| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to the smartwatch hack sending fake pill reminders to patients happened with a system called SETracker used in a wide range of relatively cheap smartwatches made by several different companies [102533]. The specific Chinese company behind the smartwatch software fixed the security flaw after being notified by security researchers. However, the incident highlights the potential risks associated with such software vulnerabilities within the same organization or with its products and services.
(b) The article mentions that the app connecting to these types of watches has more than 10 million downloads, indicating that the security flaw could have been exploited by someone else before being fixed [102533]. This suggests that similar incidents could have potentially occurred at other organizations or with their products and services utilizing the same or similar software systems. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is related to the design phase. The security flaw in the smartwatch software used for elderly patients was due to a vulnerability in the system called SETracker, which was used in a wide range of smartwatches made by several companies. The flaw allowed hackers to send fake pill reminders to patients, potentially causing harm such as an overdose. The flaw was identified by security researchers at Pen Test Partners, who notified the Chinese company behind the software, leading to a fix being implemented [102533].
(b) The software failure incident is also related to the operation phase. The vulnerability in the smartwatch software could be exploited by hackers to send fake pill reminders to patients, impacting the operation of the system and potentially causing harm to the users. The flaw could be triggered remotely, allowing for misuse of the system by sending medication alerts as often as desired, which could be particularly dangerous for dementia patients who may not remember if they had already taken their medication [102533]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident described in the article is primarily within the system. The security flaw was within the system of the smartwatch software used to help elderly patients. The flaw allowed hackers to send fake pill reminders to patients, potentially leading to harmful consequences like overdosing. The flaw was in a system called SETracker, used in various smartwatches, and was discovered by the UK-based security firm Pen Test Partners. The flaw was fixed by the Chinese company after being notified by the researchers [Article 102533]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in the article was primarily due to non-human actions, specifically a security flaw in the smartwatch software system called SETracker. The flaw allowed hackers to remotely send fake pill reminders to patients wearing the smartwatches, potentially leading to dangerous situations like overdosing. The flaw was discovered by security researchers at Pen Test Partners, who notified the Chinese company behind the software, leading to a fix being implemented without requiring user updates [102533].
(b) The article does not provide specific information about the software failure incident being directly caused by human actions. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The software failure incident in the article was not attributed to hardware issues. It was primarily a software vulnerability that allowed hackers to exploit the smartwatch system, enabling them to send fake pill reminders to patients [102533]. The flaw was in the SETracker system used in the smartwatches, indicating a software-related issue.
(b) The software failure incident in the article was caused by a software vulnerability in the SETracker system used in the smartwatches. The security flaw allowed hackers to remotely send fake pill reminders to patients, potentially leading to harmful consequences such as overdosing. The flaw was identified by security researchers from Pen Test Partners and was promptly fixed by the Chinese company behind the software after being notified [102533]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
malicious |
(a) The software failure incident in this case is malicious. Security researchers discovered a security flaw in smartwatch software used to help elderly patients, which could be easily hacked. The flaw allowed a hacker to send fake pill reminders to patients, potentially leading to an overdose. The researchers were concerned about the potential harm that could result from exploiting this vulnerability. The flaw was fixed after the researchers notified the Chinese company behind the software [102533].
(b) The incident was non-malicious in the sense that the manufacturer responded promptly to the notification of the flaw and fixed it without requiring users to install any updates. However, the underlying issue was a result of poor programming practices and rushed development, as highlighted by Prof Harold Thimbleby of Swansea University. He mentioned that the common problem of rushing out software without proper checks is a standard issue in the industry [102533]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
(a) The intent of the software failure incident was due to poor decisions made during the development and implementation of the smartwatch software. The security flaw that allowed hackers to send fake pill reminders to patients was a result of inadequate security measures and oversight in the programming of the SETracker system used in the smartwatches. The article mentions that the flaw was a standard problem that is common when developers rush out software without proper checks and testing, indicating a lack of attention to detail and thoroughness in the software development process [102533]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, accidental |
(a) The software failure incident in the article can be attributed to development incompetence. The security flaw in the smartwatch software used for elderly patients was due to a system called SETracker, which was found in a wide range of smartwatches made by several companies. The flaw allowed hackers to manipulate the watches to reveal the wearer's position, listen to them without their knowledge, and send fake medication reminders. The researchers highlighted that the flaw was a result of poor programming and lack of security measures in the software, which could have serious consequences such as overdosing for dementia patients [102533].
(b) The software failure incident can also be categorized as accidental. The researchers discovered the security flaw in the smartwatch software, which allowed hackers to exploit the system and potentially harm patients by sending fake medication reminders. The flaw was not intentionally designed but was a result of oversight and lack of thorough testing before the software was released to the market. The Chinese manufacturer responded promptly to fix the issue once it was brought to their attention, indicating that the flaw was accidental rather than a deliberate act [102533]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident described in the article [102533] can be categorized as a temporary failure. The security flaw in the smartwatch software, which allowed hackers to send fake pill reminders to patients, was identified by security researchers from Pen Test Partners. The flaw was promptly fixed by the Chinese company behind the software after being notified by the researchers. This indicates that the failure was temporary and was resolved within days of being discovered, preventing further exploitation of the vulnerability. |
| Behaviour |
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 flaw in the smartwatch software allowed hackers to manipulate the system to send fake pill reminders to patients, indicating that the system was still functioning but being misused [102533].
(b) omission: The software failure incident does not involve omission where the system fails to perform its intended functions at an instance(s). Instead, the flaw allowed unauthorized individuals to send fake pill reminders to patients, indicating an active manipulation of the system rather than a failure to act [102533].
(c) timing: The software failure incident does not involve timing issues where the system performs its intended functions but at the wrong time. The flaw allowed hackers to send fake pill reminders as often as they wanted, indicating a continuous manipulation of the system rather than a timing-related failure [102533].
(d) value: The software failure incident does involve a failure related to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly. Hackers were able to send fake pill reminders to patients, potentially leading to dangerous situations such as overdosing, highlighting a critical failure in the system's functionality [102533].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not involve a byzantine failure where the system behaves erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. The flaw described in the article focused on a specific vulnerability that allowed unauthorized individuals to exploit the system to send fake pill reminders, indicating a targeted misuse rather than erratic behavior [102533].
(f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident can be categorized as a security vulnerability that allowed unauthorized access and manipulation of the system to send fake pill reminders to patients. This behavior falls under the category of a critical security flaw rather than a specific failure mode such as crash, omission, timing, or byzantine behavior [102533]. |