| Recurring |
one_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to Microsoft Teams suffering an outage due to a failure to renew its authentication certificate is an example of a similar incident happening again within the same organization. This incident occurred because Microsoft failed to renew its authentication certificate, leading to the tool being down for about three hours [95777]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident in Microsoft Teams was due to Microsoft failing to renew its authentication certificate, which can be attributed to a contributing factor introduced during system updates or maintenance procedures [95777].
(b) The outage in Microsoft Teams was a result of an access issue that some customers experienced, indicating a contributing factor introduced by the operation or use of the system [95777]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) The software failure incident with Microsoft Teams was within the system. The outage was caused by Microsoft failing to renew its authentication certificate, which is an internal factor related to the system itself [95777]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in Microsoft Teams was due to a non-human action, specifically the failure to renew the authentication certificate by Microsoft, which led to the outage [95777].
(b) Human actions were involved in resolving the issue as Microsoft investigated and updated the certificate to restore the service for users. Additionally, a Microsoft spokesperson communicated with customers via email and tweets to address the access issue and inform about the restoration of service [95777]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The software failure incident in Microsoft Teams was not due to hardware issues but rather a failure related to Microsoft failing to renew its authentication certificate, which is a software-related issue [95777]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident related to Microsoft Teams was non-malicious. The outage occurred because Microsoft failed to renew its authentication certificate, which was a mistake on their part rather than a malicious act by any individual or group [95777]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
(a) The software failure incident related to the Microsoft Teams outage was due to Microsoft failing to renew its authentication certificate, which can be attributed to poor decision-making in neglecting the renewal process. This led to the outage lasting for about three hours until the certificate was updated [95777]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, accidental |
(a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence is evident in the article as Microsoft Teams suffered an outage due to Microsoft failing to renew its authentication certificate. This failure was caused by a lack of professional competence in managing the certificate renewal process, leading to the service being down for about three hours [95777].
(b) The software failure incident related to accidental factors is also present in the article as the outage was not intentional but occurred accidentally due to the oversight of not renewing the authentication certificate on time. This accidental mistake led to the disruption in service for Microsoft Teams users [95777]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
(a) The software failure incident related to Microsoft Teams was temporary. The outage occurred due to Microsoft failing to renew its authentication certificate, causing the tool to be down for about three hours [95777]. The service was back up for most users by 9 a.m. PT on Monday, and the issue was fully resolved later in the day. |
| Behaviour |
crash, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in the article was a crash as Microsoft Teams suffered an outage after Microsoft failed to renew its authentication certificate, leading to the tool being down for about three hours [95777].
(b) omission: The incident did not involve omission as the system was not mentioned to have omitted to perform its intended functions at any instance.
(c) timing: The incident did not involve timing issues as the system was not mentioned to have performed its intended functions too late or too early.
(d) value: The incident did not involve value issues as the system was not mentioned to have performed its intended functions incorrectly.
(e) byzantine: The incident did not involve byzantine behavior as the system was not mentioned to have behaved erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions.
(f) other: The other behavior observed in this incident was the failure due to the system losing state and not performing any of its intended functions, which aligns with the crash behavior [95777]. |