| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident having happened again at one_organization:
- Charlie Miller, a security analyst, won prizes in multiple years at the Pwn2Own contest by exploiting vulnerabilities in Safari on Apple devices. He won $10,000 by hacking Safari on a MacBook Pro without physical access to the machine [1030].
- Nils, a researcher from MWR InfoSecurity, won $10,000 for targeting Firefox on Windows 7 at the Pwn2Own contest. He had previously won $15,000 for exploits demonstrated in IE 8, Safari, and Firefox [1030].
(b) The software failure incident having happened again at multiple_organization:
- The Pwn2Own contest at CanSecWest security show featured researchers hacking various software including Safari, Internet Explorer, and Firefox, indicating vulnerabilities in multiple organizations' products [1030]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident related to the development phase of design can be seen in the articles. The incident involved researchers demonstrating successful hacks on various browsers and devices during the Pwn2Own contest at the CanSecWest security show. Charlie Miller hacked Safari on a MacBook Pro without physical access to the machine by exploiting a hole in Safari [1030]. Peter Vreugdenhil bypassed security features in IE 8 by exploiting vulnerabilities in a four-part attack that involved bypassing ASLR and evading DEP [1030]. Nils targeted Firefox on 64-bit Windows 7 by exploiting a memory corruption vulnerability and bypassing ASLR and DEP due to a weakness in Mozilla's implementation [1030].
(b) The software failure incident related to the development phase of operation can be observed in the articles as well. The system compromises occurred when the browsers visited a website hosting the attack code, leading to the successful hacks. For example, Charlie Miller compromised the target computer after visiting a website hosting malicious code, gaining an interactive shell on the machine [1030]. Similarly, Vreugdenhil compromised the system when the browser visited a website hosting the attack code, giving him user rights on the targeted computer [1030]. Nils also exploited the system by visiting a website hosting the exploit code, allowing him to run the Windows calculator for the demo [1030]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system:
- The software failure incidents reported in the articles were primarily due to vulnerabilities and exploits within the systems themselves. For example, researchers were able to hack into various systems like Safari, Internet Explorer, Firefox, and iPhone by exploiting vulnerabilities within these systems [1030].
- The exploits involved bypassing security features like ASLR (Address Space Layout Randomization) and DEP (Data Execution Prevention) within the browsers to compromise the systems when visiting malicious websites [1030].
- The researchers demonstrated their ability to run arbitrary commands on the compromised systems, showcasing the extent of the vulnerabilities within the software [1030]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to non-human actions:
- The software failure incidents in the articles were primarily due to vulnerabilities and weaknesses in the software systems themselves, such as memory corruption vulnerabilities, bypassing ASLR and DEP (Address Space Layout Randomization and Data Execution Prevention), and exploiting digital code signatures on the iPhone [1030].
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions:
- The software failure incidents in the articles were also influenced by human actions, such as researchers actively exploiting the vulnerabilities in the software systems during the Pwn2Own contest at the CanSecWest security show [1030]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to hardware:
- The software failure incidents reported in the articles were not attributed to hardware issues but rather to vulnerabilities and exploits in software applications such as Safari, Internet Explorer, Firefox, and the iPhone operating system [1030].
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to software:
- The software failure incidents reported in the articles were primarily due to vulnerabilities and exploits in software applications like Safari, Internet Explorer, Firefox, and the iPhone operating system. These incidents involved hackers exploiting weaknesses in the software to gain unauthorized access and control over the targeted systems [1030]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
malicious |
(a) The software failure incident reported in the articles is malicious in nature. The incident involved researchers demonstrating their ability to hack various systems and browsers, such as Safari, Internet Explorer, Firefox, and the iPhone, during the Pwn2Own contest at the CanSecWest security show. The hacks were conducted by exploiting vulnerabilities in the systems and browsers, with the objective of demonstrating the ability to compromise the targeted devices and systems. The researchers were awarded prizes for successfully bypassing security features and gaining unauthorized access to the systems and browsers [1030]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
unknown |
(a) The intent of the software failure incident related to poor_decisions:
- The software failure incidents described in the articles were not due to poor decisions but rather intentional actions by researchers participating in the Pwn2Own contest to demonstrate vulnerabilities in various software systems like Safari, Internet Explorer, and Firefox [1030]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to development incompetence:
- The incident at the Pwn2Own contest showcased various successful hacks on different browsers and devices, highlighting vulnerabilities in Safari, Internet Explorer, and Firefox [1030].
- Researchers demonstrated their ability to exploit vulnerabilities in these software systems, indicating potential weaknesses in their development and security measures.
- The successful hacks on Safari, Internet Explorer, and Firefox suggest that there were gaps in the development and testing processes of these software products, leading to the exploitation of security flaws by the researchers.
(b) The software failure incident occurring accidentally:
- The hacks demonstrated at the Pwn2Own contest were not accidental but rather intentional efforts by security researchers to exploit known vulnerabilities in the targeted software systems [1030].
- The researchers actively developed exploits to bypass security features and gain unauthorized access to the target systems, indicating a deliberate and planned approach rather than accidental actions.
- The targeted attacks on Safari, Internet Explorer, and Firefox were purposeful and aimed at showcasing the vulnerabilities present in these software products, rather than being accidental incidents. |
| Duration |
temporary |
(a) The software failure incident described in the articles is temporary. The incident involved successful hacks on various software systems such as Safari, Internet Explorer, Firefox, and the iPhone during the Pwn2Own contest at the CanSecWest security show. The hacks were achieved by exploiting vulnerabilities in the systems when visiting specific websites hosting malicious code. The researchers were able to gain control over the targeted systems, demonstrating the vulnerabilities present in the software. The incident was temporary as it was caused by specific circumstances and vulnerabilities that were exploited during the contest ([1030]). |
| Behaviour |
crash |
(a) crash: The software failure incident related to a crash can be seen in the article where researchers demonstrated successful hacks on various browsers and devices during the Pwn2Own contest. For example, Charlie Miller was able to hack Safari on a MacBook Pro without physical access to the machine, gaining an interactive shell on the target computer [1030].
(b) omission: The software failure incident related to omission can be observed in the article where researchers exploited vulnerabilities in browsers like IE 8 and Firefox by bypassing security features and executing malicious code when the browser visited specific websites. This led to the system omitting to perform its intended functions securely [1030].
(c) timing: The software failure incident related to timing can be inferred from the article where the researchers were able to perform successful hacks during the Pwn2Own contest. The timing aspect comes into play as the system performed its intended functions (browsing the web) but at the wrong time, leading to security breaches and exploitation [1030].
(d) value: The software failure incident related to value can be identified in the article where the researchers exploited vulnerabilities in browsers like Firefox on Windows 7. Nils, a researcher, exploited a memory corruption vulnerability in Firefox, leading to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly and allowing the execution of arbitrary code [1030].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident related to a byzantine behavior can be seen in the article where researchers hacked the iPhone by writing an exploit to steal the contents of the SMS database. The exploit bypassed digital code signatures and pieced together chunks of Apple's code to accomplish the attack, showing inconsistent responses and interactions with the iPhone's security mechanisms [1030].
(f) other: The software failure incident related to other behaviors includes the researchers' ability to bypass security features like ASLR and DEP in browsers such as IE 8 and Firefox. This behavior can be categorized as a sophisticated exploitation technique that goes beyond the typical crash, omission, timing, value, or byzantine failures [1030]. |