Published Date: 2012-03-08
| Postmortem Analysis | |
|---|---|
| Timeline | 1. The software failure incident happened in March 2012. [10912, 10716] 2. The software failure incident happened in October 2012. [15148] |
| System | 1. Chrome browser's sandboxing security system [10912] 2. Chrome browser's sandbox [10716] 3. Chrome browser's security system, WebKit Scalable Vector Graphics (SVG) compromise, and IPC layer [15148] |
| Responsible Organization | 1. Hackers Sergey Glazunov and Pinkie Pie were responsible for causing the software failure incidents by exploiting security vulnerabilities in Google Chrome [10912, 10716, 15148]. |
| Impacted Organization | 1. Google [10912, 10716, 15148] |
| Software Causes | 1. The software cause of the failure incident was the discovery of security exploits in Google Chrome, specifically bypassing the browser's sandboxing security [10912]. 2. The failure incident was also caused by zero-day vulnerabilities in Chrome that allowed hackers to escape the browser's security sandbox [10716, 15148]. |
| Non-software Causes | 1. The failure incident was caused by hackers exploiting security vulnerabilities in Google Chrome, bypassing the browser's sandboxing security [10912, 10716, 15148]. 2. The incident was a result of individuals participating in Google's Pwnium competition, where hackers were challenged to find security holes in Chrome [10912, 10716, 15148]. 3. The failure was due to the presence of zero-day vulnerabilities in Chrome, which allowed the hackers to execute code with full permission of the logged-on user [10912, 10716, 15148]. 4. The incident occurred as a result of flaws in the Chrome browser's security mechanisms, such as the sandbox feature, which is meant to contain malware and prevent it from affecting the operating system and other applications [10912, 10716, 15148]. |
| Impacts | 1. The software failure incident led to the discovery of security exploits in Google Chrome, allowing hackers to bypass the browser's sandboxing security and execute code with full permission of the logged-on user [10912]. 2. The incident resulted in Google awarding cash prizes to hackers who successfully exploited Chrome vulnerabilities, with winners receiving up to $60,000 for their discoveries [10912, 10716, 15148]. 3. The exploit discovered in the software failure incident required Google to work fast on a fix and push out an auto-update to address the security vulnerability [10912]. 4. The incident highlighted the importance of ongoing efforts by Google to strengthen Chrome's security and encourage the security community to submit exploits to enhance web safety [10912, 15148]. |
| Preventions | 1. Implementing stricter code review processes to catch vulnerabilities before they are exploited [10912, 10716]. 2. Conducting regular security audits and penetration testing to identify and address potential security weaknesses [10912, 10716]. 3. Enhancing the sandboxing security features in the browser to make it more robust and less prone to exploitation [10912, 10716, 15148]. 4. Promptly patching known vulnerabilities and issuing updates to users to prevent exploitation of security holes [10912, 15148]. 5. Increasing awareness and training for developers and security teams on best practices for secure coding and vulnerability management [10912, 10716, 15148]. |
| Fixes | 1. Google is working on a fix and will push it out in an auto-update [10912]. 2. Google quickly jumped on the exploit and updated the browser to patch the hole after just 10 hours [15148]. | References | 1. Google's blog [10912] 2. CNET sister site ZDNet [10912] 3. CanSecWest conference in Canada [10716] 4. Hack in the Box 2012 event in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia [15148] 5. Chromium blog [15148] |
| Category | Option | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Recurring | one_organization | (a) The software failure incident having happened again at one_organization: - Google experienced a similar software failure incident with its Chrome browser in the Pwnium competition. Sergey Glazunov and Pinkie Pie both successfully exploited security vulnerabilities in Chrome, winning cash prizes in the Pwnium challenges [10912, 10716, 15148]. (b) The software failure incident having happened again at multiple_organization: - There is no information in the provided articles about the software failure incident happening at other organizations or with their products and services. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) | operation | (a) The articles do not provide information about a software failure incident related to the design phase. (b) Article [10912] reports a software failure incident related to the operation phase. The incident involved a security exploit in Google Chrome discovered by Sergey Glazunov, allowing a malicious hacker to execute code with full permission of the logged-on user. This exploit bypassed the browser's sandboxing security, highlighting a vulnerability introduced by the operation of the system. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) | within_system | (a) within_system: - The software failure incidents reported in the articles are primarily due to security vulnerabilities within the Chrome browser itself. - Hackers like Sergey Glazunov and Pinkie Pie were able to exploit zero-day vulnerabilities within Chrome to bypass its sandboxing security features and execute code with full permissions [10912, 10716, 15148]. - Google's Pwnium competition was specifically designed to challenge hackers to find security holes within Chrome, indicating that the failures originated from within the system [10912, 10716, 15148]. (b) outside_system: - There is no explicit mention in the articles of the software failure incidents being caused by contributing factors originating from outside the Chrome system. - The focus of the articles is on the internal security vulnerabilities of Chrome that were exploited by hackers, rather than external factors leading to the failures. - Therefore, the incidents described in the articles are more aligned with failures originating from within the system rather than outside influences. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) | non-human_actions | (a) The software failure incidents reported in the articles are primarily due to non-human actions, specifically security vulnerabilities and exploits found in Google Chrome. These vulnerabilities were discovered by hackers participating in Google's Pwnium competitions, such as Sergey Glazunov and Pinkie Pie. The exploits allowed the hackers to bypass Chrome's sandboxing security, potentially leading to unauthorized access and control over the browser and the underlying system [10912, 10716, 15148]. (b) The software failure incidents are not directly attributed to human actions causing the failures. Instead, the focus is on the actions of hackers who identified and exploited vulnerabilities in Google Chrome as part of the Pwnium competitions. These incidents highlight the importance of identifying and addressing security flaws in software to prevent malicious exploitation [10912, 10716, 15148]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) | software | (a) The articles do not mention any software failure incidents occurring due to contributing factors originating in hardware. (b) The software failure incidents reported in the articles are due to contributing factors that originate in software. Specifically, the incidents involve security exploits in Google Chrome that allowed hackers to bypass the browser's sandboxing security [10912, 10716, 15148]. These exploits were related to vulnerabilities in the software that were exploited by hackers to gain unauthorized access and control over the system. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) | malicious | (a) The software failure incidents described in the articles are malicious in nature. Both incidents involve hackers exploiting security vulnerabilities in Google Chrome with the intent to bypass the browser's security features and potentially gain control over the system. The hackers, Sergey Glazunov and Pinkie Pie, actively sought out and exploited zero-day vulnerabilities in Chrome to achieve their goals [10912, 10716, 15148]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) | (a) The intent of the software failure incident related to poor_decisions: - The software failure incidents reported in the articles were not related to poor decisions but rather to successful hacking attempts by skilled individuals exploiting security vulnerabilities in Google Chrome [10912, 10716, 15148]. (b) The intent of the software failure incident related to accidental_decisions: - The software failure incidents were not caused by accidental decisions but were deliberate actions by hackers who identified and exploited vulnerabilities in Chrome to bypass its security measures [10912, 10716, 15148]. | |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) | development_incompetence | (a) The software failure incident occurring due to development incompetence: - Article 10912 reports on a competition called Pwnium where hackers found security exploits in Chrome. Sergey Glazunov was able to bypass Chrome's sandboxing security, allowing a malicious hacker to execute code with full permission of the logged-on user. This incident highlights a failure in the development of Chrome's security measures, as Glazunov was able to exploit vulnerabilities in the browser [10912]. (b) The software failure incident occurring accidentally: - Article 10716 describes how a teenager, known as Pinkie Pie, hacked Google's Chrome browser using three zero-day vulnerabilities, one of which allowed him to escape the browser's security sandbox. Pinkie Pie's successful hack was achieved accidentally as he stumbled upon a way to escape the sandbox relatively early in his exploit development process. This incident showcases a failure that occurred accidentally during the hacking competition [10716]. |
| Duration | temporary | (a) The software failure incident described in the articles is temporary. Both Article 10912 and Article 10716 discuss temporary software failures caused by security exploits found in Google Chrome. These incidents were specific to the vulnerabilities discovered by hackers during the Pwnium competitions, and Google quickly responded by working on fixes and pushing out updates to address the security holes. The exploits were not permanent failures but rather vulnerabilities that were exploited temporarily by the hackers until Google patched them [10912, 10716]. |
| Behaviour | crash, omission, other | (a) crash: - Article 10912 reports a software failure incident where a hacker found a security exploit in Chrome that bypassed the browser's sandboxing security, allowing them to execute "code with full permission of the logged-on user." Google mentioned they are "working fast on a fix" and will push the fix out in an auto-update, indicating a crash scenario where the system lost its state and was not performing its intended functions [10912]. (b) omission: - Article 10716 describes a teenager, Pinkie Pie, who hacked Google's Chrome browser using three zero-day vulnerabilities, one of which allowed him to escape the browser's security sandbox. The article mentions that Google declined to discuss details of the vulnerabilities until they could create and distribute a patch, indicating an omission where the system omitted to perform its intended functions at that instance [10716]. (c) timing: - There is no specific mention of a timing-related failure in the provided articles. (d) value: - There is no specific mention of a value-related failure in the provided articles. (e) byzantine: - There is no specific mention of a byzantine-related failure in the provided articles. (f) other: - The behavior of the software failure incident in the articles can be categorized as a security vulnerability exploit leading to a breach in the system's security measures, allowing unauthorized access and potential harm to the system and user data. This behavior could be classified as a security breach or vulnerability exploitation, which is not explicitly covered in the options provided [10912, 10716, 15148]. |
| Layer | Option | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Perception | None | None |
| Communication | None | None |
| Application | None | None |
| Category | Option | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Consequence | no_consequence | (a) unknown (b) unknown (c) unknown (d) unknown (e) unknown (f) unknown (g) no_consequence (h) unknown (i) The software failure incidents described in the articles did not result in any real observed consequences. The incidents were related to successful hacking attempts during Google's Pwnium competitions, where hackers were able to exploit security vulnerabilities in Chrome but did not cause any actual harm or damage. |
| Domain | information, finance | (a) The failed system in the articles is related to the information industry as it involves security exploits in Google Chrome, a web browser used for accessing and distributing information online [10912, 10716, 15148]. (h) The incident also has implications for the finance industry as the security vulnerabilities in Chrome could potentially lead to financial data breaches or unauthorized access to financial services [10912, 10716, 15148]. (m) Additionally, the software failure incident is relevant to the technology industry as a whole, given that it involves security vulnerabilities in a widely used web browser developed by Google [10912, 10716, 15148]. |
Article ID: 10912
Article ID: 10716
Article ID: 15148