| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
a) The software failure incident related to vulnerabilities in Chrome OS extensions has happened again within the same organization, Google. The incident involved a security researcher, Matt Johansen, discovering a flaw in a Chrome OS application that allowed him to gain control of a Google e-mail account. Google fixed the initial flaw reported by Johansen, but he claimed to have found other applications with the same vulnerability [6339].
b) The incident involving vulnerabilities in browser extensions, particularly in Chrome OS, is not unique to Google. The security researcher, Matt Johansen, also looked into extensions from other browsers such as Firefox and Safari to see if they faced similar security flaws. Johansen concluded that Chrome OS extensions act more like "mini Web applications," which can lead to Web application vulnerabilities affecting other browsers as well [6339]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident related to the design phase is evident in the article. The security researcher, Matt Johansen, discovered a flaw in a Chrome OS application that allowed him to exploit it to gain control of a Google e-mail account. This flaw was found in extensions downloaded from the Google Chrome Web Store, indicating a design flaw in Chrome OS that gives extensions "sweeping rights to access data stored on the cloud" [6339].
(b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase is also highlighted in the article. Johansen pointed out that hackers could steal data as it moves between the cloud and the Chrome OS browser, rather than hacking directly into a user's PC. This indicates a failure due to contributing factors introduced by the operation or misuse of the system, where vulnerabilities in the system's operation allowed for data theft [6339]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system, outside_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident reported in the articles is related to a flaw in a Chrome OS application that allowed a security researcher to exploit it and gain control of a Google e-mail account. The flaw was found in an extension downloaded from the Google Chrome Web Store, indicating an issue within the Chrome OS system itself [6339]. The vulnerability was specifically related to the design flaw in Chrome OS that gave extensions sweeping rights to access data stored on the cloud, highlighting an internal system weakness [6339].
(b) outside_system: The software failure incident also involved the aspect of data being stolen as it moves between the cloud and the Chrome OS browser, indicating a potential external factor contributing to the failure [6339]. Additionally, the vulnerability allowed hackers to access data like online banking, Facebook profiles, or e-mails as they were being loaded in the browser, suggesting an external threat exploiting the system weakness [6339]. |
| 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 Chrome OS was due to a flaw in a Chrome OS application that allowed a security researcher to exploit and gain control of a Google e-mail account [6339].
- The vulnerability was found in extensions downloaded from the Google Chrome Web Store, indicating a flaw in the design of Chrome OS that gave extensions sweeping rights to access data stored on the cloud [6339].
- Google patched the initial extension reported by the researcher, but the incident highlighted potential security issues in how extensions interact with data in the cloud [6339].
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions:
- The security researcher, Matt Johansen, discovered and exploited the flaw in the Chrome OS application to gain control of a Google e-mail account, indicating human actions in identifying and exploiting the vulnerability [6339].
- Johansen and fellow researcher Kyle Osborn planned to reveal more information about the reported vulnerabilities in Chrome OS at the Black Hat hacking conference, suggesting human involvement in disclosing security flaws [6339]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The software failure incident related to hardware:
- The article does not mention any specific software failure incident related to hardware. Therefore, there is no information available in the provided article regarding a software failure incident occurring due to contributing factors originating in hardware.
(b) The software failure incident related to software:
- The software failure incident discussed in the article is related to a flaw in a Chrome OS application that allowed a security researcher to gain control of a Google e-mail account [6339].
- The vulnerability was found in Chrome OS applications, specifically in extensions downloaded from the Google Chrome Web Store, which gave sweeping rights to access data stored on the cloud [6339].
- Google patched the initial extension reported by the researcher but questioned the overall labeling of Chrome OS as vulnerable due to its use of extensions [6339].
- The security researcher highlighted that the security issues in Chrome OS were related to the permissions set by third-party developers in the extensions, which sometimes had wide-open access [6339].
- The article emphasizes that all modern browsers run extensions, and vulnerabilities in web-based apps are common across different platforms [6339]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident reported in the articles is more aligned with a non-malicious objective. The security researcher, Matt Johansen, identified a flaw in a Chrome OS application that he was able to exploit to gain control of a Google e-mail account. He highlighted the vulnerability in Chrome OS applications, particularly extensions downloaded from the Google Chrome Web Store, which had a design flaw giving extensions sweeping rights to access data stored on the cloud [6339].
Johansen's findings were not aimed at causing harm but rather to expose security weaknesses in the Chrome OS and bring attention to potential vulnerabilities that could be exploited by malicious actors. Additionally, Google's response to the reported flaw focused on addressing the issue and enhancing security measures to protect against such vulnerabilities in the future [6339]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
unknown |
(a) The intent of the software failure incident related to poor decisions is not explicitly mentioned in the provided article. Therefore, it is unknown whether the software failure incident was due to contributing factors introduced by poor decisions.
(b) The intent of the software failure incident related to accidental decisions is not explicitly mentioned in the provided article. Therefore, it is unknown whether the software failure incident was due to contributing factors introduced by mistakes or unintended decisions. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, unknown |
(a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence is evident in the article as a security researcher, Matt Johansen, found a flaw in a Chrome OS application that allowed him to exploit it to gain control of a Google e-mail account. Despite Google fixing the flaw after it was reported, Johansen claimed to have discovered other applications with the same flaw, indicating a potential oversight or lack of thorough testing during the development process [6339].
(b) The software failure incident related to accidental factors is not explicitly mentioned in the provided article. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident reported in the articles is more aligned with a temporary failure rather than a permanent one. This is evident from the fact that the security researcher, Matt Johansen, identified a flaw in a Chrome OS application that allowed him to exploit it to gain control of a Google e-mail account. Google subsequently fixed the flaw after it was reported, indicating that the issue was addressed and resolved [6339].
Additionally, the article mentions that Google has been working on security measures to protect extensions running on Chrome, such as limiting access privileges, running in isolation by default, and enforcing whitelisting for enterprises. This proactive approach to addressing security vulnerabilities suggests that the incident was temporary in nature and not a permanent failure [6339]. |
| Behaviour |
value, other |
(a) crash: The articles do not mention any specific instance of a system crash where the software completely loses its state and fails to perform any of its intended functions [6339].
(b) omission: There is no direct mention of a failure due to the system omitting to perform its intended functions at an instance in the articles [6339].
(c) timing: The articles do not discuss any failure related to the system performing its intended functions correctly but at the wrong time (too late or too early) [6339].
(d) value: The software failure incident discussed in the articles is related to a failure where the system performs its intended functions incorrectly, allowing a security researcher to exploit a flaw in a Chrome OS application to gain control of a Google e-mail account [6339].
(e) byzantine: The incident does not involve the system behaving erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions, as described in a byzantine failure [6339].
(f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident can be categorized as a security vulnerability where the system allows unauthorized access to sensitive data due to a design flaw in the Chrome OS applications and extensions [6339]. |