| Recurring |
one_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to the Tapplock smart lock being easily hackable due to a major flaw in its design has happened again within the same organization. The article mentions that the Tapplock company acknowledged the flaw and was issuing a software update to address the Bluetooth/communication vulnerabilities that allowed unauthorized access. This indicates that the same organization faced a similar issue with its product, prompting the need for a security patch [72577].
(b) There is no specific mention in the article about the software failure incident happening at other organizations or with their products and services. Therefore, it is unknown if a similar incident has occurred elsewhere. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is related to the design phase. The Tapplock smart fingerprint padlock was found to have a major flaw in its design that allowed it to be easily hacked. Security expert Andrew Tierney discovered that the unlock key for the device could be easily discovered because it was generated from the Bluetooth Low Energy ID that was broadcast by the lock. This design flaw left the lock open to several "trivial" attacks, making it vulnerable to unauthorized access [72577].
(b) The software failure incident in the article is also related to the operation phase. The flaw in the Tapplock's software allowed anyone with a smartphone to pick up the unlock key by scanning for Bluetooth devices when close to a Tapplock. This flaw in the operation of the lock's software enabled attackers to successfully open any Tapplock they found by using the key in conjunction with commands broadcast by the lock [72577]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident with the Tapplock smart fingerprint padlock was primarily due to contributing factors that originated from within the system itself. Security researchers found that the lock's software did not take simple steps to secure the data it broadcasts, leaving it open to several "trivial" attacks. The major flaw in the design was that the unlock key for the device could easily be discovered because it was generated from the Bluetooth Low Energy ID that the lock broadcasted [72577]. Additionally, the company acknowledged the flaw and mentioned issuing a software update to address several Bluetooth/communication vulnerabilities that may allow unauthorized users to gain access [72577].
(b) outside_system: There is no specific mention in the articles about the software failure incident being caused by contributing factors originating from outside the system. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in the Tapplock smart lock was primarily due to non-human actions, specifically a flaw in the software design. Security researchers found that the lock's software did not take simple steps to secure the data it broadcasts, leaving it vulnerable to trivial attacks. The major flaw was that the unlock key for the device could easily be discovered because it was generated from the Bluetooth Low Energy ID that the lock broadcasted. This flaw allowed anyone with a smartphone to pick up the key and successfully open any Tapplock they found [72577].
(b) However, human actions were also involved in addressing the software failure incident. In response to the security researchers' findings, Tapplock acknowledged the flaw and stated that they were issuing an important security patch to address the Bluetooth/communication vulnerabilities. They recommended users to update their app and upgrade the firmware of their locks to receive the latest protection. Tapplock also thanked the researchers for alerting them to the issue and stated that they would continue to monitor security trends and provide updates as needed [72577]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is related to hardware as well as software.
1. The article discusses a smart padlock called Tapplock, which was found to have a major flaw in its design that allowed it to be easily hacked using a smartphone. This flaw was related to the hardware design of the lock, specifically the way the unlock key was generated from the Bluetooth Low Energy ID broadcast by the lock [Article 72577].
2. Additionally, the article mentions that a YouTuber discovered a physical security weakness in the padlock where the back of the padlock could be easily removed to unlock it. This physical security weakness was attributed to faulty manufacturing, which is a hardware-related issue [Article 72577].
3. On the software side, the article highlights that the lock's software did not take basic steps to secure the data it broadcasted, leaving it vulnerable to trivial attacks. The unlock key for the device was easily discovered because it was generated from the Bluetooth Low Energy ID, indicating a software flaw in how the lock's software handled security measures [Article 72577].
Therefore, the software failure incident in the article involves both hardware-related issues (faulty physical design) and software-related issues (lack of security measures in the software). |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident in this case is non-malicious. The security researchers discovered a major flaw in the design of the Tapplock smart fingerprint padlock that allowed anyone with a smartphone to unlock it in under two seconds. The flaw was related to the lock's software not taking simple steps to secure the data it broadcasts, leaving it open to trivial attacks. The unlock key for the device could easily be discovered because it was generated from the Bluetooth Low Energy ID that was broadcast by the lock, making it vulnerable to unauthorized access [72577].
However, it's important to note that the flaw was not introduced with malicious intent but rather due to a lack of proper security measures in the design of the lock's software. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
(a) The software failure incident related to the Tapplock smart lock being easily hackable due to poor decisions made in the design and implementation of the lock's software. Security researchers discovered that the lock's software did not take simple steps to secure the data it broadcasts, leaving it open to several "trivial" attacks. The major flaw in the design was that the unlock key for the device could easily be discovered because it was generated from the Bluetooth Low Energy ID that was broadcast by the lock [72577]. The company acknowledged the flaw and issued a security patch to address the Bluetooth/communication vulnerabilities that allowed unauthorized users to gain access [72577]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, accidental |
(a) The software failure incident in the Tapplock smart lock being easily hackable due to a major flaw in its design can be attributed to development incompetence. Security researchers found that the lock's software did not take even simple steps to secure the data it broadcasts, leaving it open to several "trivial" attacks. The unlock key for the device was easily discovered because it was generated from the Bluetooth Low Energy ID that is broadcast by the lock, making it vulnerable to unauthorized access [72577]. This indicates a lack of professional competence in ensuring proper security measures were implemented in the software development process.
(b) Additionally, the incident can also be considered accidental as the flaw in the lock's design was not intentional but rather a result of oversight or negligence during the development process. The company, Tapplock, acknowledged the flaw and responded by issuing a software update to address the Bluetooth/communication vulnerabilities that allowed unauthorized access. They thanked the security researchers for alerting them to the issue and emphasized the importance of updating the app and firmware to enhance security [72577]. This accidental introduction of vulnerabilities highlights the need for thorough testing and security measures during software development to prevent such incidents. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident related to the Tapplock smart lock being easily hackable due to a major flaw in its design can be categorized as a temporary failure. The flaw in the software allowed anyone with a smartphone to unlock the Tapplock in under two seconds by exploiting vulnerabilities in the Bluetooth communication [72577]. The company acknowledged the flaw and issued a software update to address the Bluetooth/communication vulnerabilities, indicating that the failure was not permanent but rather a result of specific circumstances related to the software design [72577]. |
| Behaviour |
omission, value, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in the article does not involve a crash where the system loses state and stops performing its intended functions.
(b) omission: The software failure incident can be categorized under omission as the Tapplock smart lock failed to perform its intended function of securely locking and unlocking using a fingerprint. The flaw allowed anyone with a smartphone to unlock the padlock without authorization [72577].
(c) timing: The software failure incident is not related to timing issues where the system performs its intended functions but at the wrong time.
(d) value: The software failure incident falls under the value category as the system performed its intended function of unlocking but did so incorrectly by allowing unauthorized access [72577].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not exhibit byzantine behavior where the system behaves erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions.
(f) other: The other behavior exhibited in this software failure incident is a security vulnerability in the design of the software that allowed for unauthorized access, highlighting a critical flaw in the system's security measures [72577]. |