| Recurring |
multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to the FREAK attack vulnerability affected multiple organizations. Both Apple and Google devices were vulnerable to the FREAK attack due to the use of weaker encryption software [34968, 34521]. Apple and Google have since released software updates to fix the vulnerability in their devices [34968, 34521].
(b) The FREAK attack vulnerability impacted a wide range of websites, including those operated by American Express, Groupon, Kohl’s, Marriott, and some government agencies [34968]. Additionally, more than one-third of encrypted websites worldwide were found to be vulnerable to the FREAK attack, including news organizations, retailers, and financial services sites [34521]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident related to the design phase can be attributed to the old government policy that required US software makers to use weaker security in encryption programs sold overseas due to national security concerns. This policy, which was abandoned over a decade ago, contributed to the vulnerability known as the "FREAK attack" [34968, 34521].
(b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase can be linked to the fact that many popular websites and internet browsers continued to accept the weaker software or could be tricked into using it, making it easier for hackers to break the encryption and steal sensitive information when visitors type it into a website [34968, 34521]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system, outside_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident related to the FREAK attack was primarily caused by an old government policy that required US software makers to use weaker security in encryption programs sold overseas [34968, 34521]. This policy led to the proliferation of weaker encryption software that was eventually integrated into widely used systems, making them vulnerable to attacks. The vulnerability in the encryption protocols used by popular websites and browsers allowed hackers to exploit the weakness and potentially steal sensitive information [34968, 34521].
(b) outside_system: The software failure incident was also influenced by external factors such as the lifting of the export restrictions on strong encryption in the late 1990s. This led to the continued use of weaker "export-grade" encryption products that were susceptible to attacks, even though the restrictions had been removed [34968, 34521]. Additionally, the discovery of the FREAK attack highlighted the unintended consequences of government policies that required weakening encryption for national security reasons, which ultimately created a security vulnerability that could be exploited by hackers [34968, 34521]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in the articles was primarily due to non-human actions. The incident was caused by a security flaw known as the "FREAK attack," which stemmed from an old government policy that required US software makers to use weaker security in encryption programs sold overseas [34968, 34521]. This policy led to the proliferation of weaker encryption software that was eventually integrated into widely used software, making millions of websites vulnerable to hacking without direct human involvement in introducing the flaw.
(b) However, human actions also played a role in exacerbating the situation. The article mentions that top U.S. officials have called for technology companies to provide "doors" into systems to aid surveillance efforts, which could potentially weaken security and create unintended consequences that hackers can exploit [34521]. Additionally, the article highlights the danger of government policies that require any weakening of encryption code, as they could inadvertently provide access to hackers [34968]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident related to the "FREAK attack" vulnerability was primarily due to contributing factors that originated in hardware. The vulnerability stemmed from an old government policy that required US software makers to use weaker security in encryption programs sold overseas due to national security concerns. This weaker encryption got baked into widely used software and hardware, making millions of Apple and Google devices vulnerable to hacking [34968, 34521].
(b) The software failure incident was also due to contributing factors that originated in software. The vulnerability allowed hackers to exploit the weaker encryption implemented in software, making it easier for them to break the encryption that's supposed to prevent digital eavesdropping. Software updates were required to fix the "FREAK attack" flaw in Apple and Google devices, indicating a software-related issue [34968, 34521]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
malicious, non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident related to the FREAK attack can be categorized as a malicious failure. The incident was caused by a security flaw known as the FREAK attack, which left millions of people vulnerable to hackers while surfing the web on Apple and Google devices [34968]. The vulnerability was a result of an old government policy that required US software makers to use weaker security in encryption programs sold overseas, which could be exploited by hackers to break encryption and steal sensitive information [34968]. The incident was not accidental but rather a deliberate exploitation of the weakness in the encryption protocols.
(b) The software failure incident can also be categorized as a non-malicious failure. The weakness in encryption protocols that led to the FREAK attack was a result of outdated government policies that required the use of weaker encryption, which inadvertently made its way back into widely used software without being noticed until the discovery of the vulnerability [34521]. The incident highlights the unintended consequences of past decisions and the dangers of using outdated encryption standards, rather than a deliberate attempt to harm the system. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions, accidental_decisions |
(a) The software failure incident related to the FREAK attack can be attributed to poor decisions made in the past by the U.S. government. The incident stemmed from an old government policy that required U.S. software makers to use weaker security in encryption programs sold overseas due to national security concerns. This policy, which was abandoned over a decade ago, led to the proliferation of weaker encryption software that eventually made its way back into the United States, leaving millions of users vulnerable to hacking [34968, 34521].
(b) Additionally, the incident can also be seen as a result of accidental decisions or unintended consequences. The export-grade encryption with 512 bits, which was considered weak and outdated, resurfaced in widely used software due to the past government restrictions on encryption strength. Researchers were surprised to find that this weaker encryption was still being used and could be exploited by hackers, highlighting the unintended consequences of past decisions [34968, 34521]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, accidental |
(a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence is evident in the articles. The vulnerability known as the "FREAK attack" was caused by an old government policy that required US software makers to use weaker security in encryption programs sold overseas. This policy, which was abandoned over a decade ago, led to the continued acceptance of weaker software by popular websites and internet browsers, making it easier for hackers to break encryption [34968, 34521].
(b) The software failure incident related to accidental factors is also highlighted in the articles. The flaw resulting from the export-grade encryption was unintentionally introduced due to former US government policies that restricted the export of strong encryption, leading to the proliferation of weaker encryption in widely used software. This weaker encryption went unnoticed until it was discovered by researchers recently, showcasing the unintended consequences of such policies [34968, 34521]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident related to the FREAK attack vulnerability can be considered as a temporary failure. This vulnerability was caused by the continued acceptance of weaker encryption software due to an old government policy that required US software makers to use weaker security in encryption programs sold overseas [34968, 34521]. The vulnerability was not a permanent failure but rather a result of specific circumstances, such as the outdated policy and the use of weaker encryption, which allowed for the exploitation of the flaw. The incident was temporary in the sense that it was not a fundamental flaw in the software itself but rather a consequence of historical decisions and practices that were later identified and addressed through software updates and corrective actions taken by companies and website operators [34968, 34521]. |
| Behaviour |
omission, value, other |
(a) crash: The articles do not mention any instances of a crash where the system loses state and does not perform any of its intended functions.
(b) omission: The software failure incident related to the FREAK attack can be categorized under omission. The vulnerability allowed hackers to exploit weaker encryption, leading to the omission of the system to perform its intended function of securely encrypting sensitive information [34968, 34521].
(c) timing: The articles do not mention any instances of the system performing its intended functions correctly but too late or too early.
(d) value: The software failure incident can be categorized under the value behavior as the system performed its intended functions incorrectly by using weaker encryption, making it vulnerable to attacks [34968, 34521].
(e) byzantine: The articles do not mention any instances of the system behaving erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions.
(f) other: The other behavior exhibited by the software failure incident is the exploitation of an old government policy that required the use of weaker encryption, leading to a security flaw that left users vulnerable to hacking [34968, 34521]. |