| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
<Article 12677> provides information about a software failure incident related to a man-in-the-middle attack that allowed the Flame cyberespionage tool to impersonate Microsoft Update and deliver malware to unsuspecting users. This incident involved the exploitation of a vulnerability in a cryptography algorithm used by Microsoft for enterprise customers, allowing the attackers to obtain a rogue certificate and sign malicious code as if it came from Microsoft.
(a) Regarding the software failure incident happening again at one_organization, it is mentioned that the attackers exploited a vulnerability in a cryptography algorithm used by Microsoft for enterprise customers to set up Remote Desktop service on machines. This vulnerability allowed the rogue code to be signed as if it came from Microsoft, indicating a potential security flaw within Microsoft's systems [12677].
(b) In terms of the software failure incident happening again at multiple_organization, the article highlights the delicate and problematic nature of trust models behind every Internet transaction, emphasizing the breach of trust caused by the bug used to circumvent Microsoft's secure code certificate hierarchy. This incident underscores the potential risks associated with trust models in various Internet transactions, not limited to Microsoft alone [12677]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident related to the design phase is evident in the Flame cyberespionage tool incident. The attackers exploited a vulnerability in a cryptography algorithm used by Microsoft for enterprise customers to set up Remote Desktop service on machines. This vulnerability allowed the rogue code to be signed as if it came from Microsoft, leading to the malware being able to spread using a rogue certificate obtained via a man-in-the-middle attack [12677].
(b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase is seen in how the Flame malware intercepted the request to the Microsoft Update server during the update process. When a machine on a network attempted to connect to Microsoft’s Windows Update service, the connection was redirected through an infected machine, which sent a fake, malicious Windows Update to the requesting machine. This fake update was signed with a fake Microsoft certificate, tricking the user's machine into allowing the program to run without issuing a warning [12677]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system, outside_system |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article is primarily within the system. The incident involved a man-in-the-middle attack that allowed the delivery of malware disguised as legitimate Microsoft code to unsuspecting users. The attackers exploited a vulnerability in a cryptography algorithm used by Microsoft for enterprise customers, allowing them to generate a fake certificate to sign the rogue code as if it came from Microsoft [12677]. The malware, known as Flame, intercepted requests to the Microsoft Update server and delivered malicious executables to machines on the same network using the rogue certificate obtained through the attack. Microsoft has since revoked the certificate and fixed the vulnerability via an update [12677]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in the article was primarily due to non-human actions. The incident involved a man-in-the-middle attack that allowed the Flame cyberespionage tool to impersonate Microsoft Update and deliver malware to unsuspecting users [12677].
(b) However, human actions also played a role in the software failure incident. The attackers exploited a vulnerability in a cryptography algorithm used by Microsoft for enterprise customers to set up Remote Desktop service on machines, allowing them to generate a fake certificate to sign the malicious code [12677]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident discussed in the article was primarily due to a vulnerability in a cryptography algorithm used by Microsoft for enterprise customers to set up Remote Desktop service on machines. This vulnerability in the hardware contributed to the incident as it allowed the attackers to exploit the system and generate a fake certificate to sign the malicious code, making it appear as if it came from Microsoft [12677].
(b) The software failure incident was also caused by a flaw in the software itself, specifically in the way the system handled certificates and code signing. The attackers were able to exploit this software vulnerability to spread the Flame malware by intercepting requests to the official Windows Update server and delivering malicious executables signed with a rogue, but technically valid, Microsoft certificate [12677]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
malicious |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article is malicious in nature. It involves a man-in-the-middle attack that allowed someone to impersonate Microsoft Update to deliver malware disguised as legitimate Microsoft code to unsuspecting users [12677]. The malware, known as Flame, was designed to spread from one infected computer to other machines on the same network using a rogue certificate obtained via the man-in-the-middle attack. The attackers exploited a vulnerability in a cryptography algorithm used by Microsoft to set up Remote Desktop service on machines, allowing them to sign the rogue code as if it came from Microsoft. The malware intercepted requests to the Microsoft Update server and delivered a malicious executable to machines, signed with a rogue but technically valid Microsoft certificate. This incident was a deliberate attempt to infect machines and compromise their security.
(b) The software failure incident cannot be classified as non-malicious as it was a deliberate attack with the intent to harm the system and compromise the security of unsuspecting users [12677]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
unknown |
(a) The intent of the software failure incident was not due to poor decisions but rather a sophisticated man-in-the-middle attack that allowed the Flame cyberespionage tool to impersonate Microsoft Update and deliver malware to unsuspecting users [12677]. The attackers exploited a vulnerability in a cryptography algorithm used by Microsoft for enterprise customers, allowing them to obtain a rogue certificate and sign malicious code as if it came from Microsoft. This incident was a result of a targeted and deliberate attack rather than poor decisions on the part of Microsoft. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
accidental |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article was not due to development incompetence but rather due to a sophisticated man-in-the-middle attack that exploited vulnerabilities in Microsoft's system [12677].
(b) The software failure incident was accidental in nature as it was caused by attackers exploiting a vulnerability in a cryptography algorithm used by Microsoft, allowing them to sign malicious code with a fake but technically valid Microsoft certificate [12677]. |
| Duration |
permanent |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article is more of a permanent nature. The incident involved a sophisticated cyberespionage tool called Flame, which was designed to spread malware through a man-in-the-middle attack by impersonating Microsoft Update and delivering malicious code to unsuspecting users [12677]. This attack exploited a vulnerability in a cryptography algorithm used by Microsoft, allowing the rogue code to be signed as if it came from Microsoft. Microsoft responded by revoking the certificate and fixing the vulnerability via an update to prevent further exploitation [12677].
(b) The software failure incident does not seem to be temporary as it involved a targeted and deliberate attack that exploited a specific vulnerability in Microsoft's system. The incident was not a one-time occurrence but rather a calculated effort to spread malware and compromise systems through deceptive means [12677]. |
| Behaviour |
value, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident described in the article is not related to a crash where the system loses state and does not perform any of its intended functions. The incident involves a man-in-the-middle attack that allows the delivery of malware disguised as legitimate Microsoft code to unsuspecting users [12677].
(b) omission: The software failure incident is not related to omission where the system omits to perform its intended functions at an instance(s). Instead, the incident involves the delivery of malicious code through a man-in-the-middle attack [12677].
(c) timing: The software failure incident is not related to timing where the system performs its intended functions correctly but too late or too early. The incident involves the interception of Windows Update requests to deliver malicious updates [12677].
(d) value: The software failure incident is related to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly. Specifically, the incident involves the delivery of malware disguised as legitimate Microsoft code, leading users to believe it is safe and allowing the malicious program to run on their machines [12677].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident is not related to a byzantine failure where the system behaves erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. The incident involves a targeted cyberespionage tool spreading malware through a man-in-the-middle attack using a rogue certificate [12677].
(f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident can be described as a sophisticated cyberattack involving the exploitation of a vulnerability in a cryptography algorithm used by Microsoft to set up Remote Desktop services. The attackers used a man-in-the-middle attack to deliver malicious code disguised as legitimate Microsoft updates, exploiting the trust associated with Microsoft-signed code [12677]. |