| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident having happened again at one_organization:
- Google Chrome has been a major target for attackers, with the article mentioning that it fixed its eighth zero-day vulnerability this year [135531].
- Google issued an update to fix 10 Chrome vulnerabilities, six of which are rated as high-severity, indicating a recurring issue with vulnerabilities in Google Chrome [135531].
(b) The software failure incident having happened again at multiple_organization:
- The article mentions that November saw the release of patches from Apple's iOS, Google Chrome, Firefox, and Microsoft Windows to fix multiple security vulnerabilities, indicating a widespread need for security updates across different organizations [135531]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident related to the design phase can be seen in the article discussing the release of patches for various software systems like Apple's iOS, Google Chrome, Firefox, and Microsoft Windows to fix security vulnerabilities [135531]. These vulnerabilities were identified in the design phase of the software systems, indicating that contributing factors introduced during system development led to these flaws. For example, vulnerabilities like CVE-2022-40303 and CVE-2022-40304 in the libxml2 software library for Apple iOS were reported by security researchers working for Google's Project Zero, highlighting design flaws that could allow remote code execution.
(b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase can be observed in the article discussing the security fixes released by VMWare for vulnerabilities in its VMware Workspace ONE Assist software [135531]. Vulnerabilities like CVE-2022-31685, CVE-2022-31686, and CVE-2022-31687 were identified as authentication bypass and broken access control issues that could allow malicious actors with network access to gain administrative access without proper authentication. These issues point to contributing factors introduced during the operation or misuse of the software system, highlighting failures in the operational phase. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system:
- The software failure incidents reported in the articles are primarily due to vulnerabilities and issues within the systems themselves.
- For example, Apple released patches to fix security vulnerabilities in iOS and iPadOS [135531].
- Microsoft released patches to fix vulnerabilities in Windows [135531].
- Google issued patches for vulnerabilities in Android [135531].
- Google fixed vulnerabilities in Google Chrome [135531].
- Mozilla issued Firefox 107 to fix security vulnerabilities [135531].
- VMWare released security fixes for vulnerabilities in VMware Workspace ONE Assist [135531].
- Cisco patched security vulnerabilities in its enterprise firewall products [135531].
- Citrix fixed vulnerabilities in Citrix Gateway and Citrix ADC [135531].
- SAP released fixes for vulnerabilities in the SAP BusinessObjects BI Platform [135531]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to non-human actions:
- The articles mention various security vulnerabilities in software such as Apple iOS, Google Chrome, Microsoft Windows, Google Android, Mozilla Firefox, VMWare, Cisco, Citrix, and SAP. These vulnerabilities were identified as flaws in the software code or design, allowing attackers to exploit them remotely or escalate privileges without human intervention [135531].
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions:
- The articles do not specifically mention any software failure incidents caused by human actions. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The articles do not mention any software failure incidents occurring due to contributing factors originating in hardware [135531].
(b) The articles provide information on software failure incidents due to contributing factors originating in software:
1. Apple released patches for iOS and iPadOS to fix security vulnerabilities in the libxml2 software library, allowing remote code execution [135531].
2. Microsoft released patches for Windows to fix vulnerabilities such as a print spooler elevation of privilege issue, a Cryptographic Next Generation key isolation problem, a scripting language vulnerability, and a Mark of the Web security feature flaw [135531].
3. Google issued patches for Android devices to address vulnerabilities in the Framework component, Media Framework components, and WiFi [135531].
4. Google Chrome experienced vulnerabilities like a heap buffer overflow in GPU and other high-severity issues [135531].
5. Mozilla Firefox fixed security vulnerabilities, including a full-screen notification bypass and use-after-free bugs [135531].
6. VMWare addressed security vulnerabilities in its VMware Workspace ONE Assist software, including authentication bypass, broken authentication method, and broken access control issues [135531].
7. Cisco patched security vulnerabilities in its enterprise firewall products, including issues in the dynamic access policies functionality and generic routing encapsulation tunnel decapsulation feature [135531].
8. Citrix fixed vulnerabilities in Citrix Gateway and Citrix ADC, which could lead to unauthorized access, remote desktop takeover, and user login brute force protection bypass [135531].
9. SAP released fixes for vulnerabilities in the SAP BusinessObjects BI Platform, including an issue that could allow an attacker to intercept and substitute a serialized object with a malicious one, leading to a deserialization vulnerability [135531]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
malicious |
(a) The software failure incidents mentioned in the articles are primarily malicious in nature, as they involve security vulnerabilities that could be exploited by attackers to execute code remotely, escalate privileges, gain system control, or cause denial of service attacks. For example:
- Apple's iOS and iPadOS 16.1.1 patches fixed security vulnerabilities (CVE-2022-40303, CVE-2022-40304) that could allow remote code execution [135531].
- Microsoft's November Patch Tuesday addressed vulnerabilities like Windows print spooler elevation of privilege (CVE-2022-41073) and Windows scripting language vulnerability for remote code execution [135531].
- Google Chrome fixed zero-day vulnerabilities like heap buffer overflow in GPU (CVE-2022-4135) that was being exploited in the wild [135531].
- VMWare released fixes for authentication bypass and broken authentication vulnerabilities in its Workspace ONE Assist software [135531].
- Cisco patched vulnerabilities in its enterprise firewall products that could lead to denial of service attacks [135531].
- Citrix addressed vulnerabilities in Citrix Gateway and Citrix ADC that could allow unauthorized access and remote desktop takeover [135531].
- SAP fixed a vulnerability in SAP BusinessObjects BI Platform that could lead to a compromise of system confidentiality, integrity, and availability [135531].
These incidents highlight the importance of addressing security vulnerabilities promptly to prevent malicious exploitation and protect systems from potential harm. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
accidental_decisions |
The intent of the software failure incident:
(a) poor_decisions: Failure due to contributing factors introduced by poor decisions
(b) accidental_decisions: Failure due to contributing factors introduced by mistakes or unintended decisions
From the provided articles, there is no specific information indicating that the software failure incidents were directly caused by poor decisions or intentional actions. The incidents mentioned in the articles primarily revolve around security vulnerabilities, patches, and fixes to address those vulnerabilities. Therefore, the intent behind these software failures seems to be more related to accidental decisions or mistakes rather than poor decisions. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, accidental |
(a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence is evident in the article discussing the release of patches by various tech companies to fix security vulnerabilities. For example, Apple released iOS and iPadOS 16.1.1 to address two serious security vulnerabilities (CVE-2022-40303 and CVE-2022-40304) in the libxml2 software library [135531]. Similarly, Microsoft released patches for 68 vulnerabilities, including zero-day vulnerabilities like CVE-2022-41073, CVE-2022-41125, CVE-2022-41128, and CVE-2022-41091 [135531]. These vulnerabilities indicate that there were flaws in the software development process that allowed attackers to potentially exploit the systems.
(b) The accidental software failure incident is highlighted in the article discussing the release of updates for Google Chrome. Google fixed multiple vulnerabilities, including a heap buffer overflow vulnerability (CVE-2022-4135) in the GPU that was reported by a researcher within Google's threat analysis group [135531]. The article mentions that Google was aware of an exploit for this vulnerability existing in the wild, indicating that the vulnerability was not intentionally introduced but was a result of accidental oversight or coding error. |
| Duration |
temporary |
(a) The software failure incidents mentioned in the articles are more likely to be temporary rather than permanent. This is evident from the fact that the articles primarily discuss specific vulnerabilities, bugs, or flaws in various software products such as Apple iOS, Google Chrome, Microsoft Windows, Google Android, Mozilla Firefox, VMWare, Cisco, Citrix, and SAP. These incidents are characterized by specific issues that have been identified and addressed through patches or updates. For example, vulnerabilities like CVE-2022-40303 and CVE-2022-40304 in Apple iOS, CVE-2022-4135 in Google Chrome, CVE-2022-45404 in Mozilla Firefox, and various other CVEs in different software products are temporary failures that can be mitigated through software updates or fixes.
Furthermore, the articles highlight the release of patches, updates, and security fixes by the respective software vendors to address these vulnerabilities. This proactive response indicates that the software failures are not permanent but rather temporary in nature, as they can be remedied through appropriate actions taken by the vendors. The incidents are framed as specific issues that have been identified and resolved within a certain timeframe, rather than ongoing or persistent failures that cannot be easily rectified.
Therefore, based on the information provided in the articles, the software failure incidents discussed are more aligned with temporary failures caused by specific vulnerabilities or flaws that have been addressed through patches and updates rather than permanent failures that persist due to underlying systemic issues.
[CVE-2022-40303, CVE-2022-40304, CVE-2022-4135, CVE-2022-45404, ...] |
| Behaviour |
crash, value |
(a) crash:
- Article 135531 reports on a vulnerability in Google Chrome (CVE-2022-4135) that is a heap buffer overflow leading to a crash in the GPU [135531].
- The article also mentions that Mozilla Firefox 107 fixed 19 security vulnerabilities, some of which could lead to exploitable crashes [135531].
(b) omission:
- The articles do not specifically mention any software failure incidents related to omission.
(c) timing:
- The articles do not specifically mention any software failure incidents related to timing.
(d) value:
- The article mentions a vulnerability in Microsoft Windows (CVE-2022-41128) that could result in remote code execution, indicating a failure in performing intended functions correctly [135531].
- Another vulnerability in SAP software (CVE-2022-41203) could lead to a deserialization of untrusted data, compromising the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of the system, indicating a failure in performing intended functions correctly [135531].
(e) byzantine:
- The articles do not specifically mention any software failure incidents related to Byzantine behavior.
(f) other:
- The articles do not provide information on any other specific types of software failure behaviors. |