| Recurring |
unknown |
(a) The software failure incident having happened again at one_organization:
- The article does not mention any previous incidents of a similar nature happening at OpenSea, the company affected by the phishing attack. Therefore, there is no indication that a similar incident has happened before within the same organization [124538].
(b) The software failure incident having happened again at multiple_organization:
- The article does not provide information about similar incidents happening at other organizations or with their products and services. Hence, there is no mention of this software failure incident occurring at multiple organizations [124538]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident in Article 124538 can be attributed to the design phase. The phishing attack on OpenSea impacting 17 users and resulting in the theft of over 250 NFTs worth $1.7 million was facilitated by exploiting the underlying code that allows NFTs to be bought and sold. This indicates a vulnerability in the design of the system that was exploited by the attackers [124538].
(b) Additionally, the software failure incident can also be linked to the operation phase. While the attack was enabled by a design flaw in the system, the users themselves were drawn into the phishing scheme, suggesting a level of operation or interaction on the part of the users that allowed the attack to be successful. The article mentions that it's still unclear how OpenSea users were drawn into the phishing scheme, indicating a potential operational aspect to the failure [124538]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system, outside_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident, a phishing attack on OpenSea impacting 17 users and resulting in the theft of over 250 NFTs, was due to contributing factors that originated from within the system. The attackers exploited the underlying code that allows NFTs to be bought and sold on the platform [124538]. Additionally, OpenSea's CTO shared a detailed technical rundown of the phishing attack, indicating that the vulnerability was within the system itself.
(b) outside_system: The software failure incident involving the phishing attack on OpenSea was also influenced by contributing factors that originated from outside the system. OpenSea's CTO mentioned that "it appears the attack was made from outside OpenSea," suggesting that the attackers initiated the attack externally [124538]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to non-human actions:
The software failure incident in this case was a phishing attack on OpenSea, a large NFT marketplace. The attack involved exploiting the underlying code that allows NFTs to be bought and sold, indicating that the failure was due to contributing factors introduced without human participation [124538].
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions:
While the attack itself was carried out through non-human actions (exploiting code), the phishing scheme that drew OpenSea users into the attack involved human actions. The users were likely tricked into interacting with malicious links or content, leading to the exploitation of the NFT marketplace's code [124538]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident in Article 124538 occurred due to contributing factors that originate in hardware. The incident was a phishing attack on OpenSea, a NFT marketplace, where over 250 NFTs worth at least $1.7 million were stolen by exploiting the underlying code that allows NFTs to be bought and sold. This exploitation of the code is a result of a hardware-related vulnerability in the system that allowed the attackers to manipulate the software and steal the NFTs [124538].
(b) The software failure incident in Article 124538 also involved contributing factors that originate in software. The phishing attack was carried out by exploiting the underlying code of OpenSea that facilitates the buying and selling of NFTs. The attackers used the software vulnerability to trick users into revealing sensitive information, leading to the theft of NFTs. OpenSea's CTO shared a detailed technical rundown of the phishing attack, indicating that the software itself was manipulated to carry out the attack [124538]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
malicious |
(a) The software failure incident in this case was malicious. The incident was a phishing attack on OpenSea, a popular NFT marketplace, where attackers exploited the underlying code to steal NFTs from users, resulting in the theft of over 250 NFTs worth at least $1.7 million [Article 124538]. The attack was carried out by individuals outside of OpenSea, indicating malicious intent to harm the system and its users. Additionally, the attacker was able to sell some of the stolen NFTs for Ethereum and had returned some NFTs to the original owners, further demonstrating the malicious nature of the incident. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
(a) The intent of the software failure incident in Article 124538 appears to be poor_decisions. The failure occurred due to a phishing attack on OpenSea, a large NFT marketplace, where over 250 NFTs worth at least $1.7 million were stolen. The attackers exploited the underlying code that allows NFTs to be bought and sold, indicating a vulnerability in the system that could have been prevented with better security measures or decisions. Additionally, the attack was carried out through a phishing scheme, which suggests a lack of robust security protocols or user education within the company [124538]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, accidental |
(a) The software failure incident in Article 124538 occurred due to development incompetence. The phishing attack on OpenSea impacting 17 users and resulting in the theft of over 250 NFTs worth $1.7 million was attributed to exploiting the underlying code that allows NFTs to be bought and sold. This exploitation of the code indicates a failure due to contributing factors introduced by a lack of professional competence in the development of the platform [124538].
(b) Additionally, the incident could also be categorized as accidental as the attack was carried out by exploiting the underlying code, which may have been unintentionally vulnerable to such exploitation. The attackers managed to steal NFTs by taking advantage of a vulnerability in the system, which could be considered an accidental introduction of contributing factors leading to the failure [124538]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
(a) The software failure incident in this case was temporary. The phishing attack on OpenSea impacted 17 users and resulted in the theft of over 250 NFTs worth $1.7 million. The attack occurred during a roughly 3-hour window on Saturday [Article 124538]. Additionally, OpenSea confirmed that the attack didn't appear to be active anymore, with the last activity occurring 15 hours prior to their announcement on Sunday. The investigation into the attack was ongoing, indicating that the incident was not permanent but rather a temporary failure [Article 124538]. |
| Behaviour |
omission, value, other |
(a) crash: The incident reported in Article 124538 does not specifically mention a system crash where the system loses state and fails to perform any of its intended functions.
(b) omission: The software failure incident in the article can be categorized under omission as the attackers exploited the underlying code of OpenSea to steal NFTs from users, causing the system to omit performing its intended function of securely facilitating NFT transactions [124538].
(c) timing: The incident does not align with a timing failure where the system performs its intended functions but at the wrong time.
(d) value: The software failure incident can be attributed to a value failure as the attackers managed to steal NFTs worth at least $1.7 million, indicating that the system performed its functions incorrectly by allowing unauthorized access and transfer of valuable digital assets [124538].
(e) byzantine: The incident does not exhibit a byzantine failure where the system behaves erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions.
(f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident in the article can be described as a security breach resulting from a phishing attack, leading to unauthorized access and theft of digital assets, which is not explicitly covered in the options provided [124538]. |