| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident having happened again at one_organization:
The article reports on a software failure incident at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) where hackers from China breached the federal weather network, compromising data vital to disaster planning, aviation, and other crucial uses. This incident involved a cyberattack on NOAA's systems, leading to a breach that affected the agency's operations and data acquisition from satellites [31805].
(b) The software failure incident having happened again at multiple_organization:
The article mentions that the attack on NOAA is part of a spate of cyber-espionage on federal systems, including an attack suspected from Russia that breached unclassified White House computer networks. Additionally, the U.S. Postal Service also experienced a suspected Chinese attack in September that compromised data on 800,000 employees. These incidents indicate a broader trend of cyberattacks targeting multiple organizations [31805]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident related to the design phase can be seen in the article where it mentions that the hack on NOAA occurred due to a breach in a Web server that connects to many NOAA computers. The server had security protections, but the security was likened to leaving a house protected by "just a screen door" [31805]. This indicates that there were vulnerabilities in the design or security measures of the system that allowed the breach to occur.
(b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase is evident in the article where it states that NOAA did not notify the proper authorities when it learned of the attack, and instead, publicly announced that it was doing “unscheduled maintenance” on its network without disclosing the hack [31805]. This failure in the operation or response to the incident contributed to the delay in addressing the breach and notifying the necessary parties. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system, outside_system |
The software failure incident reported in the news articles about the breach of the federal weather network by hackers from China can be categorized as both within_system and outside_system.
(a) within_system: The failure within the system is evident from the security vulnerabilities within NOAA's network that allowed hackers to breach their systems. The article mentions that a Web server connecting to many NOAA computers was hit by the breach, indicating a failure within the system's security measures [31805].
(b) outside_system: The failure also involves contributing factors originating from outside the system, specifically the cyber-attack by hackers from China. The breach was a result of external malicious actors infiltrating NOAA's network, indicating an external factor leading to the failure [31805]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in the NOAA breach was primarily attributed to a cyberattack by hackers from China [31805]. The intrusion occurred in late September, affecting a web server that connects to many NOAA computers. The server had security protections, but the security was likened to leaving a house protected by "just a screen door" [31805]. This breach led to the compromise of data vital to disaster planning, aviation, shipping, and other crucial uses, impacting the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's operations [31805].
(b) Human actions also played a role in the failure incident. Officials criticized NOAA for not notifying the proper authorities when they learned of the attack and for delaying the disclosure of the breach to the public [31805]. Rep. Frank R. Wolf stated that NOAA did not disclose the attack and deliberately misled the American public in its replies, emphasizing that the agency had an obligation to tell the truth [31805]. Additionally, Commerce Department Inspector General Todd Zinser highlighted that NOAA did not comply with the agency policy requiring the notification of security incidents within two days of discovery, indicating a failure in following proper procedures [31805]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to hardware:
- The article does not mention any hardware-related contributing factors to the software failure incident reported in the NOAA hack incident [31805].
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to software:
- The software failure incident in the NOAA hack incident was primarily due to a cyberattack by hackers from China breaching the federal weather network. The intrusion occurred in late September, affecting NOAA's systems and leading to the compromise of data vital to disaster planning, aviation, shipping, and other crucial uses [31805]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
malicious |
(a) The software failure incident reported in the articles was malicious in nature. The incident involved hackers from China breaching the federal weather network, compromising data vital to disaster planning, aviation, shipping, and other crucial uses [31805]. The attack was intentional, with the hackers gaining unauthorized access to NOAA's systems and causing disruptions. Additionally, the attack was attributed to China, as confirmed by Rep. Frank R. Wolf and Commerce Department Inspector General Todd Zinser [31805]. The breach was not disclosed promptly, and there were accusations of NOAA deliberately misleading the public about the incident [31805].
(b) There is no information in the articles to suggest that the software failure incident was non-malicious. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
(a) The software failure incident related to the NOAA hack can be attributed to poor decisions made by the agency. The article highlights that NOAA officials did not notify the proper authorities when they learned of the attack, delayed in notifying about the breach, and even misled the public by stating the network maintenance was unscheduled without mentioning the hack [31805]. Additionally, Commerce Department Inspector General Todd Zinser mentioned that NOAA did not comply with the policy requiring the reporting of security incidents within two days of discovery, which indicates a failure in decision-making processes within the agency. Rep. Frank R. Wolf criticized NOAA for not disclosing the attack and accused them of covering it up, emphasizing the agency's obligation to tell the truth [31805]. These instances point towards poor decisions and lack of transparency in handling the software failure incident. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, accidental |
(a) The software failure incident reported in the articles can be attributed to development incompetence. The breach of the federal weather network by hackers from China was a result of a lack of professional competence in terms of cybersecurity measures. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) failed to properly secure its systems, leading to the intrusion that compromised vital data for disaster planning, aviation, shipping, and other crucial uses [31805].
(b) Additionally, the incident can also be categorized as accidental, as the breach was not detected or disclosed promptly by NOAA officials. The agency did not indicate any problem until weeks after the intrusion occurred, and even then, they did not disclose that their systems were compromised. This delay in notification and lack of transparency can be seen as accidental factors contributing to the software failure incident [31805]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident reported in the articles was temporary. The incident involved a cyberattack on the federal weather network by hackers from China, which breached NOAA's systems in late September [31805]. The breach led to a disruption in services, including the NOAA's National Ice Center website being down for a week in late October, and a two-day outage that affected the accuracy of National Weather Service long-range forecasts [31805]. NOAA confirmed that the incident caused a disruption but stated that all systems were working again and forecasts were accurately delivered to the public [31805]. |
| Behaviour |
crash, omission, timing, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in the NOAA network breach can be categorized as a crash. The breach led to the system losing its state and not performing its intended functions, as hackers breached the federal weather network, forcing cybersecurity teams to seal off vital data without the agency notifying the proper authorities until later [31805].
(b) omission: The incident can also be classified as an omission failure. The NOAA agency did not disclose the attack promptly and deliberately misled the public about the breach, failing to perform its duty to inform the relevant authorities and the public about the security incident [31805].
(c) timing: The timing of the software failure incident can be considered a timing failure. The breach occurred in late September, but NOAA did not acknowledge the issue until later, causing a delay in addressing the breach and potentially affecting the accuracy of weather forecasts and warnings [31805].
(d) value: The incident does not directly align with a value failure, where the system performs its intended functions incorrectly. The focus of the breach was on unauthorized access and potential data compromise rather than the system providing incorrect information [31805].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not exhibit characteristics of a byzantine failure, where the system behaves erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. The breach was a result of a deliberate cyberattack rather than internal system inconsistencies [31805].
(f) other: The other behavior exhibited in this software failure incident is a lack of transparency and accountability. NOAA failed to notify the proper authorities promptly, misled the public about the breach, and did not comply with agency policies regarding reporting security incidents, showcasing a lack of transparency and accountability in handling the breach [31805]. |