Incident: Smart Home Devices Vulnerable to Hacking Due to Flaws

Published Date: 2018-12-12

Postmortem Analysis
Timeline 1. The software failure incident of flaws in common smart home devices that could make it easier for burglars to break into homes was reported on December 12, 2018, in Article 79096.
System 1. Google's NEST 2. Phillips Hue These systems failed in the software failure incident reported in Article 79096.
Responsible Organization 1. The software developers who implemented the centralized data store solution that allowed hackers to compromise the smart home devices [79096].
Impacted Organization 1. Homeowners using smart home devices [79096]
Software Causes 1. Lack of attention to security in low-integrity devices like light switches and sprinkler controls [79096] 2. Vulnerabilities in centralized systems allowing communication between different devices and apps [79096] 3. Design issues in the centralized data store solution making the system vulnerable to hackers [79096]
Non-software Causes 1. Lack of attention to security in low-integrity devices like light switches [79096] 2. Design issue in the centralized data store system allowing hackers access to all connected devices [79096]
Impacts 1. The software failure incident allowed hackers to compromise low-security smart home devices like thermostats and sprinklers, giving them access to alarms and cameras, potentially aiding burglaries [79096]. 2. Vulnerabilities in centralized systems connecting various smart home devices, such as Google's NEST and Phillips Hue, were discovered, allowing hackers access to all connected devices in a home [79096]. 3. The incident highlighted the lack of attention given to the security of low-integrity devices like light switches, which can still pose significant risks when interconnected with other smart home devices [79096].
Preventions 1. Implementing strong authentication mechanisms and encryption protocols for communication between smart home devices to prevent unauthorized access [79096]. 2. Conducting thorough security assessments and penetration testing on smart home devices to identify and address vulnerabilities before they can be exploited by hackers [79096]. 3. Redesigning the centralized data store system used by smart home devices to enhance security measures and prevent hackers from gaining access to multiple devices through a single compromise [79096].
Fixes 1. Redesigning the centralized data store system used by smart home devices to prevent vulnerabilities and limit access to compromised devices [79096].
References 1. Computer scientists from William & Mary University in Virginia [Article 79096] 2. Which? study [Article 79096]

Software Taxonomy of Faults

Category Option Rationale
Recurring one_organization, multiple_organization (a) The software failure incident related to vulnerabilities in smart home devices has happened again within the same organization or with its products and services. The article mentions that the team from William & Mary University in Virginia uncovered flaws in common smart home devices, such as internet-connected thermostats and sprinklers, that could be compromised by hackers [79096]. This indicates that the vulnerabilities in smart home devices have been identified within the same organization (William & Mary University). (b) The software failure incident related to vulnerabilities in smart home devices has also happened at other organizations or with their products and services. The article discusses the study where researchers evaluated Google's NEST and Phillips Hue, both of which rely on a centralized data store to connect different devices, and discovered significant vulnerabilities that could allow hackers to compromise systems through low-security products like sprinkler controls [79096]. Additionally, a Which? study mentioned in the article tested popular smart gadgets and appliances, finding that eight out of 15 devices were vulnerable to hacking via internet, Wi-Fi, or Bluetooth connections [79096]. This indicates that similar incidents of vulnerabilities in smart devices have occurred in products from various organizations.
Phase (Design/Operation) design (a) The software failure incident in the articles is related to the design phase. The vulnerabilities in common smart home devices, such as internet-connected thermostats and sprinklers, were uncovered by computer scientists from William & Mary University in Virginia. They found that low-security products could be compromised, allowing hackers to access alarms and cameras due to the use of a centralized system that enables various apps and devices to communicate with each other [Article 79096]. (b) The software failure incident is not directly related to the operation phase or misuse of the system.
Boundary (Internal/External) within_system, outside_system (a) The software failure incident discussed in the articles is primarily within_system. The vulnerabilities in smart home devices, such as internet-connected thermostats and sprinklers, were uncovered by computer scientists from William & Mary University in Virginia [Article 79096]. These vulnerabilities allowed hackers to compromise the systems and gain access to alarms and cameras within the home. The issue stemmed from the use of a centralized system that enabled communication between various apps and devices, making it easier for hackers to exploit the interconnected nature of the devices [Article 79096]. The centralized data store used by platforms like Google's NEST and Phillips Hue was identified as a key factor contributing to the security vulnerabilities within the system [Article 79096].
Nature (Human/Non-human) non-human_actions (a) The software failure incident occurring due to non-human actions: The article mentions that computer scientists from William & Mary University in Virginia uncovered flaws in common smart home devices that could make it easier for burglars to break into homes. These flaws in low-security products like internet-connected thermostats or sprinklers can be compromised to give hackers access to alarms and cameras. The vulnerabilities were discovered in centralized systems that allow various apps and devices to communicate with each other, leading to the potential for non-human actions to compromise the security of the connected devices [79096]. (b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions: The article does not specifically mention any software failure incident occurring due to human actions. Therefore, the information about software failure incidents caused by human actions is unknown based on the provided articles.
Dimension (Hardware/Software) hardware, software (a) The software failure incident occurring due to hardware: - The article mentions that computer scientists from William & Mary University in Virginia uncovered flaws in common smart home devices that could make it easier for burglars to break into homes. These flaws are related to low-security products like internet-connected thermostats or sprinklers, which can be compromised to give hackers access to alarms and cameras [79096]. - The vulnerabilities discovered in the study conducted by the university researchers allowed hackers to compromise systems through low-security products like the controls for a sprinkler, enabling them to access alarms and cameras and turn them off during a burglary [79096]. (b) The software failure incident occurring due to software: - The article highlights that the vulnerabilities in smart home devices were due to a centralized system that allows various apps and devices to communicate with each other. This design flaw in the software architecture enabled hackers to access all connected devices in the home once they compromised a single low-security product [79096]. - The researchers emphasized that the design issue in the centralized data store solution used by platforms like Google's NEST and Phillips Hue was a software-related problem that needed a redesign for better protection against cyber attacks [79096].
Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) malicious (a) The software failure incident mentioned in the articles is malicious in nature. Computer scientists uncovered flaws in common smart home devices that could make it easier for burglars to break into homes. These vulnerabilities could allow hackers to compromise low-security products like internet-connected thermostats or sprinklers, giving them access to alarms and cameras, potentially enabling burglars to turn off security systems during a burglary [79096]. Ethical hackers were able to break into smart gadgets and appliances, such as wireless cameras and children's Bluetooth toys, highlighting the risks posed by security flaws that could be exploited by criminal hackers [79096].
Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) poor_decisions (a) The software failure incident described in the articles is related to poor decisions. The vulnerability in common smart home devices, such as internet-connected thermostats and sprinklers, was uncovered by computer scientists from William & Mary University in Virginia. The flaw in these low-security products allowed hackers to potentially access alarms and cameras in homes. The use of a centralized system that enables various apps and devices to communicate with each other was identified as a key problem, as it provided a pathway for hackers to compromise multiple devices in a home [79096].
Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) development_incompetence (a) The software failure incident reported in the articles is related to development incompetence. Computer scientists from William & Mary University in Virginia uncovered flaws in common smart home devices, such as internet-connected thermostats and sprinklers, that could be compromised by hackers to give them access to alarms and cameras [79096]. The researchers found significant vulnerabilities in products like Google's NEST and Phillips Hue, which rely on a centralized data store to connect different devices. The vulnerabilities discovered in the study highlighted the lack of attention given to low-integrity devices like light switches, leading to potential security breaches [79096]. (b) The software failure incident is not related to accidental factors but rather to the lack of professional competence in designing and securing smart home devices. The vulnerabilities were a result of the design issue in the centralized data store solution, which was deemed ineffective from a security point of view by the researchers [79096].
Duration permanent The articles discuss software failure incidents related to smart home devices being vulnerable to cyber attacks due to flaws in their security systems [79096]. These vulnerabilities allow hackers to compromise low-security products like internet-connected thermostats or sprinklers, giving them access to alarms and cameras in the home. The centralized system used by devices like Google's NEST and Phillips Hue allows hackers to access all connected devices in the home, not just the one initially compromised. This indicates a permanent software failure as the vulnerabilities are inherent in the design of the system and not limited to specific circumstances.
Behaviour omission, byzantine, other (a) crash: The software failure incident described in the articles does not specifically mention a crash where the system loses state and does not perform any of its intended functions. (b) omission: The vulnerability in the smart home devices allowed hackers to compromise the systems through low-security products like the controls for a sprinkler, enabling them to access alarms and cameras and turn them off during a burglary [79096]. (c) timing: The articles do not mention a timing-related failure where the system performs its intended functions correctly but too late or too early. (d) value: The software failure incident does not involve the system performing its intended functions incorrectly. (e) byzantine: The vulnerability in the smart home devices led to inconsistent responses and interactions, allowing hackers to access various devices in the home due to the centralized data store design flaw [79096]. (f) other: The software failure incident involves a design issue where the system needs to be redesigned for full protection, indicating a failure related to the system's design and security implementation [79096].

IoT System Layer

Layer Option Rationale
Perception network_communication The software failure incident reported in the articles is related to the network_communication layer of the cyber physical system that failed. The failure was due to contributing factors introduced by network communication errors. The vulnerabilities in low-security smart home devices allowed hackers to compromise systems through products like the controls for a sprinkler, leading to unauthorized access to alarms and cameras [79096]. The centralized data store used by devices like Google's NEST and Phillips Hue allowed hackers to access all connected devices in the home, highlighting the security risks associated with such network communication setups [79096].
Communication connectivity_level The software failure incident reported in Article 79096 is related to the communication layer of the cyber-physical system that failed at the connectivity level. The failure was due to contributing factors introduced by the network or transport layer. The vulnerabilities in low-security smart home devices, such as internet-connected thermostats and sprinklers, allowed hackers to compromise the systems through these devices, gaining access to alarms and cameras by exploiting the centralized data store that connects different devices [79096]. The centralized data store acted as a switchboard for communication between apps and devices, providing hackers access to all connected devices in the home, rather than just the one initially compromised [79096]. The researchers highlighted that the design flaw in the centralized data store solution made the system vulnerable to cyber attacks, indicating a failure at the connectivity level of the cyber-physical system [79096].
Application TRUE The software failure incident described in the articles is related to the application layer of the cyber physical system. The failure was due to vulnerabilities in low-security smart home devices such as internet-connected thermostats, sprinklers, light switches, security cameras, and door locks. These vulnerabilities allowed hackers to compromise the systems, access alarms and cameras, and potentially turn them off during a burglary [79096]. The flaws in these devices were attributed to design issues and the use of a centralized system that allowed various apps and devices to communicate with each other, creating opportunities for hackers to exploit the interconnected nature of the devices [79096].

Other Details

Category Option Rationale
Consequence property, theoretical_consequence (a) unknown (b) unknown (c) unknown (d) The software failure incident mentioned in the articles could potentially lead to property loss or damage. The vulnerability in smart home devices could allow hackers to compromise security systems, access alarms and cameras, and turn them off during a burglary, impacting people's material goods and security [79096]. (e) unknown (f) unknown (g) unknown (h) The articles discuss potential consequences of the software failure incident, such as hackers gaining access to alarms and cameras, compromising security systems, and potentially causing property damage. The vulnerabilities in smart home devices could lead to theoretical consequences if exploited by malicious actors [79096]. (i) unknown
Domain information (a) The failed system was related to the industry of information as it involved smart home devices that could be compromised by hackers, potentially leading to security breaches in homes [79096]. (b) The incident does not directly relate to the transportation industry. (c) The incident does not directly relate to the natural resources industry. (d) The incident does not directly relate to the sales industry. (e) The incident does not directly relate to the construction industry. (f) The incident does not directly relate to the manufacturing industry. (g) The incident does not directly relate to the utilities industry. (h) The incident does not directly relate to the finance industry. (i) The incident does not directly relate to the knowledge industry. (j) The incident does not directly relate to the health industry. (k) The incident does not directly relate to the entertainment industry. (l) The incident does not directly relate to the government industry. (m) The incident does not directly relate to any other specific industry mentioned in the options.

Sources

Back to List