Incident: iOS Vulnerability Exploited for Potential iPhone Botnet Creation

Published Date: 2014-08-01

Postmortem Analysis
Timeline 1. The software failure incident described in the article happened around July 2014. - The article was published on 2014-08-01 [28136]. - The incident timeline can be estimated by considering the statement "Georgia Tech researchers have assembled the pieces needed to build a fully-controlled collection of hacked iOS devices through a perennial weak point, their connection to vulnerable Windows PCs." This indicates that the incident occurred around the time of the article's publication, which is August 2014.
System 1. iOS operating system 2. Windows PCs 3. Apple's security measures 4. Apple's software restrictions 5. Apple's bug fixes process 6. Apple's response to reported vulnerabilities
Responsible Organization 1. The group of security researchers from Georgia Tech were responsible for causing the software failure incident by demonstrating how to enslave an entire botnet of Apple gadgets through vulnerabilities in the connection to vulnerable Windows PCs [28136].
Impacted Organization 1. Apple 2. iPhone owners 3. Windows PCs 4. iOS devices 5. iOS users 6. Botnet analysis firm Damballa 7. Android devices 8. Nokia's Symbian operating system 9. NSA 10. Cybercriminals
Software Causes 1. Vulnerabilities in iOS that were exploited by the researchers, including bugs from the "evasi0n" jailbreak exploit [28136]. 2. Neglected fixes by Apple for known vulnerabilities in iOS [28136]. 3. Connection of malware-infected Windows PCs to iOS devices, creating a pathway for exploitation [28136].
Non-software Causes 1. Lack of timely patching by Apple for known vulnerabilities [28136] 2. Vulnerabilities in the iOS ecosystem due to compromised Windows PCs [28136] 3. Limited response from Apple to warnings about the exploit [28136]
Impacts 1. The software failure incident described in the article highlighted the vulnerability of iOS devices to being enslaved into a botnet through their connection to vulnerable Windows PCs [28136]. 2. The incident showcased how a group of security researchers were able to build a fully-controlled collection of hacked iOS devices despite Apple's restrictions on software installed on iPhones and iPads [28136]. 3. The researchers identified a significant number of malware-infected Windows machines that regularly connect to iOS devices, indicating a potential avenue for delivering attacks [28136]. 4. The exploit demonstrated by the researchers showed that Apple could do more to fix known vulnerabilities in their software, as they had been made aware of the bugs used in the attack but had not patched them [28136]. 5. The incident raised concerns about the security of iOS devices, despite their reputation for being secure, and highlighted the importance of addressing vulnerabilities promptly to prevent potential attacks [28136].
Preventions 1. Apple could have fixed the known vulnerabilities promptly after being informed by the Georgia Tech researchers, which would have prevented the exploit from being developed [28136]. 2. Apple could have patched all the vulnerabilities, including seemingly trivial bugs, to prevent attackers from exploiting them to gain control of iOS devices [28136]. 3. Apple could have improved its software update process to address security issues more efficiently and effectively [28136].
Fixes 1. Apple needs to fix the known vulnerabilities in iOS promptly to prevent exploitation by hackers [28136].
References 1. Georgia Tech researchers [28136] 2. Botnet analysis firm Damballa [28136] 3. Apple spokeswoman [28136]

Software Taxonomy of Faults

Category Option Rationale
Recurring one_organization, multiple_organization (a) The software failure incident related to the exploitation of vulnerabilities in iOS devices has happened again within the same organization, Apple. The incident involved security researchers from Georgia Tech demonstrating how they could build a fully-controlled collection of hacked iOS devices despite Apple's security measures. The vulnerabilities exploited were largely from bugs that Apple had been aware of but neglected to fix, even after being warned by the researchers [28136]. (b) The incident also highlights the potential for similar attacks to occur at other organizations or with their products and services. The researchers identified a large slice of malware-infected Windows machines that could be used to deliver the attack to iOS devices, indicating a broader vulnerability in the ecosystem beyond just Apple's devices [28136].
Phase (Design/Operation) design, operation (a) The software failure incident related to the design phase is evident in the article. The Georgia Tech researchers identified vulnerabilities in iOS devices that stemmed from bugs Apple had long been aware of but neglected to fix. They used known vulnerabilities, including those from a jailbreak exploit called "evasi0n," to create a full iOS exploit that could give a hacker complete control of the phone. Despite warning Apple about their exploit more than three months prior, the company still hadn't patched the bugs they used, indicating a failure in addressing known vulnerabilities introduced during the development phase [28136]. (b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase is highlighted by the fact that the exploit developed by the Georgia Tech researchers required a tethered connection, meaning an iPhone or iPad initially needed to be plugged into a computer for the hack to work. This limitation, although a minor inconvenience for users seeking to jailbreak their devices, presented a more serious barrier to hackers hoping to use it for malicious purposes. The exploit leveraged the connection between malware-infected Windows PCs and iOS devices, demonstrating how operation and misuse of the system, such as connecting to compromised computers, could lead to exploitation [28136].
Boundary (Internal/External) within_system, outside_system (a) within_system: The software failure incident discussed in the article is primarily within the system. The Georgia Tech researchers were able to exploit vulnerabilities within the iOS operating system, specifically using bugs that Apple had long been aware of but neglected to fix. They assembled a full iOS exploit by leveraging known vulnerabilities, including those from a jailbreak exploit called "evasi0n" [28136]. (b) outside_system: The software failure incident also involves factors originating from outside the system. The attack demonstrated by the Georgia Tech researchers relied on the connection between iOS devices and vulnerable Windows PCs. They identified a significant number of malware-infected Windows machines that could be used to deliver the attack to iOS devices, highlighting the role of external factors in the exploit [28136].
Nature (Human/Non-human) non-human_actions, human_actions (a) The software failure incident in the article is related to non-human actions, specifically vulnerabilities in the iOS operating system that were exploited by security researchers from Georgia Tech. These vulnerabilities were not introduced by human actions but were inherent weaknesses in the software that allowed for the creation of an iPhone botnet [28136]. (b) On the other hand, the article also mentions that the Georgia Tech researchers identified vulnerabilities in iOS that Apple had long been aware of but neglected to fix. The vulnerabilities used in the exploit were not patched by Apple even after being warned by the researchers, indicating a failure due to contributing factors introduced by human actions, specifically the delay or negligence in addressing known vulnerabilities by Apple [28136].
Dimension (Hardware/Software) software (a) The software failure incident related to hardware: - The incident described in the article is not directly related to hardware failures but rather focuses on the vulnerabilities in iOS devices that can be exploited through connections to compromised Windows PCs [28136]. (b) The software failure incident related to software: - The software failure incident described in the article is primarily related to vulnerabilities in the iOS operating system and the software ecosystem surrounding iOS devices. The Georgia Tech researchers were able to exploit known software vulnerabilities in iOS, particularly those that Apple had not patched, to gain control of iPhones and iPads [28136].
Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) malicious (a) The software failure incident described in the article is malicious in nature. Security researchers from Georgia Tech demonstrated how they could build a fully-controlled collection of hacked iOS devices by exploiting vulnerabilities in the iOS operating system and leveraging malware-infected Windows PCs [28136]. They identified and utilized bugs in Apple's software that had not been patched, allowing them to create an exploit that could give a hacker complete control of an iPhone. The attack was designed to show that large-scale infections of iOS devices are indeed possible, despite the perceived security of Apple's ecosystem. The incident was a deliberate attempt to highlight the vulnerabilities in iOS and the potential risks posed by exploiting them.
Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) poor_decisions (a) The intent of the software failure incident: The incident described in the article [28136] highlights a software failure incident that can be attributed to poor decisions made by Apple in neglecting to fix known vulnerabilities in their iOS operating system. The Georgia Tech researchers pointed out that Apple had been aware of several bugs but failed to patch them, leaving the system vulnerable to exploitation. Despite being warned about the exploit more than three months prior, Apple had not taken action to address the issues raised by the researchers. This failure to address known vulnerabilities and prioritize security fixes can be seen as a result of poor decisions on Apple's part, contributing to the potential risk of mass iPhone hacking through a botnet attack.
Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) development_incompetence (a) The software failure incident in the article can be attributed to development incompetence. The Georgia Tech researchers identified vulnerabilities in iOS devices that were not adequately addressed by Apple despite being aware of them. They highlighted that Apple neglected to fix most of the vulnerabilities used in the exploit, even after the release of iOS version 7.1. The researchers emphasized the importance of vendors being careful about vulnerabilities and fixing them promptly to prevent potential attacks [28136]. (b) The software failure incident can also be considered accidental to some extent. Although the Georgia Tech researchers intentionally created an exploit to demonstrate the vulnerabilities in iOS devices, they did not plan to release the code for their exploit at the Black Hat conference due to university policies. Their intention was to raise awareness about the security flaws in iOS devices and prompt Apple to take action to address the issues. Additionally, the exploit they developed required a tethered connection to a computer, which could be seen as a limitation that may have deterred malicious hackers from exploiting the vulnerability [28136].
Duration permanent (a) The software failure incident described in the article is more of a permanent nature. The security researchers from Georgia Tech identified vulnerabilities in iOS devices that could lead to the creation of a botnet of Apple gadgets through their connection to vulnerable Windows PCs. They highlighted that Apple had been aware of these vulnerabilities but neglected to fix them, even after being informed by the researchers more than three months prior to the publication of the article [28136]. The vulnerabilities exploited by the researchers were not just temporary issues but rather longstanding weaknesses in the iOS ecosystem that could potentially lead to large-scale infections of iOS devices. The fact that Apple had only fixed a portion of the vulnerabilities identified in a previous jailbreak exploit and left others unpatched indicates a more permanent state of vulnerability in the software [28136].
Behaviour value, other (a) crash: The articles do not mention any specific instance of a crash where the system loses state and fails to perform its intended functions. (b) omission: The software failure incident described in the articles does not involve the system omitting to perform its intended functions at an instance(s). (c) timing: The incident does not relate to the system performing its intended functions too late or too early. (d) value: The failure in this case is related to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly. The security researchers were able to exploit vulnerabilities in iOS devices despite Apple's security measures, demonstrating that the system was not functioning correctly in terms of protecting against potential attacks [28136]. (e) byzantine: The incident does not involve the system behaving erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. (f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident in this case is related to the system being vulnerable to exploitation due to unpatched bugs and vulnerabilities, leading to the potential compromise of iOS devices. This highlights a failure in the system's security mechanisms and the need for timely and comprehensive bug fixes to prevent such exploits [28136].

IoT System Layer

Layer Option Rationale
Perception None None
Communication None None
Application None None

Other Details

Category Option Rationale
Consequence non-human, theoretical_consequence (a) death: There is no mention of people losing their lives due to the software failure incident in the provided article [28136]. (b) harm: There is no mention of people being physically harmed due to the software failure incident in the provided article [28136]. (c) basic: There is no mention of people's access to food or shelter being impacted because of the software failure incident in the provided article [28136]. (d) property: The software failure incident did not directly impact people's material goods, money, or data in the article [28136]. (e) delay: There is no mention of people having to postpone an activity due to the software failure incident in the provided article [28136]. (f) non-human: The software failure incident impacted non-human entities, specifically iOS devices, as the researchers demonstrated the vulnerability of Apple gadgets to potential exploitation [28136]. (g) no_consequence: The article does not mention that there were no real observed consequences of the software failure incident [28136]. (h) theoretical_consequence: The article discusses potential consequences of the software failure incident, such as the possibility of large-scale infections of iOS devices and the potential for more targeted attacks by highly resourced spies [28136]. (i) other: The article does not mention any other specific consequences of the software failure incident beyond those discussed in the options (a) to (h) [28136].
Domain information (a) The failed system in the article is related to the information industry as it involves the exploitation of vulnerabilities in iOS devices and their connection to Windows PCs for potential malicious purposes [28136]. (b) The transportation industry is not directly mentioned in the context of the software failure incident reported in the articles. (c) The natural resources industry is not directly mentioned in the context of the software failure incident reported in the articles. (d) The sales industry is not directly mentioned in the context of the software failure incident reported in the articles. (e) The construction industry is not directly mentioned in the context of the software failure incident reported in the articles. (f) The manufacturing industry is not directly mentioned in the context of the software failure incident reported in the articles. (g) The utilities industry is not directly mentioned in the context of the software failure incident reported in the articles. (h) The finance industry is not directly mentioned in the context of the software failure incident reported in the articles. (i) The knowledge industry is not directly mentioned in the context of the software failure incident reported in the articles. (j) The health industry is not directly mentioned in the context of the software failure incident reported in the articles. (k) The entertainment industry is not directly mentioned in the context of the software failure incident reported in the articles. (l) The government industry is not directly mentioned in the context of the software failure incident reported in the articles. (m) The failed system is not related to any of the industries mentioned in options (a) to (l).

Sources

Back to List