Incident: Smart Toy Bear Security Flaw Exposed Child Data Vulnerability

Published Date: 2016-02-02

Postmortem Analysis
Timeline 1. The software failure incident with the Fisher-Price Smart Toy bear happened in September [40738]. Estimation: Step 1: The article mentions that the incident happened in September. Step 2: The article was published on 2016-02-02. Step 3: The incident occurred in September 2015.
System 1. Fisher-Price WiFi-connected Smart Toy Bear [40738]
Responsible Organization 1. The security flaws in the Fisher-Price Smart Toy were caused by the app connected to the toy, which had vulnerabilities allowing hackers to steal personal data [40738].
Impacted Organization 1. Children using the Fisher-Price Smart Toy [40738] 2. Parents who interact with the Smart Toy app [40738]
Software Causes 1. Security flaws in the app connected to the Fisher-Price Smart Toy allowed hackers to steal personal data such as a child's name, birthdate, and gender [40738].
Non-software Causes 1. Lack of thorough security testing during the development process [40738] 2. Insufficient consideration of potential vulnerabilities in the communication between the app and servers [40738]
Impacts 1. The software failure incident with the Fisher-Price Smart Toy bear allowed hackers to potentially steal a child's name, birthdate, gender, and other data, impacting the privacy and security of the children using the toy [40738]. 2. The incident highlighted the vulnerability of consumers, especially children, as more smart devices and toys are connected to the internet, emphasizing the importance of robust security measures in such products [40738]. 3. Although there is no evidence of attackers exploiting the flaws in the wild, the potential impact could have been used in phishing attacks to gather more information about a target's family, leveraging the stolen data from the toy [40738].
Preventions 1. Conducting thorough security testing and vulnerability assessments during the development phase of the software [40738]. 2. Implementing secure coding practices to prevent common security flaws in the software [40738]. 3. Regularly updating and patching the software to address any identified security vulnerabilities [40738]. 4. Ensuring proper encryption and secure communication protocols are in place for data transmission between the app and servers [40738]. 5. Providing security awareness training for developers to enhance their understanding of potential security risks and how to mitigate them [40738].
Fixes 1. Fisher-Price fixed the security vulnerability in the Smart Toy Bear app after it was identified by Rapid7 [40738]. 2. Implementing more rigorous security testing and protocols during the development phase to identify and address potential security flaws before the product is released [40738]. 3. Conducting regular security audits and assessments on the app and its connected systems to proactively identify and mitigate any new security vulnerabilities that may arise [40738]. 4. Enhancing communication and collaboration between the app developers and security experts to ensure that security considerations are integrated into the app design and implementation process from the beginning [40738].
References 1. Rapid7, a Boston-based security company [40738]

Software Taxonomy of Faults

Category Option Rationale
Recurring one_organization, multiple_organization (a) The software failure incident related to security flaws in connected toys has happened again within the same organization. Fisher-Price, a brand under Mattel, had previously faced a similar issue with their WiFi-connected Smart Toy Bear. Researchers at Rapid7 discovered security flaws in the app connected to the toy, allowing hackers to access sensitive information. Fisher-Price has since fixed the issue and emphasized their commitment to consumer safety and data protection [40738]. (b) The incident also highlights a broader trend of vulnerabilities in smart devices as consumers increasingly bring more of their possessions online. Rapid7's findings on the Fisher-Price toy's security flaws serve as a reminder of the risks associated with connected devices, including toys. The article mentions that Rapid7 had previously found security flaws in a baby monitor and that Mattel had announced a smart Barbie, indicating that similar incidents or vulnerabilities have been identified in products from different organizations [40738].
Phase (Design/Operation) design (a) The software failure incident in the Fisher-Price Smart Toy case was related to the design phase. Researchers at Rapid7 identified security flaws in the app connected to the toy, which allowed hackers to steal personal data such as a child's name, birthdate, and gender [40738]. The flaws were attributed to how the app communicated with servers running the system, indicating a design flaw in the system development process. (b) The articles do not provide specific information about the software failure incident being related to the operation phase or misuse of the system.
Boundary (Internal/External) within_system (a) within_system: The software failure incident in the Fisher-Price Smart Toy case was primarily due to security flaws within the system. Researchers at Rapid7 identified several security flaws in the app connected to the toy that could allow hackers to steal personal data such as a child's name, birthdate, and gender [40738]. The flaws were related to how the app communicated with servers running the system, indicating internal vulnerabilities within the software itself. Fisher-Price acknowledged the security vulnerability and took steps to remediate the situation, emphasizing the importance of consumer data safety [40738].
Nature (Human/Non-human) non-human_actions, human_actions (a) The software failure incident in the Fisher-Price Smart Toy case was primarily due to non-human actions, specifically security flaws in the app connected to the toy. Researchers at Rapid7 identified several security flaws that could allow a hacker to steal personal data such as a child's name, birthdate, and gender [40738]. (b) However, human actions were also involved in the resolution of the incident. Fisher-Price acknowledged the security vulnerability and took action to remediate the situation promptly. They stated that they have fixed the issue and emphasized their commitment to consumer safety and data protection [40738].
Dimension (Hardware/Software) software (a) The software failure incident related to hardware: - The article mentions that researchers at Rapid7 found security flaws in the app connected to the Fisher-Price toy, indicating that the failure originated in the software aspect rather than hardware [40738]. (b) The software failure incident related to software: - The software failure incident in this case was due to security flaws in the app that communicated with servers running the system, highlighting a software-related issue [40738].
Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) non-malicious (a) The software failure incident in this case was non-malicious. The security flaws found in the Fisher-Price Smart Toy Bear were not intentionally introduced to harm the system. Researchers at Rapid7 discovered the security vulnerabilities in the app connected to the toy, which could potentially allow hackers to steal personal data such as a child's name, birthdate, and gender [40738]. Fisher-Price promptly addressed the issue and fixed the security flaws to ensure the safety and privacy of their consumers' data.
Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) poor_decisions (a) The software failure incident related to the Fisher-Price Smart Toy can be attributed to poor decisions made in the development and implementation of the app connected to the toy. The security flaws that allowed hackers to potentially steal sensitive information like a child's name, birthdate, and gender were identified by researchers at Rapid7, indicating that there were vulnerabilities introduced due to poor decisions in the software design and development process [40738]. Additionally, the article mentions that these flaws were the kind that a more experienced internet company like Google or Microsoft would likely not have missed, further highlighting the poor decisions made in ensuring the security of the software [40738].
Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) development_incompetence, accidental (a) The software failure incident in the Fisher-Price Smart Toy case was related to development incompetence. Researchers at Rapid7 identified security flaws in the app connected to the toy, which could allow hackers to steal personal data of children using the toy [40738]. Rapid7 mentioned that these flaws were the kind that a more experienced internet company would not have missed, indicating a lack of professional competence in the development process. (b) The software failure incident was also accidental in nature. Fisher-Price acknowledged the security vulnerability in their Smart Toy Bear and took immediate action to remediate the situation. They stated that they had no reason to believe that customer information was accessed by any unauthorized person, indicating that the incident was not intentional but rather a result of unintentional security flaws [40738].
Duration temporary The software failure incident related to the Fisher-Price Smart Toy bear can be categorized as a temporary failure. The incident involved security flaws in the app connected to the toy that allowed hackers to potentially steal personal data of children. However, Fisher-Price promptly remediated the situation by fixing the security vulnerability, as mentioned in the article [40738]. This indicates that the failure was temporary and not permanent, as the issue was resolved by the company.
Behaviour other (a) crash: The software failure incident in the Fisher-Price Smart Toy case did not involve a crash where the system lost state and did not perform any of its intended functions. The issue was related to security flaws in the app connected to the toy, which could potentially lead to data theft [40738]. (b) omission: The incident did not involve a failure due to the system omitting to perform its intended functions at an instance(s). The primary concern was the security vulnerabilities that could allow a hacker to steal personal data, rather than the system failing to perform its functions [40738]. (c) timing: The failure was not related to the system performing its intended functions too late or too early. The focus was on the security flaws in the communication between the app and servers, rather than timing issues [40738]. (d) value: The software failure incident did not involve the system performing its intended functions incorrectly in terms of the expected output or results. The issue was primarily related to security vulnerabilities that could lead to data theft, rather than incorrect functionality [40738]. (e) byzantine: The incident did not exhibit a byzantine behavior where the system behaved erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. The main concern was the security flaws that could potentially allow unauthorized access to personal data, rather than erratic behavior of the system [40738]. (f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident in the Fisher-Price Smart Toy case can be categorized as a security vulnerability leading to potential data theft. The flaw was related to how the app communicated with servers, highlighting the importance of robust security measures in IoT devices like smart toys [40738].

IoT System Layer

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

Other Details

Category Option Rationale
Consequence property, theoretical_consequence (d) property: People's material goods, money, or data was impacted due to the software failure The software failure incident involving the Fisher-Price Smart Toy bear had the consequence of potentially exposing sensitive data of children, including their names, birthdates, and gender, to hackers due to security flaws in the app connected to the toy [40738]. The security vulnerabilities discovered by Rapid7 could have allowed hackers to steal personal information, highlighting the impact on people's data security and privacy as a result of the software failure. Fisher-Price took action to address the issue and stated that they had no reason to believe customer information was accessed by unauthorized individuals.
Domain information, manufacturing, entertainment (a) The failed system in the article was related to the production and distribution of information. The Smart Toy by Fisher-Price, which had security flaws allowing hackers to steal personal data, was a product intended to interact with children and collect information such as their names and birthdates [40738].

Sources

Back to List