| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to brain wallets being vulnerable to hacking has happened before within the same organization or with its products and services. The article mentions that there have been plenty of reported incidents of actual brain wallet thefts, indicating that the vulnerability of brain wallets has been exploited multiple times [37997].
(b) The software failure incident related to brain wallets being vulnerable to hacking has also happened at multiple organizations or with their products and services. The article discusses how the hacker Ryan Castellucci plans to release Brainflayer, a software designed to crack bitcoin brain wallets, as a public demonstration of the insecurity of brain wallets. This indicates that the vulnerability of brain wallets is not limited to a specific organization but is a widespread issue affecting multiple users and organizations [37997]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident related to the design phase can be seen in the case of brain wallets for storing bitcoins. The vulnerability of brain wallets was highlighted by the development of software called Brainflayer by security researcher Ryan Castellucci. The software was designed to crack bitcoin brain wallets and demonstrate the insecurity of relying on passphrases stored in the user's mind [37997].
(b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase can be observed in the reported incidents of actual brain wallet thefts. Users who thought they had chosen strong passphrases for their brain wallets were shocked to find that their wallets were guessed and their bitcoins stolen. This failure was due to the operation or misuse of the brain wallets by users who did not adequately protect their passphrases [37997]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident related to brain wallets being cracked by the Brainflayer software can be categorized as a within_system failure. The vulnerability of brain wallets was due to the inherent weakness in the way users chose their passphrases, which were then converted into private keys for bitcoin addresses. The software, Brainflayer, was specifically designed to exploit this weakness by guessing passphrases and extracting digital cash stored in brain wallets [37997]. This failure originated from within the system itself, highlighting the flaw in the design and implementation of brain wallets.
(b) outside_system: The software failure incident of brain wallets being cracked by the Brainflayer software does not have contributing factors that originate from outside the system. The vulnerability and subsequent exploitation were primarily due to the internal design and security issues of brain wallets, rather than external factors beyond the control of the system [37997]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident related to non-human actions in this case is the vulnerability of brain wallets in the Bitcoin ecosystem. The vulnerability arises from the fact that humans tend to choose weak and easily guessable passphrases for their brain wallets, making them susceptible to hacking attempts by automated software like Brainflayer [37997].
(b) On the other hand, the software failure incident related to human actions is the choice of weak and insecure passphrases by Bitcoin users for their brain wallets. Despite warnings about the insecurity of brain wallets and the importance of choosing strong passphrases, some users still opt for easily guessable phrases, leading to potential theft of their cryptocurrency [37997]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The software failure incident related to hardware:
- The article discusses a software tool called Brainflayer designed by security researcher Ryan Castellucci to crack bitcoin brain wallets and extract digital cash stored in them [37997].
- While the focus is on the vulnerability of brain wallets and the weakness of passphrases chosen by users, the tool itself, Brainflayer, is a software program that runs on computers to crack these wallets.
- The software tool, Brainflayer, is not a hardware component but a software application that leverages computational power to crack the brain wallets by guessing passphrases.
(b) The software failure incident related to software:
- The failure in this context is not due to issues originating in the software itself but rather in the vulnerability of brain wallets and the weakness of passphrases chosen by users.
- The software tool, Brainflayer, is not malfunctioning or failing but is actually performing its intended function of cracking brain wallets due to the inherent insecurity of the chosen passphrases.
- The failure is more related to the human factor of choosing weak passphrases rather than a failure within the software tool itself. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
malicious |
(a) The software failure incident described in the articles is malicious in nature. The failure was caused by a hacker releasing software called Brainflayer specifically designed to crack bitcoin brain wallets and steal digital cash stored in them [37997]. The software was created with the intention of demonstrating the insecurity of brain wallets and warning users to move their bitcoins to safer storage methods. The hacker behind Brainflayer developed the program to prove that even supposedly secure brain wallets can be hacked, highlighting the vulnerability of such storage methods to malicious attacks. The incident involved the deliberate exploitation of weaknesses in human-chosen passphrases to gain unauthorized access to cryptocurrency stored in brain wallets, showcasing a malicious intent to harm the system and steal digital assets. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions, accidental_decisions |
(a) The intent of the software failure incident related to poor decisions can be seen in the article where it discusses the vulnerability of brain wallets for storing bitcoins. Despite the known security issues with brain wallets, some users still choose to use them due to the appeal of having a key stored in their head. The software Brainflayer was created by Ryan Castellucci to demonstrate the insecurity of brain wallets and to warn users to move their bitcoins to safer storage methods [37997].
(b) The intent of the software failure incident related to accidental decisions is evident in the article where it mentions that users often do not choose strong, random passphrases for their brain wallets. This unintentional decision by users to select weak passphrases makes it easier for hackers to crack the wallets and steal the digital cash stored in them. Additionally, the article highlights a specific victim who used a passphrase from an obscure poem in Afrikaans and was shocked to find that it was guessed, indicating an accidental decision that led to the theft of their bitcoins [37997]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, unknown |
(a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence is evident in the article where it discusses the vulnerability of brain wallets in the Bitcoin ecosystem. The article highlights how the concept of brain wallets, which allow users to store cryptocurrency by simply remembering a passphrase, is inherently flawed due to human incompetence in choosing strong and random passphrases. The software Brainflayer, developed by security researcher Ryan Castellucci, aims to demonstrate the insecurity of brain wallets and warn users to move their bitcoins to more secure storage methods [37997].
(b) The software failure incident related to accidental factors is not explicitly mentioned in the provided article. |
| Duration |
permanent |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article is more of a permanent nature. The brain wallet cracking software Brainflayer, developed by security researcher Ryan Castellucci, is designed to demonstrate the insecurity of brain wallets and serve as a warning to users to move their bitcoins to safer storage methods [37997]. The software is meant to prove undeniably that brain wallets are not safe and can be cracked by hackers, highlighting the inherent vulnerability of storing cryptocurrency in this manner. Castellucci's intention is to put an end to the practice of using brain wallets by showing how easily they can be compromised, indicating a permanent failure in the security of brain wallets. |
| Behaviour |
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. Instead, the failure is related to the vulnerability of brain wallets and the ability of hackers to crack them to steal digital cash stored in them [37997].
(b) omission: The failure is not due to the system omitting to perform its intended functions at an instance(s). It is more about the insecurity of brain wallets and the weakness of human-chosen passphrases that can be easily guessed by hackers [37997].
(c) timing: The failure is not related to the system performing its intended functions correctly but too late or too early. It is more about the vulnerability of brain wallets and the ease with which hackers can crack them due to weak passphrases chosen by users [37997].
(d) value: The failure is not due to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly. It is more about the security flaw in brain wallets that allows hackers to guess passphrases and steal digital cash stored in them [37997].
(e) byzantine: The failure is not related to the system behaving erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. It is more about the insecurity of brain wallets and the ability of hackers to crack them to steal digital cash stored in them [37997].
(f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident described in the article can be categorized as a security vulnerability exploit. The incident highlights the risk associated with using brain wallets and the ease with which hackers can crack them to steal cryptocurrency due to weak passphrases chosen by users [37997]. |