accounts, including those of prominent individuals like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and Elon Musk, causing a breach of security and potential financial harm [102502, 102586, 102547]. (e) delay: People had to postpone an activity due to the software failure - There is no mention of people having to postpone activities due to the software failure incident reported in the articles [102502, 102586, 102547]. (f) non-human: Non-human entities were impacted due to the software failure - The software failure incident primarily impacted Twitter's internal systems, tools, and user accounts, with no specific mention of non-human entities being affected [102502, 102586, 102547]. (g) no_consequence: There were no real observed consequences of the software failure - The software failure incident had significant consequences, including the compromise of high-profile Twitter accounts, potential financial losses, and a breach of security [102502, 102586, 102547]. (h) theoretical_consequence: There were potential consequences discussed of the software failure that did not occur - The articles do not discuss potential consequences that were theorized but did not actually occur as a result of the software failure incident [102502, 102586, 102547]. (i) other: Was there consequence(s) of the software failure not described in the (a to h) options? What is the other consequence(s)? - The software failure incident resulted in a loss of trust in Twitter's security measures, potential privacy concerns for users, and the need for a thorough investigation into the breach [102547].
Domain information (a) The software failure incident reported in the articles is related to the industry of information. The incident involved a Twitter hacking scheme that targeted political, corporate, and cultural elites, leading to unauthorized access to Twitter accounts of prominent individuals like Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Elon Musk, and others [Article 102502]. (b) The incident did not directly involve the transportation industry. (c) The incident did not directly involve the natural resources industry. (d) The incident did not directly involve the sales industry. (e) The incident did not directly involve the construction industry. (f) The incident did not directly involve the manufacturing industry. (g) The incident did not directly involve the utilities industry. (h) The incident did not directly involve the finance industry. (i) The incident did not directly involve the knowledge industry. (j) The incident did not directly involve the health industry. (k) The incident did not directly involve the entertainment industry. (l) The incident did not directly involve the government industry. (m) The failed system was related to the social media platform Twitter, which falls under the information industry [Article 102502, Article 102586, Article 102547].

Sources

Back to List