| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to smart locks and voice unlocking has happened again within the same organization or with its products and services. The article mentions that a security researcher named Brad "RenderMan" Haines discovered a flaw in smart locks and voice unlocking, which could allow intruders to unlock doors using a voice command [77908].
(b) The software failure incident has also happened with products and services from multiple organizations. The article mentions testing the smart lock loophole with three well-known smart locks: the August Smart Lock Pro, the Kwikset Obsidian, and Yale's Assure SL Touchscreen Deadbolt, indicating that this vulnerability is not specific to a single manufacturer but can affect various smart lock brands [77908]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is related to the design phase. The incident occurred due to a flaw in the design of smart locks and voice unlocking systems. A security researcher identified a vulnerability where an intruder could unlock a smart lock from outside using a voice command and an audio transducer, exploiting the design flaw in the system [77908].
(b) The software failure incident is also related to the operation phase. The failure was caused by the operation or misuse of the smart lock systems by users who did not properly configure their smart locks, leaving them vulnerable to the hack. The operation of the system, specifically the lack of proper configuration and security measures by users, contributed to the exploit being successful [77908]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system, outside_system |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article is primarily within the system. The vulnerability exploited by the security researcher to unlock smart locks using voice commands was a flaw within the smart lock systems themselves. The flaw allowed for unauthorized access to the locks without the need for a PIN, potentially compromising the security of the smart home devices [77908].
(b) However, it's important to note that the exploit also involved external factors such as the use of an audio transducer and the IFTTT platform to create custom commands. These external components were utilized to interact with the smart lock systems and bypass the security measures in place, highlighting a combination of internal system vulnerabilities and external tools to achieve the exploit [77908]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to non-human actions:
The software failure incident in the article was due to a vulnerability in smart locks that allowed an intruder to unlock a door using a voice command transmitted through an audio transducer and an IFTTT recipe. This vulnerability was exploited by using Z-Wave compatibility and IFTTT to create a custom command that could unlock the smart locks without requiring a PIN. The flaw in the smart locks allowed for unauthorized access without human participation, highlighting a non-human action leading to the software failure incident ([77908]).
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions:
The software failure incident in the article was also influenced by human actions, specifically in terms of configuring the smart locks and setting up the IFTTT recipe. The vulnerability exploited by the hacker required the smart lock to be poorly configured initially, indicating that human actions in setting up the smart lock system could contribute to the failure. Additionally, the decision by homeowners to enable unlocking without a PIN through voice assistants was a human action that increased the risk of unauthorized access. The responses from companies like August, Kwikset, and Yale emphasized the importance of user responsibility and decision-making in balancing convenience and security, indicating that human actions play a role in the software failure incident as well ([77908]). |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to hardware:
The software failure incident described in the article is related to a vulnerability in smart locks that can be exploited using an audio transducer and an IFTTT recipe. The vulnerability allows an intruder to unlock a smart lock from the outside using a voice command if the smart lock has been poorly configured. This vulnerability is a result of the interaction between the hardware components of the smart lock, such as the Z-Wave communication standard, and the audio transducer used to transmit the voice command [77908].
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to software:
The software failure incident described in the article is primarily due to a flaw in the software configuration of smart locks and the IFTTT platform. The vulnerability arises from the way smart locks interact with the IFTTT platform to enable voice commands for unlocking without requiring a PIN. This flaw in the software setup allows for unauthorized access to the smart lock system, highlighting a software-related failure in ensuring secure authentication and access control mechanisms [77908]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
malicious |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article is malicious in nature. A security researcher named Brad "RenderMan" Haines discovered a flaw in smart locks and voice unlocking systems that could allow an intruder to unlock a door from the outside using a voice command. This exploit could potentially lead to unauthorized entry into homes and poses a security risk to users [77908]. The incident involves intentional manipulation of the system by exploiting vulnerabilities to gain unauthorized access, indicating a malicious intent. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
The software failure incident described in the article is related to poor_decisions. The incident involved a security flaw in smart locks that allowed intruders to unlock doors using voice commands without requiring a PIN, potentially compromising home security [77908]. The vulnerability stemmed from the design and implementation of the smart lock systems, highlighting the importance of taking basic steps to secure smart home devices. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, accidental |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is related to development incompetence. The smart lock hack exploiting voice unlocking vulnerability was possible due to a flaw in the smart locks' configuration and the interaction between Z-Wave compatibility, IFTTT platform, and smart home devices [77908]. The vulnerability allowed an intruder to unlock the door using a voice command without the need for a PIN, highlighting the potential risks associated with not properly securing smart home devices. The manufacturers acknowledged the issue but emphasized that users have the responsibility to secure their devices and make informed choices regarding convenience versus security [77908].
(b) The software failure incident can also be considered accidental as the vulnerability in the smart locks that allowed for voice unlocking without a PIN was not intentionally designed but rather a result of the interaction between different technologies and platforms [77908]. The unintended consequence of this interaction created a security loophole that could be exploited by intruders, showcasing how accidental factors can lead to software failures in complex systems. |
| Duration |
temporary |
(a) The article discusses a software failure incident related to smart locks and voice unlocking. The vulnerability allowed an intruder to unlock a smart lock using a voice command without the need for a PIN, which poses a significant security risk to homeowners [77908].
(b) The software failure incident in this case is temporary as it is caused by specific circumstances, such as poor configuration of the smart lock and the ability to exploit the voice unlocking feature using an audio transducer and IFTTT recipes. The failure is not permanent but rather a result of certain vulnerabilities in the system that can be addressed with proper configuration and security measures [77908]. |
| Behaviour |
omission, value, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident described in the article does not involve a crash where the system loses state and does not perform any of its intended functions. The incident involves a vulnerability in smart locks that allows intruders to unlock doors using voice commands [77908].
(b) omission: The software failure incident can be categorized under omission as the system omits to perform its intended functions at an instance(s). In this case, the smart locks omit the requirement for a PIN when unlocking with voice commands, compromising security [77908].
(c) timing: The software failure incident is not related to timing issues where the system performs its intended functions correctly but too late or too early.
(d) value: The software failure incident can be classified under the value category as the system performs its intended functions incorrectly. Specifically, the smart locks allow unlocking without the necessary security measures, leading to unauthorized access [77908].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not exhibit behavior characteristic of 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 the exploitation of a security vulnerability in smart locks that allows unauthorized access through voice commands, highlighting a flaw in the system's security design [77908]. |