Published Date: 2022-08-10
| Postmortem Analysis | |
|---|---|
| Timeline | 1. The software failure incident, where the Starlink user terminals were hacked by Lennert Wouters, happened last year as per the article [132590]. 2. The article [132590] was published on 2022-09-19. 3. Therefore, the software failure incident occurred in 2021. |
| System | 1. Starlink's user terminals, specifically the satellite dishes (Dishy McFlatface) [132590, 130934] |
| Responsible Organization | 1. Hackers were responsible for causing the software failure incident reported in the news articles [132590, 130934]. |
| Impacted Organization | 1. Starlink's user terminals were impacted by the software failure incident [132590, 130934]. |
| Software Causes | 1. The software failure incident was caused by a series of hardware vulnerabilities that allowed attackers to access the Starlink system and run custom code on the devices [132590, 130934]. 2. The failure incident involved a fault injection attack that temporarily shorted the system, helping to bypass Starlink's security protections and gain access to previously locked parts of the system [132590, 130934]. 3. The incident was facilitated by a custom circuit board known as a modchip, which was created by the security researcher to exploit the vulnerabilities in the Starlink user terminals [132590, 130934]. 4. The attack involved bypassing signature verification security checks to launch the glitch at the right moment during the boot cycle, allowing the attacker to run a patched version of Starlink's firmware and access its underlying systems [132590, 130934]. |
| Non-software Causes | 1. Physical hardware vulnerabilities in the user terminals of Starlink's satellite dishes allowed attackers to access the system and run custom code [132590, 130934]. 2. The use of a custom circuit board known as a modchip, costing around $25, to launch a fault injection attack on the system [132590, 130934]. 3. Lack of proper security measures in the design of the user terminals, making them vulnerable to physical attacks [132590, 130934]. 4. The need for physical access to the user terminal to execute the attack, highlighting a potential security weakness in the physical security of the devices [132590, 130934]. |
| Impacts | 1. The software failure incident allowed attackers to access the Starlink system and run custom code on the user terminals, potentially compromising the security and integrity of the network [132590, 130934]. 2. The vulnerability in the user terminals exposed by the software failure incident required physical access to the terminals, highlighting a potential security risk for users who have these devices installed in their homes or buildings [132590, 130934]. 3. The incident led to the development of a custom hacking tool, the modchip, which could be used to launch a fault injection attack on the Starlink system, bypassing security protections and gaining access to previously restricted parts of the system [132590, 130934]. 4. Starlink issued a firmware update in response to the incident to make the attack harder to execute, but the underlying issue could only be fully resolved by creating a new version of the main chip, indicating a significant impact on the existing user terminals' security [132590, 130934]. 5. The software failure incident raised concerns about the security of satellite internet systems in general, as demonstrated by previous malicious attacks on other satellite systems during critical events like the invasion of Ukraine, highlighting the potential risks associated with such infrastructure [132590, 130934]. |
| Preventions | 1. Implementing stronger hardware security measures to prevent unauthorized access to the system, such as secure boot mechanisms and tamper-resistant components [132590, 130934]. 2. Regularly conducting security audits and penetration testing to identify and address vulnerabilities before they can be exploited by attackers [132590, 130934]. 3. Ensuring timely and effective patch management to address known vulnerabilities and protect against potential exploits [132590, 130934]. 4. Enhancing user terminal security by incorporating additional layers of authentication and access control to prevent unauthorized modifications or access [132590, 130934]. 5. Educating users about best practices for securing their devices and systems, including the importance of updating firmware and avoiding unauthorized modifications [132590, 130934]. |
| Fixes | 1. Creating a new version of the main chip in the user terminals to address the underlying vulnerability identified by the researcher [132590]. 2. Issuing firmware updates to make the attack harder to execute, although not impossible [130934]. | References | 1. Lennert Wouters, security researcher at the Belgian university KU Leuven [Article 132590, Article 130934] 2. Starlink [Article 132590, Article 130934] 3. Black Hat security conference [Article 132590, Article 130934] 4. GitHub [Article 132590, Article 130934] 5. Engineers on YouTube [Article 132590] 6. Reddit [Article 132590] 7. Starlink's six-page PDF document [Article 130934] |
| Category | Option | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Recurring | one_organization, multiple_organization | (a) The software failure incident related to hacking of Starlink's user terminals has happened again within the same organization. Lennert Wouters, a security researcher, revealed vulnerabilities in the user terminals of Starlink, allowing attackers to access the system and run custom code on the devices. Starlink paid Wouters through its bug bounty program for identifying the vulnerabilities, and the company issued an update to make the attack harder [Article 132590]. (b) The incident also highlights the potential vulnerability of satellite internet systems in general, as malicious hackers targeted the Via-Sat satellite system during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, disrupting internet connections in Europe [Article 130934]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) | design, operation | (a) In the software failure incident related to the Starlink system, the incident occurred due to vulnerabilities in the design phase. Lennert Wouters, a security researcher, identified hardware vulnerabilities in the user terminals of Starlink, allowing attackers to access the system and run custom code on the devices [132590, 130934]. These vulnerabilities were related to the design of the system components, specifically the satellite dishes and the hardware used in the terminals. The attack involved bypassing security checks and injecting faults to gain unauthorized access to the system [132590, 130934]. (b) Additionally, the incident also involved aspects related to the operation phase. The attack required physical access to the user terminal, indicating that operational aspects, such as the physical security of the devices, played a role in the vulnerability exploitation [132590, 130934]. The attack method involved manipulating the boot process of the system, which is an operational aspect of how the system starts up and runs. Furthermore, the response from Starlink included securing the boot process to make the attack harder to execute, highlighting the importance of operational security measures in mitigating such vulnerabilities [132590, 130934]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) | within_system, outside_system | (a) The software failure incident reported in the articles is primarily within the system. The incident involved a security breakdown in Starlink's user terminals, specifically the satellite dishes, due to a series of hardware vulnerabilities that allowed attackers to access the Starlink system and run custom code on the devices [132590, 130934]. The vulnerability was exploited by physically disassembling a purchased dish and creating a custom hacking tool, a modchip, to launch a fault injection attack that bypassed Starlink's security protections [132590, 130934]. The attack involved manipulating the boot process of the dish to execute a patched version of the firmware, ultimately allowing access to underlying systems [132590, 130934]. (b) The software failure incident also has elements originating from outside the system. The incident involved external attackers exploiting vulnerabilities in the hardware of the user terminals, indicating a breach from outside the system [132590, 130934]. Additionally, the incident highlighted the potential risks associated with satellite internet systems being targeted by malicious hackers, as demonstrated by previous attacks on other satellite systems during geopolitical conflicts [132590, 130934]. |
| 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 the articles is related to a vulnerability in the Starlink user terminals that allowed attackers to access the system and run custom code on the devices [132590, 130934]. - The vulnerability was exploited through a custom circuit board known as a modchip, which used off-the-shelf parts to launch a fault injection attack, temporarily shorting the system to bypass security protections [132590, 130934]. - The attack involved bypassing signature verification security checks to inject the glitch at the start of the boot cycle, allowing access to underlying systems [132590, 130934]. (b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions: - The vulnerability in the Starlink user terminals was identified and exploited by a security researcher, Lennert Wouters, who physically disassembled a Starlink dish, created a custom hacking tool, and published the details on GitHub [132590, 130934]. - Wouters notified Starlink of the flaws, and the company paid him through its bug bounty scheme for identifying the vulnerabilities [132590, 130934]. - Starlink issued a firmware update to make the attack harder to execute, but the underlying issue requires creating a new version of the main chip to fully address the vulnerability [132590, 130934]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) | hardware, software | (a) The software failure incident occurring due to hardware: - The incident involved a series of hardware vulnerabilities that allowed attackers to access the Starlink system and run custom code on the devices [132590]. - A custom circuit board known as a modchip was created to exploit hardware vulnerabilities in the Starlink user terminals, enabling a fault injection attack to bypass security protections [132590]. - The modchip required physical attachment to the Starlink dish and used off-the-shelf parts costing around $25 [132590]. - The attack involved bypassing signature verification security checks by glitching the system, which required stopping decoupling capacitors from operating to disable them temporarily [132590]. (b) The software failure incident occurring due to software: - The incident involved vulnerabilities in the software of the Starlink user terminals that allowed attackers to execute custom code on the devices [132590]. - The attack exploited software vulnerabilities to bypass security protections and gain access to previously locked parts of the Starlink system [132590]. - Starlink issued a firmware update in response to the research findings to make the attack harder to execute, indicating a software aspect to the incident [132590]. - The attack involved running a patched version of Starlink's firmware during the boot cycle to access underlying systems, highlighting a software-related aspect of the incident [132590]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) | malicious | (a) The software failure incident reported in the articles is malicious in nature. Lennert Wouters, a security researcher, identified and exploited vulnerabilities in the Starlink user terminals, allowing attackers to access the Starlink system and run custom code on the devices [132590, 130934]. Wouters created a custom hacking tool, a modchip, that could be attached to the Starlink dish to launch a fault injection attack, bypassing security protections [132590, 130934]. This attack was intentional and aimed at gaining unauthorized access to the system. (b) The software failure incident is non-malicious in the sense that it was not caused by accidental or unintentional factors. The vulnerabilities exploited by Wouters were deliberately identified and used to demonstrate security weaknesses in the Starlink system [132590, 130934]. The attack was part of a research effort to assess the security of the system and highlight potential risks associated with satellite internet systems. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) | unknown | (a) The intent of the software failure incident was not due to poor decisions but rather a deliberate attempt by a security researcher, Lennert Wouters, to identify and exploit vulnerabilities in the Starlink user terminals. Wouters physically disassembled a Starlink antenna, created a custom hacking tool (modchip), and launched a fault injection attack to bypass security protections and gain access to the system [132590, 130934]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) | development_incompetence | (a) The software failure incident occurring due to development incompetence: - The incident involving Starlink's user terminals being hacked by Lennert Wouters highlights a security breakdown due to vulnerabilities in the hardware, allowing attackers to access the system and run custom code [Article 132590]. - Wouters discovered and exploited flaws in the user terminals, indicating a lack of robust security measures during the development of the system [Article 132590]. (b) The software failure incident occurring accidentally: - The incident involving the hacking of Starlink's user terminals by Wouters was not accidental but a deliberate exploitation of vulnerabilities in the system [Article 132590]. |
| Duration | temporary | (a) The software failure incident described in the articles is temporary. The incident involved a fault injection attack that temporarily shorted the system, allowing the attacker to bypass security protections and gain access to previously locked parts of the Starlink system. The attack was executed by using a custom circuit board known as a modchip, which was attached to the Starlink dish to launch the fault injection attack [132590, 130934]. The attack was not permanent and required specific actions to be taken to exploit the vulnerability. (b) The software failure incident was not permanent as it was caused by specific circumstances related to the vulnerability in the system-on-chip and the security measures of the Starlink user terminals. The attack was not a permanent failure but rather a temporary breach that allowed unauthorized access to the system [132590, 130934]. |
| Behaviour | other | (a) crash: The software failure incident in the articles does not involve a crash where the system loses state and does not perform any of its intended functions. The incident is more focused on security vulnerabilities and unauthorized access to the Starlink system rather than a complete system failure. [132590, 130934] (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 revolves around exploiting hardware vulnerabilities to gain unauthorized access to the Starlink system. [132590, 130934] (c) timing: The software failure incident is not related to a timing failure where the system performs its intended functions correctly but too late or too early. The focus is on security vulnerabilities and the ability to run custom code on the Starlink devices. [132590, 130934] (d) value: The incident does not involve a failure due to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly. It is more about exploiting hardware vulnerabilities to bypass security protections and gain unauthorized access to the Starlink system. [132590, 130934] (e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not exhibit a byzantine behavior where the system behaves erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. The incident primarily revolves around security vulnerabilities and the ability to execute custom code on the Starlink devices. [132590, 130934] (f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident in the articles can be categorized as a security vulnerability exploit leading to unauthorized access to the Starlink system through hardware manipulation. The incident involves the use of a custom hacking tool (modchip) to launch a fault injection attack, bypass security protections, and gain access to previously restricted parts of the system. [132590, 130934] |
| Layer | Option | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Perception | sensor, processing_unit, embedded_software | (a) sensor: The software failure incident related to the Starlink system involved vulnerabilities in the user terminals, specifically the satellite dishes, which were hacked by exploiting hardware vulnerabilities. The attack involved a fault injection technique that allowed the attacker to bypass security protections and gain access to previously locked parts of the system. This indicates a failure related to the sensor layer of the cyber-physical system, as the vulnerabilities were in the hardware components of the user terminals, such as the satellite dish sensors [132590, 130934]. (b) actuator: The articles do not mention any specific failures related to the actuator layer of the cyber-physical system in the context of the Starlink software failure incident. (c) processing_unit: The software failure incident involved vulnerabilities in the user terminals of the Starlink system, which allowed attackers to access the system and run custom code on the devices. This indicates a failure related to the processing unit layer of the cyber-physical system, as the attackers were able to manipulate the processing of the user terminals to execute unauthorized actions [132590, 130934]. (d) network_communication: The articles do not explicitly mention any failures related to the network communication layer of the cyber-physical system in the context of the Starlink software failure incident. (e) embedded_software: The software failure incident involved vulnerabilities in the user terminals of the Starlink system, specifically the satellite dishes, which were exploited using a custom circuit board known as a modchip. This modchip allowed the attacker to launch a fault injection attack, bypass security protections, and gain access to the underlying systems. This indicates a failure related to the embedded software layer of the cyber-physical system, as the attack targeted the software running on the embedded systems within the user terminals [132590, 130934]. |
| Communication | connectivity_level | The software failure incident reported in the articles is related to the communication layer of the cyber physical system that failed at the connectivity_level. The incident involved a security breakdown in Starlink's user terminals, allowing attackers to access the system and run custom code on the devices by exploiting hardware vulnerabilities [132590, 130934]. The attack involved bypassing signature verification security checks and executing a fault injection attack to gain access to previously locked parts of the system [132590, 130934]. The attack targeted the user terminals, which are a crucial part of the communication network in the Starlink system [132590, 130934]. |
| Application | TRUE | The software failure incident described in the articles was related to the application layer of the cyber physical system. Lennert Wouters, a security researcher, identified vulnerabilities in the user terminals of Starlink's satellite dishes, allowing attackers to access the Starlink system and run custom code on the devices. This vulnerability was exploited using a custom hacking tool called a modchip, which utilized a fault injection attack to bypass Starlink's security protections [Article 132590, Article 130934]. |
| Category | Option | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Consequence | property, non-human, theoretical_consequence, other | (a) death: People lost their lives due to the software failure - There is no mention of any deaths caused by the software failure incident in the articles [132590, 130934]. (b) harm: People were physically harmed due to the software failure - There is no mention of any physical harm caused to individuals due to the software failure incident in the articles [132590, 130934]. (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 by the software failure incident in the articles [132590, 130934]. (d) property: People's material goods, money, or data was impacted due to the software failure - The software failure incident led to vulnerabilities in the Starlink user terminals, potentially allowing attackers to access the system and run custom code on the devices [132590, 130934]. (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 in the articles [132590, 130934]. (f) non-human: Non-human entities were impacted due to the software failure - The software failure incident affected the security of the Starlink satellite network and user terminals, potentially exposing vulnerabilities that could be exploited by attackers [132590, 130934]. (g) no_consequence: There were no real observed consequences of the software failure - The software failure incident resulted in security vulnerabilities in the Starlink user terminals, potentially allowing unauthorized access to the system [132590, 130934]. (h) theoretical_consequence: There were potential consequences discussed of the software failure that did not occur - The articles discuss the potential consequences of the software failure incident, such as unauthorized access to the Starlink system and the need for increased scrutiny on the security of satellite internet systems [132590, 130934]. (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 highlighted the importance of assessing the security of critical infrastructure like satellite internet systems and the potential risks associated with malicious attacks on such systems [132590, 130934]. |
| Domain | information, knowledge, other | (a) The failed system was intended to support the production and distribution of information as it was related to the internet connectivity provided by Starlink's satellite network [132590, 130934]. (i) The incident also had implications for the knowledge industry as it involved a security researcher uncovering vulnerabilities in the Starlink system and sharing the details to enhance understanding of the network's operations [132590, 130934]. (m) The incident could be relevant to the "other" category as it highlighted the potential security risks associated with satellite internet systems, which could have broader implications beyond the industries listed in the options [132590, 130934]. |
Article ID: 132590
Article ID: 130934