| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to the Meltdown vulnerability affecting Samsung Galaxy S7 happened again within the same organization. Samsung had previously thought their phones were immune to Meltdown, but researchers from Graz Technical University in Austria discovered the vulnerability could be exploited to attack the Galaxy S7 [74668]. Samsung promptly rolled out security updates in January 2018 and released additional patches in May 2018 to address the issue at the chipset level. Graz confirmed that Samsung has since patched the vulnerability to ensure the Galaxy is now safe [74668].
(b) The Meltdown vulnerability, along with its variant Spectre, affected hundreds of millions of chips from the last two decades, including those from Intel and Microsoft. Intel and Microsoft found new variants of the flaws in May, which forced them to patch the issue [74668]. Congress criticized chipmakers for waiting too long to inform the government about the vulnerabilities, suggesting that other organizations may have faced similar challenges in addressing these security flaws. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident related to the design phase can be seen in the article [74668]. The vulnerability known as Meltdown was exploited to attack the Samsung Galaxy S7 due to a microchip security flaw. This flaw was a result of the design of the system, specifically the chipset level, which allowed hackers to potentially access sensitive information on the CPU. Samsung responded by promptly rolling out security updates in January 2018 and releasing additional patches in May 2018 to address the design flaw at the chipset level.
(b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase can be observed in the same article [74668]. The vulnerability in the Galaxy S7 due to the Meltdown exploit could have been exploited by hackers during the operation of the device. Samsung advised all customers to keep their devices updated with the latest software to ensure their devices are protected at an optimal level during operation. Additionally, the article mentions that Congress criticized chipmakers for waiting too long to inform the government about the vulnerabilities, indicating a failure in the operational aspect of handling and communicating security issues promptly. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system, outside_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident related to the Meltdown vulnerability affecting the Samsung Galaxy S7 was due to a microchip security flaw within the system itself. Researchers from Graz Technical University in Austria discovered that the vulnerability could be exploited to attack the Galaxy S7 [74668]. Samsung responded promptly by rolling out security updates to address the issues and released software updates to further protect devices at the chipset level [74668].
(b) outside_system: The software failure incident was also influenced by factors outside the system, such as the existence of the Meltdown vulnerability that could endanger most computing devices. The vulnerability, along with its variant Spectre, could allow hackers to read sensitive information on CPUs and affected hundreds of millions of chips from the last two decades [74668]. Additionally, there were concerns raised by Congress about chipmakers waiting too long to inform the government about the vulnerabilities, indicating external factors impacting the incident [74668]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident related to non-human actions in this case is the Meltdown vulnerability that could be exploited to attack the Samsung Galaxy S7. Researchers from Graz Technical University in Austria discovered this flaw, which could allow hackers to read sensitive information on the CPU of affected devices [74668].
(b) The software failure incident related to human actions involves the delay in informing the government about the vulnerabilities by chipmakers. Congress criticized chipmakers for waiting too long to disclose the vulnerabilities, stating that immediate notification would have allowed the government to protect itself from potential cyberattacks [74668]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident related to hardware:
- The Samsung Galaxy S7 was reportedly at risk from hackers due to a microchip security flaw, specifically the Meltdown vulnerability [74668].
- The vulnerability in the microchip allowed hackers to potentially exploit the Galaxy S7 [74668].
- The vulnerability affected hundreds of millions of chips from the last two decades, indicating a hardware-related issue [74668].
(b) The software failure incident related to software:
- Samsung responded to the security flaw by promptly rolling out security updates in January 2018 and releasing software updates with additional patches in May 2018 to protect devices at the chipset level [74668].
- Graz Technical University confirmed that Samsung had patched the vulnerability through software updates, ensuring the Galaxy S7 is now safe [74668].
- Intel and Microsoft found new variants of the Meltdown vulnerability in May, leading to the need for software patches [74668]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
malicious |
(a) The software failure incident related to the Meltdown vulnerability affecting the Samsung Galaxy S7 was malicious in nature. Researchers from Graz Technical University in Austria discovered that the vulnerability could be exploited by hackers to attack the Galaxy S7 [74668]. The vulnerability allowed hackers to potentially read sensitive information on the CPU, posing a significant security risk. Additionally, Congress criticized chipmakers for waiting too long to inform the government about the vulnerabilities, indicating a potential national security concern [74668]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
(a) The software failure incident related to the Samsung Galaxy S7 being at risk from hackers due to a microchip security flaw can be attributed to poor decisions made in the design and implementation of the device's security features. The vulnerability known as Meltdown, which was previously thought not to affect Samsung phones, was exploited by researchers from Graz Technical University in Austria [74668]. The incident highlights the importance of thorough security assessments and timely software updates to address such vulnerabilities and protect user data. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, accidental |
(a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence is evident in the article as it mentions a microchip security flaw in the Samsung Galaxy S7 that made it vulnerable to the Meltdown vulnerability. Researchers from Graz Technical University in Austria discovered this flaw, indicating that there was a lack of professional competence in the initial development of the device [74668].
(b) The software failure incident related to accidental factors is highlighted in the article when it mentions that Samsung phones were previously thought to be immune to the Meltdown vulnerability. This indicates that the vulnerability was not intentionally introduced but was an accidental oversight in the development process [74668]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident related to the Meltdown vulnerability affecting the Samsung Galaxy S7 can be categorized as a temporary failure. This is evident from the fact that Samsung promptly rolled out security updates in January 2018 and released additional patches in May 2018 to address the security issues at the chipset level [74668]. The vulnerability was patched by Samsung, making the Galaxy S7 safe from the exploit, as confirmed by Graz Technical University [74668]. This indicates that the software failure incident was temporary and was resolved through software updates and patches. |
| Behaviour |
value, other |
(a) crash: The article does not mention any instance of the system losing state and not performing any of its intended functions.
(b) omission: The software failure incident in the article is not described as a failure due to the system omitting to perform its intended functions at an instance(s).
(c) timing: The software failure incident is not related to the system performing its intended functions correctly, but too late or too early.
(d) value: The software failure incident is related to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly. The vulnerability allowed hackers to potentially read sensitive information on the CPU, affecting hundreds of millions of chips [74668].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident is not described as a failure due to the system behaving erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions.
(f) other: The software failure incident in the article is specifically related to a security flaw in the microchip of the Samsung Galaxy S7 that could be exploited by hackers, leading to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly [74668]. |