| Recurring |
one_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to baby monitors being hacked or experiencing glitches has happened again within the same organization. In the article, it is mentioned that a Perth family with the same brand of monitor as the McCarthy family also came forward claiming to have had a similar experience, indicating a recurring issue with the product [64149]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design |
(a) The article mentions that the baby monitor incident was attributed to a glitch in the software rather than a hack. The manufacturer, UniDen, concluded that the camera turning and focusing on the parents was a result of a software glitch rather than a hack, even though the parents believed their monitor had been hacked. This indicates a failure related to the design phase, where a software glitch introduced by the system development or updates led to the unexpected behavior of the device [64149].
(b) The article does not provide specific information about the software failure incident being related to operation or misuse of the system. Therefore, there is no direct evidence to suggest that the failure was due to factors introduced by the operation or misuse of the system. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system, outside_system |
The software failure incident reported in Article 64149 involves a baby monitor being hacked, leading to concerns for privacy and security. The incident boundary can be analyzed as follows:
(a) within_system: The manufacturer of the baby monitor, UniDen, attributed the incident to a glitch in the software rather than a hack. They mentioned that the camera was not connected to the internet, indicating that the issue was internal to the system itself [64149].
(b) outside_system: On the other hand, the article highlights that home networks can be searched for vulnerable devices by outside search engines, and baby monitors are considered vulnerable. This suggests that external factors, such as hackers gaining access to the device externally, could also contribute to the software failure incident [64149]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in the article was attributed to non-human actions, specifically described as a glitch in the software by the manufacturer UniDen. The incident where the baby monitor turned and focused on the family was considered a result of this glitch rather than a hack [64149].
(b) The human actions involved in this incident include the concerns raised by the parents, Emma and Zac McCarthy, who believed their monitor had been hacked and expressed discomfort at the thought of someone potentially spying on their daughter. Additionally, the article mentions the recommendations by security and privacy expert Professor Bill Caelli regarding the lack of consideration for security and privacy in the design of baby monitors [64149]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is related to hardware. The incident involved baby monitors being hacked by criminals and spies, causing panic among Australian parents. The manufacturer of the device claimed it was simply a glitch in the software, but the parents believed their monitor had been hacked. The article mentions that the camera was not connected to the internet, leading the manufacturer to conclude it was a glitch rather than a hack [64149]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
malicious |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is related to a malicious objective. The incident involves baby monitors being hacked by criminals and spies, causing Australian parents to panic. The Sydney mother claimed that her camera was being externally controlled, leading to concerns about someone potentially spying on their family. Security expert Professor Bill Caelli highlighted the lack of consideration for security and privacy in the design of baby monitors, making them vulnerable to hacking. The incident involved unauthorized access and control of the baby monitor, indicating a malicious intent to harm the system [64149]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
(a) The software failure incident related to the baby monitors being hacked by criminals and spies was initially believed to be a result of poor decisions related to security and privacy considerations not being adequately addressed during the design and construction of the baby monitors. Security and Privacy expert Professor Bill Caelli emphasized that security and privacy were not considered when baby monitors were designed and constructed, making them vulnerable to external access by hackers [64149].
(b) However, the manufacturer of the device, UniDen, later concluded that the incident was simply a glitch in the software rather than a hack, indicating that the failure may have been due to accidental decisions or unintended consequences rather than deliberate poor decisions [64149]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, accidental |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is related to development incompetence. The incident of baby monitors being hacked was initially believed to be a result of external control by criminals and spies. However, the manufacturer of the device, UniDen, assured customers that it was simply a glitch in the software rather than a hack [64149]. This indicates that the initial fear of hacking was due to a lack of understanding or misinterpretation of the software behavior, highlighting a potential lack of professional competence in assessing and addressing the issue.
(b) The software failure incident in the article is also related to accidental factors. The incident of the baby monitor being externally controlled was initially perceived as a hack by the McCarthy parents. However, the manufacturer, UniDen, concluded that it was a glitch in the software rather than a deliberate hack, indicating that the incident was accidental rather than a malicious attack [64149]. This highlights the importance of investigating and understanding software issues thoroughly before attributing them to intentional actions. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident reported in the article [64149] seems to be temporary rather than permanent. The incident where the baby monitor was being externally controlled was initially believed to be a hack by the McCarthy parents. However, the manufacturer, UniDen, concluded that it was simply a glitch in the software rather than a hack. This indicates that the software failure was temporary and not a permanent issue. |
| Behaviour |
crash, value, other |
(a) crash: The article mentions a situation where the baby monitor's camera turned and focused on the parents unexpectedly, indicating a potential crash or failure of the system losing its state and not performing its intended function [64149].
(b) omission: The article does not specifically mention any instance where the system omitted to perform its intended functions at an instance [64149].
(c) timing: There is no mention of the system performing its intended functions correctly but too late or too early in the article [64149].
(d) value: The article discusses the concern of the parents that their baby monitor could track movement through their child's room during the night, suggesting a potential failure of the system performing its intended functions incorrectly [64149].
(e) byzantine: The article does not describe the system behaving erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions [64149].
(f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident in this case could be categorized as a potential privacy breach or unauthorized access rather than a specific technical failure mode [64149]. |