| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to IoT security vulnerabilities in smart devices, such as the smart tea kettle, could potentially happen again within the same organization that produces these insecure Internet of Things devices. The article highlights how the smart tea kettle from smarter was vulnerable to hacking due to its lack of security measures, such as a simple default password that cannot be changed. This vulnerability allowed a security expert to remotely take control of the kettle and potentially gain access to the user's home Wi-Fi network, demonstrating the risks associated with such devices [63182].
(b) The software failure incident involving IoT security vulnerabilities in smart devices, like the smart tea kettle, is not limited to a single organization. The article mentions that IoT devices have become increasingly notorious for being easy to hack, indicating that similar incidents could occur with other companies producing insecure Internet of Things devices. The demonstration by the security expert, Jason Hart, highlights the broader issue of weak security measures in IoT devices, making them susceptible to hacking and potentially compromising users' home networks [63182]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident related to the design phase can be seen in the article where it discusses the vulnerability of the smart tea kettle due to poor IoT security measures. The article highlights how the smart tea kettle, a product of system development in the IoT space, can easily be hacked, allowing attackers to gain control not only of the kettle but also potentially the entire home network. This failure is attributed to the design flaws in the IoT device's security features, making it susceptible to unauthorized access and control [63182].
(b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase is evident in the same article when it demonstrates how a hacker can remotely access and control the smart tea kettle by exploiting its weak security measures. The operation failure is caused by the misuse of the system, as the article shows how an attacker can manipulate the kettle's commands and gain access to the home WiFi network, ultimately compromising the entire network's security. This incident highlights the operational risks associated with using insecure IoT devices and the potential consequences of such misuse [63182]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article is primarily within_system. The failure occurred due to vulnerabilities within the smart tea kettle itself and its communication protocols. The article highlights how the smart tea kettle's lack of security features, such as a simple default password that cannot be changed, and clear text communication between the device and the app, contributed to the ease with which the device could be hacked [63182]. These internal system weaknesses allowed an attacker to gain control of the kettle and potentially access the user's home network, demonstrating a failure originating from within the system. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in the article was primarily due to non-human actions. The smart tea kettle's vulnerability to hacking was a result of its inherent security flaws and weaknesses in the Internet of Things (IoT) device itself. The article highlights how the attacker could take control of the smart tea kettle, exploit its simple password, and gain access to the home Wi-Fi network without human intervention. The clear text communication between the kettle and the app also contributed to the vulnerability, emphasizing that the software failure was primarily a result of the device's design and lack of robust security measures [63182].
(b) However, human actions also played a role in exacerbating the software failure incident. For instance, the inability to change the default password on the smart tea kettle was a design flaw introduced by human decision-making. Additionally, the demonstration conducted by Jason Hart from Gemalto Security showcased how a hacker could exploit the device's vulnerabilities, indicating that human actions in designing and implementing the IoT device contributed to the overall failure [63182]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to hardware:
- The article discusses a software failure incident related to a smart tea kettle, which is an Internet of Things (IoT) connected device. The incident highlights how the smart tea kettle's security vulnerabilities can lead to a hacker gaining control of the kettle and potentially accessing the user's home Wi-Fi network. This hardware-related failure is due to the insecure design and implementation of the smart tea kettle's hardware components, making it susceptible to hacking attempts [63182].
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to software:
- The software failure incident in the article is primarily attributed to software vulnerabilities in the smart tea kettle's system. The demonstration by Jason Hart from Gemalto Security shows how the software flaws, such as a simple default password (six zeros) that cannot be changed, allow hackers to remotely access and control the kettle. Additionally, the clear text communication between the kettle and the app poses a software-related security risk, enabling attackers to extract sensitive information like the home Wi-Fi key [63182]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
malicious |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article is malicious in nature. It involves a demonstration by Jason Hart from Gemalto Security where he shows how a smart tea kettle can be hacked, allowing an attacker to take control of the kettle and potentially gain access to the home Wi-Fi network. The attacker could then extract the private Wi-Fi key and use it against the network, demonstrating the vulnerability of the system to malicious actors [63182].
(b) The incident does not involve a non-malicious software failure. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions, accidental_decisions |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article is related to poor_decisions. The incident occurred due to the poor decision of having a smart tea kettle with significant security vulnerabilities. The article highlights how the smart tea kettle's lack of security measures, such as a simple default password that cannot be changed, and clear text communication between the device and the app, led to the vulnerability exploited by the hacker. These poor decisions in the design and implementation of the smart tea kettle's software contributed to the failure incident [63182].
(b) Additionally, the software failure incident can also be attributed to accidental_decisions. The unintentional decisions or oversights in the design and development of the smart tea kettle, such as using a simple default password and clear text communication, were contributing factors to the vulnerability exploited by the hacker. These accidental decisions or mistakes in the software design and implementation led to the security flaw that resulted in the failure incident [63182]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, accidental |
(a) The software failure incident in the article can be attributed to development incompetence. The article highlights how the smart tea kettle's security vulnerabilities allowed a hacker to easily take control of the kettle and subsequently gain access to the home Wi-Fi network. The lack of proper security measures, such as a simple default password that cannot be changed, and clear text communication between the device and the app, demonstrates a lack of professional competence in ensuring robust security measures were implemented [63182].
(b) Additionally, the incident can also be categorized as accidental, as the vulnerabilities in the smart tea kettle's software were not intentionally introduced but rather existed due to oversight or negligence during the development process. The accidental nature of these vulnerabilities led to the exploitation by the hacker, showcasing how unintended flaws in the software can result in significant security breaches [63182]. |
| Duration |
permanent |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article is more aligned with a permanent failure. The vulnerability in the smart tea kettle's software and security design allows for potential long-term consequences, such as unauthorized access to the home Wi-Fi network and subsequent control over other connected devices. The inability to change the default password on the kettle and the clear text communication between the device and the app highlight fundamental flaws that persist unless addressed at the design and implementation level [63182]. |
| Behaviour |
other |
(a) crash: The incident described in the article does not involve a crash where the system loses state and stops performing its intended functions. Instead, it focuses on the security vulnerabilities of a smart tea kettle that can be exploited by hackers [63182].
(b) omission: The software failure incident does not involve the system omitting to perform its intended functions at an instance(s). The focus is on the security implications of the smart tea kettle being hacked rather than the system failing to perform its functions [63182].
(c) timing: The incident does not relate to the system performing its intended functions correctly but at the wrong time. The main issue discussed is the vulnerability of the smart tea kettle to hacking and the potential consequences of such security breaches [63182].
(d) value: The software failure incident does not involve the system performing its intended functions incorrectly. Instead, it highlights the ease with which the smart tea kettle can be hacked due to security flaws, such as a simple default password that cannot be changed [63182].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not exhibit the system behaving erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. The focus is on the security risks posed by the smart tea kettle's vulnerabilities rather than erratic behavior of the system [63182].
(f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident in this case can be categorized as a security vulnerability leading to unauthorized access rather than a traditional software failure like a crash or malfunction [63182]. |