| Recurring |
one_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to the hacked webcam has happened again at the same organization. The article mentions that the firm responsible for the camera, Action, advised users to change their pin number to prevent hackers from accessing their devices. They are investigating the incident and have requested the camera for thorough checking by the supplier to determine the cause [64492].
(b) There is no specific mention in the article about the software failure incident happening again at other organizations or with their products and services. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident in the article can be attributed to the design phase. The incident occurred due to a hacker gaining unauthorized access to a woman's webcam, leading to the camera moving on its own and the hacker speaking through the device. The firm responsible for the camera advised users to change their pin number to prevent such unauthorized access, indicating a design flaw in the security measures of the webcam [64492].
(b) The software failure incident can also be linked to the operation phase. The incident was exacerbated by the woman reinstalling the webcam later that night to show a friend, which resulted in the voice of the hacker becoming more aggressive. This action of reinstalling the device contributed to the continued intrusion and harassment by the hacker, highlighting an operational aspect of the failure incident [64492]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident of the webcam being hacked can be attributed to factors within the system. The incident occurred due to a hacker gaining unauthorized access to the webcam, allowing them to control its movements and speak through it to the user [64492]. The advice given to users to change their pin number and take security measures like scanning for malware and using firewalls also indicates that the vulnerability and failure originated within the system itself. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in the article was primarily due to non-human actions. The incident involved a hacker gaining unauthorized access to a woman's webcam, causing it to move and speak without her control [64492]. The firm responsible for the camera advised users to change their pin number to prevent such unauthorized access, indicating that the failure was not directly caused by human actions but rather by external factors like hacking. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is related to hardware. The incident involved a woman in the Netherlands whose webcam was taken over by a hacker, allowing the hacker to speak through the device. The firm responsible for the camera advised users to change their pin number to prevent hackers from accessing the device. The incident was attributed to the security vulnerability of the webcam hardware, which allowed unauthorized access [64492].
(b) The software failure incident in the article is also related to software. The firm selling the webcam advised users to change their pin number and use a strong WiFi password to enhance security. This recommendation indicates that the software aspect, such as default ID passwords and WiFi security protocols, played a role in the vulnerability that led to the hacking incident [64492]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
malicious |
(a) The software failure incident in Article 64492 was malicious in nature. A hacker took over a woman's webcam and began speaking to her through the device, making aggressive and inappropriate comments. The incident involved unauthorized access to the webcam by an external party with the intent to harm or harass the victim [64492]. The hacker's actions of controlling the webcam and speaking directly to the victim demonstrate malicious intent to invade privacy and cause distress. The incident highlights the importance of cybersecurity measures to prevent such malicious attacks on devices connected to the internet. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions, accidental_decisions |
The intent of the software failure incident in Article 64492 can be categorized as both poor_decisions and accidental_decisions:
(a) poor_decisions: The incident involved poor decisions related to the security measures implemented for the webcam. The firm responsible for the camera advised users to change their pin number to prevent hackers from accessing the device, indicating that the initial security measures were inadequate [64492].
(b) accidental_decisions: The incident also involved accidental decisions made by the user, such as reinstalling the webcam later that night to show a friend, which led to the hacker gaining access again and making aggressive remarks through the device [64492]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, accidental |
(a) The software failure incident in Article 64492 can be attributed to development incompetence. The incident occurred due to a hacker gaining unauthorized access to a woman's webcam, leading to inappropriate and invasive behavior. The firm responsible for the camera advised users to change their pin number to prevent such incidents, indicating a lack of robust security measures implemented during the development of the webcam software. This lack of professional competence in ensuring adequate security features contributed to the vulnerability exploited by the hacker [64492].
(b) Additionally, the incident can also be categorized as accidental, as the woman, Rilana Hamer, did not intentionally invite the hacker to take control of her webcam. The unauthorized access and subsequent harassment she experienced were accidental from her perspective, highlighting the unexpected and unintended consequences of software vulnerabilities that can be exploited by malicious actors [64492]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
From the provided article [64492], the software failure incident related to the webcam being hacked can be categorized as a temporary failure. The incident occurred when a hacker gained access to the webcam of a woman in the Netherlands, causing it to move and speak aggressively. The firm responsible for the camera advised users to change their pin number to prevent such unauthorized access in the future. This incident was temporary in nature as it was caused by the specific circumstance of a hacker gaining access to the device, rather than being a permanent failure inherent to the software itself. |
| Behaviour |
crash, omission, value, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in the article can be categorized as a crash as the webcam system lost control and started moving on its own accord, not performing its intended function of staying still and capturing images or videos [64492].
(b) omission: The incident can also be classified as an omission failure as the webcam system omitted to perform its intended function of maintaining privacy and security by allowing a hacker to take control and speak through the device without authorization [64492].
(c) timing: There is no indication in the article that the failure was related to timing issues where the system performed its functions too late or too early.
(d) value: The failure can be associated with a value failure as the system performed its intended function of capturing images but did so incorrectly by allowing unauthorized access and inappropriate behavior [64492].
(e) byzantine: The incident does not align with a byzantine failure where the system behaves erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions.
(f) other: The other behavior exhibited in this software failure incident is unauthorized access and control by a hacker, leading to a breach of privacy and security [64492]. |