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 again within the same organization, Okta. Therefore, it is unknown if a similar incident has occurred before at Okta [125665].
(b) The software failure incident having happened again at multiple_organization:
The article does not provide information about similar incidents happening at other organizations. Hence, it is unknown if this type of incident has occurred at multiple organizations [125665]. |
Phase (Design/Operation) |
operation |
(a) The software failure incident at Okta was not directly related to the design phase. Instead, it was due to a breach where hackers accessed an engineer's laptop providing technical support to Okta, leading to potential data exposure for some customers [125665].
(b) The software failure incident at Okta was more closely related to the operation phase. The breach occurred because hackers accessed an engineer's laptop who was providing technical support to Okta, allowing them to potentially view or act upon data of approximately 2.5% of Okta's customers [125665]. |
Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident at Okta was primarily within the system. The breach occurred due to hackers accessing an engineer's laptop who was providing technical support to Okta, rather than a direct breach of the Okta service itself. This internal access allowed the hackers to potentially view or act upon data of approximately 2.5% of Okta's customers. The incident did not involve a direct breach of the Okta service but rather an internal system access issue [125665].
(b) outside_system: The software failure incident at Okta was not primarily due to contributing factors originating from outside the system. The breach was a result of hackers gaining access to an engineer's laptop within the Okta system, rather than an external attack on the Okta service itself [125665]. |
Nature (Human/Non-human) |
human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident at Okta was not directly caused by non-human actions. The breach occurred due to hackers accessing an engineer's laptop who was providing technical support to Okta, indicating human involvement in the chain of events leading to the incident [125665].
(b) Human actions played a role in the software failure incident at Okta. The breach was a result of hackers accessing an engineer's laptop, which suggests that human actions, such as potential lapses in security protocols or vulnerabilities in the engineer's system, contributed to the incident [125665]. |
Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The software failure incident at Okta was not due to hardware issues but rather originated from a breach that occurred through an engineer's laptop. The hackers accessed an engineer's laptop who was providing technical support to Okta, allowing them to potentially view or act upon data. This indicates that the contributing factors to the incident did not originate in hardware but rather in the security vulnerability related to the engineer's laptop [125665].
(b) The software failure incident at Okta was primarily due to contributing factors that originated in software, specifically related to the breach that occurred through an engineer's laptop. The breach did not involve a direct compromise of the Okta service itself but rather unauthorized access to an engineer's device, highlighting a software-related vulnerability that was exploited by the hackers [125665]. |
Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
malicious |
(a) The software failure incident at Okta was malicious in nature. The incident was a cybersecurity breach orchestrated by a hacking group known as Lapsus$, who gained access to an engineer's laptop providing technical support to Okta. This breach allowed the hackers to potentially view or act upon data of approximately 2.5% of Okta's customers. The hackers claimed access to an Okta internal administrative account and the firm's Slack channel, raising concerns about the potential access they could acquire by targeting Okta [125665]. |
Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
accidental_decisions |
The intent of the software failure incident at Okta was not due to poor decisions but rather accidental decisions. The incident was attributed to hackers accessing an engineer's laptop who was providing technical support to Okta, rather than a direct breach of the Okta service itself. This accidental access led to the potential compromise of some customer data [125665]. |
Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
accidental |
(a) The software failure incident at Okta was not attributed to development incompetence. The breach occurred because hackers accessed an engineer's laptop who was providing technical support to Okta, rather than a direct breach of the Okta service itself [125665].
(b) The software failure incident at Okta was accidental in nature. The breach was not a result of intentional actions by the development team but rather due to hackers gaining access to an engineer's laptop, leading to potential data exposure for some customers [125665]. |
Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident at Okta was temporary. The incident was a cybersecurity breach where hackers accessed an engineer's laptop providing technical support to Okta, rather than breaching the Okta service itself. Okta's chief security officer mentioned that the potential impact to customers was limited to the access that support engineers have, indicating a specific circumstance led to the breach ([125665]). |
Behaviour |
other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in the article does not involve a crash where the system loses state and does not perform any of its intended functions. The incident is related to a cybersecurity breach at Okta, where hackers accessed an engineer's laptop providing technical support, but the Okta service itself was not breached [125665].
(b) omission: The incident does not involve a failure due to the system omitting to perform its intended functions at an instance(s). Instead, it is about unauthorized access to an engineer's laptop at Okta, potentially impacting some customers [125665].
(c) timing: The failure is not related to the system performing its intended functions correctly but too late or too early. The incident is focused on the unauthorized access to an engineer's laptop and the potential impact on Okta customers [125665].
(d) value: The software failure incident is not about the system performing its intended functions incorrectly. It is more about a cybersecurity breach and unauthorized access to an engineer's laptop at Okta [125665].
(e) byzantine: The incident does not involve the system behaving erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions, which would fall under the byzantine behavior category. The focus is on the cybersecurity breach and unauthorized access to an engineer's laptop at Okta [125665].
(f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident in the article does not fall into the categories of crash, omission, timing, value, or byzantine. The incident is specifically related to a cybersecurity breach where hackers accessed an engineer's laptop providing technical support at Okta, potentially impacting some customers [125665]. |