| Recurring |
multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to PoisonTap created by hacker Samy Kamkar is a unique and novel attack that exploits design flaws in operating systems and web browsers, making it difficult to protect against. This incident does not specifically mention any previous occurrences within the same organization or with its products and services. Therefore, there is no indication of a similar incident happening again at one specific organization [49727].
(b) The PoisonTap attack, as described by Samy Kamkar, is a new and sophisticated method that targets a wide range of computers by exploiting vulnerabilities in operating systems and web browsers. While the incident does not mention specific instances of similar attacks happening at other organizations, the nature of the attack suggests that it could potentially be replicated or adapted by hackers targeting multiple organizations. However, there is no direct mention of the incident happening again at multiple organizations in the articles [49727]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article is related to the design phase. The incident involving PoisonTap is a result of a series of design issues present in virtually every operating system and web browser, rather than exploiting a glaring security flaw in a single piece of software [49727]. Samy Kamkar's PoisonTap takes advantage of subtle design oversights to create a backdoor access by hiding malicious code in the victim's browser cache, making it difficult to detect [49727].
(b) The software failure incident is also related to the operation phase. PoisonTap's attack is executed through a series of operations that involve physical access to a computer, where the malicious USB device impersonates a new ethernet connection and manipulates the victim's browser to share cookie data, allowing access to the user's accounts on various sites [49727]. The attack continues to exploit the victim's browser without detection even after the hacker has removed PoisonTap, showcasing the operational impact of the incident [49727]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article is within_system. The failure occurred due to a series of design issues and vulnerabilities present within virtually every operating system and web browser, rather than a clear bug in a single piece of software [49727]. The attack by PoisonTap exploited subtle design flaws and oversights in software security, allowing the attacker to gain access to the victim's online accounts, corporate intranet sites, or router [49727]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is primarily due to non-human actions. The incident involves a proof-of-concept device called PoisonTap, which is a tiny USB dongle that, when plugged into a computer's USB drive, impersonates a new ethernet connection and manipulates the computer's network traffic and browser cache to create backdoor access for potential attackers [49727]. This attack is achieved through a series of design issues present in operating systems and web browsers, rather than exploiting a specific software flaw [49727].
(b) While the software failure incident is mainly attributed to non-human actions, human actions play a role in the context of physical access to the targeted computer. The attacker needs momentary physical access to the computer to plug in the PoisonTap device, which then carries out the attack autonomously [49727]. Additionally, the article mentions that one of the suggested defenses against such attacks is to avoid leaving laptops and computers unattended, highlighting the importance of human actions in preventing such security breaches [49727]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article is related to hardware. The incident involves a proof-of-concept device called PoisonTap, which is a tiny USB dongle that, when plugged into a computer's USB drive, impersonates a new ethernet connection and manipulates the computer's network connection. This hardware device exploits design issues in operating systems and web browsers, rather than exploiting a clear software bug [49727].
(b) The software failure incident is also related to software. Although the attack is executed through a hardware device (PoisonTap), the attack itself takes advantage of subtle design issues in software systems, such as browsers and operating systems. The attack does not rely on a clear software bug but rather on a series of software security oversights that together create a significant threat [49727]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
malicious |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article is malicious in nature. The incident involves a proof-of-concept device called PoisonTap created by hacker Samy Kamkar. PoisonTap is designed to exploit vulnerabilities in operating systems and web browsers by installing web-based backdoors through a series of subtle design issues. The device, when plugged into a computer's USB drive, impersonates a new ethernet connection and tricks the victim's computer into prioritizing its network connection over the Wifi network. This allows the attacker to gain access to the victim's online accounts, corporate intranet sites, or even their router. The attack involves stealing cookies, cache poisoning, and creating persistent backdoors in the victim's browser, enabling the hacker to continue exploiting the system even after the device is removed [49727].
(b) The software failure incident is non-malicious in the sense that it does not involve a clear bug in a single piece of software but rather exploits a chain of seemingly innocuous software security oversights that together create a significant threat. The attack does not rely on a specific software vulnerability but rather manipulates the design and behavior of various components in the system to achieve unauthorized access. The incident highlights the vulnerability of locked computers and the importance of physical security measures to protect against such attacks [49727]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
unknown |
(a) The intent of the software failure incident related to poor_decisions:
The software failure incident described in the article was not due to poor decisions but rather a deliberate creation by a hacker, Samy Kamkar, to demonstrate the vulnerability of computers even when they are locked. Kamkar's intent with PoisonTap was not to make it easier for intruders to install backdoors on corporate networks but to highlight the vulnerability of locked computers and the need for better security measures [49727].
(b) The intent of the software failure incident related to accidental_decisions:
The software failure incident was not accidental but a deliberate creation by Samy Kamkar to exploit vulnerabilities in operating systems and web browsers. Kamkar's creation of PoisonTap was a calculated effort to demonstrate the security risks associated with leaving computers unattended, rather than an accidental decision or mistake [49727]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
accidental |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is not related to development incompetence. It is a sophisticated attack created by a skilled hacker, Samy Kamkar, who exploited subtle design issues present in operating systems and web browsers to create a backdoor tool called PoisonTap [49727].
(b) The software failure incident in the article is accidental in the sense that it leverages a series of seemingly innocuous software security oversights that, when combined, result in a significant threat. The attack is not based on a clear bug in a single piece of software but rather on a chain of weaknesses that together create a backdoor access [49727]. |
| Duration |
permanent, temporary |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article is more aligned with a permanent failure. The PoisonTap device created by Samy Kamkar introduces a set of web-based backdoors that can allow an attacker to gain access to a victim's online accounts, corporate intranet sites, or even their router. This attack is not based on a single glaring security flaw but rather a series of subtle design issues present in virtually every operating system and web browser, making it a persistent threat that is hard to protect against [49727].
(b) On the other hand, the software failure incident can also be considered temporary in a sense that the attack is initiated by physically plugging in the PoisonTap device into a computer's USB drive. The attack relies on manipulating the victim's browser cache and creating backdoors through a series of techniques that persist even after the device is unplugged. However, the attack requires physical access to the machine to be successful, indicating that the failure is temporary in the sense that it is dependent on the specific circumstance of physical access [49727]. |
| Behaviour |
other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident described in the article does not involve a crash where the system loses state and stops performing its intended functions. Instead, the incident involves a methodical exploitation of design flaws to create a backdoor access to the victim's system [49727].
(b) omission: The software failure incident does not involve the system omitting to perform its intended functions at an instance(s). Instead, the incident revolves around exploiting subtle design issues to gain unauthorized access to the victim's online accounts and network [49727].
(c) timing: The software failure incident is not related to the system performing its intended functions correctly but too late or too early. The incident focuses on the manipulation of network traffic and browser behavior to plant backdoors and steal cookie data [49727].
(d) value: The software failure incident does not involve the system performing its intended functions incorrectly. Instead, the incident is about exploiting vulnerabilities in the system's design to gain unauthorized access and control over the victim's network and accounts [49727].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not exhibit the characteristics of a byzantine failure where the system behaves erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. The incident is more about exploiting a series of design oversights to establish persistent backdoor access to the victim's system [49727].
(f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident can be categorized as a stealthy exploitation of design flaws to create a persistent backdoor access to the victim's system. This behavior falls under the category of a sophisticated cyber attack leveraging physical access to the target machine and exploiting subtle design issues in operating systems and web browsers [49727]. |