Incident: Firefox 16 Security Vulnerability: Immediate Patch Released by Mozilla

Published Date: 2012-10-11

Postmortem Analysis
Timeline 1. The software failure incident of Firefox 16 being pulled off Mozilla's installer page to fix a vulnerability happened on the day before the article was published [Article 15177]. 2. Published on: 2012-10-11 3. The software failure incident of Firefox 16 occurred on October 10, 2012.
System 1. Firefox 16 [15177]
Responsible Organization 1. Security researcher Gareth Heyes disclosed the vulnerability that led to the software failure incident [15177].
Impacted Organization 1. Users who had upgraded to Firefox 16 were impacted by the software failure incident as they were exposed to a vulnerability that could allow a malicious site to identify their browsing history [15177].
Software Causes 1. The software cause of the failure incident was a vulnerability in Firefox 16 that allowed a malicious site to identify which websites a user had visited, as disclosed by security researcher Gareth Heyes [15177].
Non-software Causes 1. The security flaw was publicly disclosed by a security researcher, Gareth Heyes, who published proof-of-concept code to demonstrate the vulnerability [Article 15177]. 2. Mozilla's security researcher 'moz_bug_r_a4' reported a regression where security wrappers are unwrapped without doing a security check in defaultValue(), leading to improper access to the Location object [Article 15177].
Impacts 1. Users who had upgraded to Firefox 16 were at risk of having their browsing history exposed to malicious sites due to the security flaw [15177]. 2. Mozilla had to pull Firefox 16 from its installer page just one day after release to address the vulnerability, causing inconvenience to users who had already upgraded [15177]. 3. Users were recommended to downgrade to version 15.0.1 to mitigate the security risk posed by the flaw in Firefox 16 [15177]. 4. Mozilla had to release a new version, Firefox 16.0.1, to fix the vulnerability and push it to users who had downloaded the flawed version [15177]. 5. The security flaw was rated as critical by Mozilla, indicating the severity of the issue [15177].
Preventions 1. Conducting thorough security testing before releasing the software could have prevented the vulnerability that led to the software failure incident [Article 15177]. 2. Implementing proper security checks in the code, such as ensuring security wrappers are not unwrapped without a security check, could have prevented the flaw that was exploited [Article 15177]. 3. Regularly monitoring and addressing security vulnerabilities reported by researchers or discovered internally could help prevent such incidents in the future [Article 15177].
Fixes 1. Releasing a new version of the software (Firefox) to address the security flaw [15177]. 2. Providing detailed information about the nature of the flaw to users and security researchers [15177]. 3. Recommending users who had upgraded to the flawed version to downgrade to a previous version deemed unaffected [15177]. 4. Pushing the new fixed version (Firefox 16.0.1) to users through upgrade servers [15177].
References 1. Security researcher Gareth Heyes [Article 15177] 2. Mozilla's director of Security Assurance, Michael Coates [Article 15177] 3. Mozilla's advisory [Article 15177]

Software Taxonomy of Faults

Category Option Rationale
Recurring one_organization (a) In the provided article [15177], it is mentioned that Mozilla had to release a new version of Firefox (version 16.0.1) just one day after the initial release of Firefox 16. This was due to a security flaw that could allow a malicious site to identify which websites a user had visited. This incident indicates a software failure within the same organization, Mozilla, where a security vulnerability was discovered shortly after a new version was released. (b) There is no information in the provided article [15177] about a similar incident happening at other organizations or with their products and services.
Phase (Design/Operation) design (a) The software failure incident in the article is related to the design phase. The incident occurred due to a vulnerability in Firefox 16 that allowed a malicious site to identify which websites a user had visited. This vulnerability was a result of a regression where security wrappers were unwrapped without doing a security check in defaultValue(), potentially allowing for improper access to the Location object and even arbitrary code execution in earlier versions [15177]. This indicates that the flaw was introduced during the development phase of the software. (b) There is no specific information in the article indicating that the software failure incident was due to factors introduced by the operation or misuse of the system.
Boundary (Internal/External) within_system (a) within_system: The software failure incident in this case was within the system. The vulnerability in Firefox 16 was due to a regression where security wrappers were unwrapped without doing a security check in defaultValue(), allowing for improper access to the Location object. This flaw was present within the software itself, leading to the potential for arbitrary code execution [15177].
Nature (Human/Non-human) non-human_actions (a) The software failure incident in Article 15177 was primarily due to non-human actions. The failure was caused by a vulnerability in Firefox 16 that allowed a malicious site to identify which websites a user had visited. This vulnerability was disclosed by a security researcher, Gareth Heyes, who published proof-of-concept code to demonstrate the flaw. Mozilla quickly responded by pulling Firefox 16 from their installer page to address the security issue and released a new version, Firefox 16.0.1, to fix the vulnerability [15177].
Dimension (Hardware/Software) software (a) The software failure incident in Article 15177 was not attributed to hardware issues. The incident was related to a security flaw in the Firefox browser software that allowed a malicious site to identify which websites a user had visited. The flaw was due to a regression in the software where security wrappers were unwrapped without proper security checks, leading to potential improper access to the Location object and the possibility of arbitrary code execution. This indicates that the contributing factors for the failure originated in the software itself [15177].
Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) malicious (a) The software failure incident in Article 15177 was malicious in nature. The vulnerability in Firefox 16 was identified by a security researcher, Gareth Heyes, who published proof-of-concept code to demonstrate the vulnerability. This indicates that the flaw was intentionally discovered and disclosed by a third party with the potential to harm users by allowing a malicious site to identify which websites a user had visited. Additionally, the flaw was rated as critical by Mozilla, further emphasizing the severity of the issue [15177].
Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) poor_decisions (a) The software failure incident in Article 15177 was related to poor_decisions. Mozilla released Firefox 16 with a vulnerability that could allow a malicious site to identify which websites a user had visited. This flaw was publicly disclosed by a security researcher, and Mozilla had to pull the version off its installer page to address the security issue. The incident was a result of a regression where security wrappers were unwrapped without doing a security check, potentially leading to improper access to the Location object and even arbitrary code execution in earlier versions [15177].
Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) development_incompetence (a) The software failure incident in Article #15177 was related to a security flaw in Firefox 16 that was caused by a regression where security wrappers were unwrapped without doing a security check in defaultValue(). This vulnerability allowed for improper access to the Location object and had the potential for arbitrary code execution. This indicates a failure due to contributing factors introduced due to a lack of professional competence in handling security aspects during the development process [15177]. (b) The incident in Article #15177 was not explicitly mentioned to be accidental. The security flaw in Firefox 16 was publicly disclosed by a security researcher, Gareth Heyes, who published proof-of-concept code to demonstrate the vulnerability. This indicates that the flaw was not accidental but rather a result of a specific vulnerability that was identified and exploited by a researcher [15177].
Duration temporary (a) The software failure incident in this case was temporary. Firefox 16 was pulled off Mozilla's installer page just one day after its release to fix a vulnerability that could have allowed a malicious site to identify which websites a user had visited. The flaw was publicly disclosed by a security researcher, and Mozilla recommended users to downgrade to a previous version until the issue was fixed. The new version, Firefox 16.0.1, was released the next day to address the vulnerability [15177].
Behaviour value (a) crash: The software failure incident in Article 15177 did not involve a crash where the system loses state and does not perform any of its intended functions. Instead, it was related to a security flaw that could have allowed a malicious site to identify which websites a user had visited, prompting Mozilla to pull the Firefox 16 version and release a fix [15177]. (b) omission: The incident did not involve a failure due to the system omitting to perform its intended functions at an instance(s). The issue was related to a security vulnerability rather than the system failing to perform its functions [15177]. (c) timing: The failure was not related to the system performing its intended functions correctly but too late or too early. It was a security flaw that needed immediate attention, leading to the quick release of a fixed version by Mozilla [15177]. (d) value: The software failure incident was due to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly. Specifically, the vulnerability allowed for improper access to the Location object and had the potential for arbitrary code execution, which was deemed critical by Mozilla [15177]. (e) byzantine: The incident did not involve the system behaving erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions, which would fall under the byzantine behavior category. The focus was on addressing a specific security vulnerability rather than dealing with inconsistent system responses [15177]. (f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident in Article 15177 can be categorized as a security vulnerability leading to potential arbitrary code execution and improper access to the Location object. The flaw was disclosed by a security researcher and required immediate action from Mozilla to release a fixed version [15177].

IoT System Layer

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

Other Details

Category Option Rationale
Consequence property, delay, non-human, theoretical_consequence (a) death: People lost their lives due to the software failure - There is no mention of any deaths resulting from the software failure incident in the provided article [15177]. (b) harm: People were physically harmed due to the software failure - There is no mention of any physical harm to individuals due to the software failure incident in the provided article [15177]. (c) basic: People's access to food or shelter was impacted because of the software failure - There is no mention of people's access to food or shelter being impacted by the software failure incident in the provided article [15177]. (d) property: People's material goods, money, or data was impacted due to the software failure - The software failure incident led to a vulnerability that could have allowed a malicious site to identify which websites a user had visited, potentially compromising their privacy [15177]. (e) delay: People had to postpone an activity due to the software failure - Users who had upgraded to version 16 of Firefox were recommended to downgrade to version 15.0.1 until the vulnerability was fixed, which could have caused a delay in their browsing activities [15177]. (f) non-human: Non-human entities were impacted due to the software failure - The software failure incident affected the security of the Firefox web browser, potentially exposing users to privacy risks [15177]. (g) no_consequence: There were no real observed consequences of the software failure - The software failure incident resulted in a critical security flaw being identified and promptly addressed by releasing a new version of Firefox to mitigate the vulnerability [15177]. (h) theoretical_consequence: There were potential consequences discussed of the software failure that did not occur - The article mentions that there was no evidence of the vulnerability being exploited in the wild, indicating that the potential consequences of the flaw being actively used for malicious purposes did not materialize [15177]. (i) other: Was there consequence(s) of the software failure not described in the (a to h) options? What is the other consequence(s)? - There are no other specific consequences mentioned in the article beyond the impact on user privacy and the need for users to downgrade or update their browser versions to address the security flaw [15177].
Domain information (a) The failed system in this incident was related to the information industry as it involved a security flaw in the Firefox web browser that could potentially compromise users' browsing history and online activities [15177].

Sources

Back to List