Incident: Global Cyberattack Originating from Household Appliances due to Default Passwords

Published Date: 2014-01-17

Postmortem Analysis
Timeline 1. The software failure incident happened between December 23 and January 6 [23794]. Therefore, the incident occurred in December 2013 to January 2014.
System 1. Home-networking routers 2. Televisions 3. "Smart" refrigerator 4. Connected appliances 5. Default passwords 6. Lack of anti-spam or anti-virus software 7. Lack of routine security monitoring 8. Thingbots (robotic programs) 9. Internet of Things devices 10. Smart household appliances [23794]
Responsible Organization 1. The software failure incident was caused by cyber attackers who launched a global cyberattack from more than 100,000 everyday consumer gadgets, including routers, televisions, and a smart refrigerator [23794].
Impacted Organization 1. Individuals worldwide 2. Businesses worldwide 3. Victims targeted by the cyberattack 4. Consumers using poorly protected "smart" devices 5. Proofpoint's Information Security division 6. The company that makes smart home thermostats 7. Google (due to its acquisition of Nest) 8. International Data Corporation (IDC) predicting the increase in connected devices by 2020 [CNN - Article 23794]
Software Causes 1. Poorly protected "smart" devices with default passwords were easily compromised, leading to the cyberattack [23794].
Non-software Causes 1. Poorly protected "smart" devices with default passwords were completely exposed on public networks, making them vulnerable to the cyberattack [23794].
Impacts 1. The software failure incident resulted in a global cyberattack launched from more than 100,000 everyday consumer gadgets, including routers, televisions, and a smart refrigerator [23794]. 2. The attack occurred between December 23 and January 6, featuring waves of malicious emails targeting businesses and individuals worldwide [23794]. 3. More than 750,000 emails were sent from over 100,000 commandeered appliances, indicating a significant scale of the attack [23794]. 4. The incident raised concerns about the security of connected appliances in the Internet of Things era, highlighting the potential risks associated with poorly protected smart devices [23794]. 5. The compromised appliances were exposed on public networks due to the use of default passwords, emphasizing the importance of robust security measures for IoT devices [23794].
Preventions 1. Ensuring that connected appliances have strong, unique passwords instead of default passwords could have prevented the software failure incident [23794]. 2. Regularly updating the software and firmware of connected appliances to patch any known vulnerabilities could have helped prevent the cyberattack [23794]. 3. Implementing security measures such as anti-spam and anti-virus software on connected appliances could have enhanced their protection against malicious attacks [23794].
Fixes 1. Implementing stronger security measures on smart devices, such as requiring unique and strong passwords instead of default passwords [23794]. 2. Regularly updating the software and firmware of connected appliances to patch vulnerabilities and improve security [23794]. 3. Providing consumers with tools to detect and fix infections on their smart devices [23794]. 4. Increasing awareness among consumers about the potential security risks associated with connected appliances and the importance of securing them [23794].
References 1. Proofpoint security firm [23794]

Software Taxonomy of Faults

Category Option Rationale
Recurring multiple_organization (a) The article does not mention any specific organization that has experienced a similar software failure incident before or again within the same organization or with its products and services. (b) The article highlights a global cyberattack that was launched from more than 100,000 everyday consumer gadgets, including routers, televisions, and a smart refrigerator. This incident is significant as it is possibly the first proven cyberattack to originate from connected appliances, known as the "Internet of Things" [23794]. The incident underscores the vulnerability of poorly protected smart devices and the potential for distributed attacks as more of these devices come online.
Phase (Design/Operation) design, operation (a) The software failure incident in the article can be attributed to the design phase. The incident was caused by poorly protected "smart" devices, including routers, televisions, and a smart refrigerator, being commandeered by "thingbots" or robotic programs that were remotely installed on these digital devices. These devices were compromised due to the use of default passwords, leaving them completely exposed on public networks [23794]. (b) The software failure incident can also be linked to the operation phase. The attack occurred between December 23 and January 6, featuring waves of malicious emails targeting businesses and individuals worldwide. The operation of these compromised devices, being part of a botnet, allowed the scammers to send out over 750,000 emails from more than 100,000 appliances that had been taken over by the malicious programs [23794].
Boundary (Internal/External) within_system (a) The software failure incident reported in the article is primarily within_system. The failure occurred due to poorly protected "smart" devices, such as home-networking routers, televisions, and a "smart" refrigerator, being commandeered by "thingbots" or robotic programs that were remotely installed on these digital devices [23794]. The compromised devices were exposed on public networks due to the use of default passwords, making them vulnerable to the cyberattack originating from within the system.
Nature (Human/Non-human) non-human_actions, human_actions (a) The software failure incident in the article was related to non-human actions. The global cyberattack was launched from more than 100,000 everyday consumer gadgets, including routers, televisions, and a "smart" refrigerator. These devices had been commandeered by "thingbots," which are robotic programs that can be remotely installed on digital devices, leading to the cyberattack [23794]. (b) The failure was also influenced by human actions as the devices were compromised due to the use of default passwords, leaving them completely exposed on public networks. The lack of proper security measures, such as the absence of anti-spam or anti-virus software and the failure to routinely monitor for security breaches, contributed to the vulnerability of these connected appliances [23794].
Dimension (Hardware/Software) hardware, software (a) The software failure incident in the article was related to hardware. The global cyberattack was launched from more than 100,000 everyday consumer gadgets such as home-networking routers, televisions, and a "smart" refrigerator. These devices were commandeered by "thingbots," which are robotic programs that can be remotely installed on digital devices [23794]. (b) The software failure incident in the article was also related to software. The attack featured waves of malicious emails targeting businesses and individuals worldwide, indicating a software-related issue in terms of the malicious programs being distributed through the compromised devices [23794].
Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) malicious (a) The software failure incident described in the article is malicious in nature. It involved a global cyberattack launched from more than 100,000 everyday consumer gadgets, including routers, televisions, and a smart refrigerator. The attack was orchestrated by "thingbots," which are robotic programs that can be remotely installed on digital devices. The attack involved waves of malicious emails targeting businesses and individuals worldwide, indicating a deliberate attempt to harm the system and potentially collect personal information [23794]. (b) The incident does not involve a non-malicious software failure.
Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) poor_decisions (a) The software failure incident described in the article was primarily due to poor decisions. The incident involved a global cyberattack launched from more than 100,000 everyday consumer gadgets, including routers, televisions, and a smart refrigerator. These devices were compromised due to poorly protected "smart" devices with default passwords, making them completely exposed on public networks [23794]. The lack of proper security measures and the use of default passwords were contributing factors introduced by poor decisions, leading to the successful cyberattack.
Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) development_incompetence, accidental (a) The software failure incident in the article can be attributed to development incompetence as it was mentioned that the attack was made possible due to poorly protected "smart" devices with default passwords, leaving them completely exposed on public networks [23794]. This lack of professional competence in ensuring proper security measures for connected appliances led to the successful cyberattack originating from over 100,000 devices. (b) The software failure incident can also be considered accidental as the attack was not a sophisticated hack but rather took advantage of default passwords on the devices, which inadvertently exposed them on public networks [23794]. This accidental vulnerability allowed the malicious e-mails to be sent from the compromised appliances, highlighting the unintentional nature of the incident.
Duration temporary (a) The software failure incident described in the article was temporary. It occurred between December 23 and January 6, featuring waves of malicious e-mails targeting businesses and individuals worldwide [23794]. The incident was not a permanent failure but rather a specific period during which the cyberattack took place due to the compromised appliances.
Behaviour omission, value, other (a) crash: The software failure incident in the article can be related to a crash as it mentions that more than 100,000 everyday consumer gadgets, including routers, televisions, and a smart refrigerator, were commandeered by "thingbots" or robotic programs that can be remotely installed on digital devices. This resulted in a global cyberattack that occurred between December 23 and January 6 [23794]. (b) omission: The incident can also be related to omission as the compromised appliances failed to perform their intended functions and were used to launch waves of malicious emails targeting businesses and individuals worldwide. The appliances omitted their normal functions and were instead controlled by the attackers [23794]. (c) timing: The timing of the software failure incident is not explicitly mentioned in the article. However, the attack occurred between December 23 and January 6, which could potentially indicate a timing-related failure if the appliances were performing their intended functions at the wrong time [23794]. (d) value: The incident can be related to a value failure as the compromised appliances were used to send out malicious emails, which is an incorrect and harmful function that they were made to perform by the attackers. This misuse of the appliances indicates a failure in performing their intended functions correctly [23794]. (e) byzantine: The article does not specifically mention the software failure incident exhibiting a byzantine behavior with inconsistent responses and interactions. The focus is more on the appliances being commandeered to launch a cyberattack rather than exhibiting inconsistent behavior [23794]. (f) other: The other behavior exhibited by the software failure incident in the article is the vulnerability caused by the use of default passwords on the devices, leaving them completely exposed on public networks. This lack of security measures led to the failure of the devices to protect themselves from being compromised and used in the cyberattack [23794].

IoT System Layer

Layer Option Rationale
Perception sensor, processing_unit, network_communication, embedded_software (a) sensor: The software failure incident mentioned in the article is related to a global cyberattack launched from more than 100,000 everyday consumer gadgets, including home-networking routers, televisions, and a "smart" refrigerator. These gadgets were commandeered by "thingbots," which are robotic programs that can be remotely installed on digital devices. The attack involved waves of malicious e-mails targeting businesses and individuals worldwide, indicating a failure related to the sensor layer of the cyber physical system [23794]. (b) actuator: The article does not specifically mention any failure related to the actuator layer of the cyber physical system. (c) processing_unit: The failure mentioned in the article is more related to the processing unit of the devices, as they were compromised by "thingbots" that could be remotely installed on the devices. This indicates a failure introduced by processing errors [23794]. (d) network_communication: The failure in this incident is also related to network communication errors, as the devices were exposed on public networks due to the use of default passwords, making them vulnerable to being commandeered for the cyberattack [23794]. (e) embedded_software: The failure incident described in the article is closely tied to embedded software errors, as the devices were compromised by "thingbots" that could be remotely installed on them. The lack of proper protection and the use of default passwords left the devices exposed, highlighting a failure introduced by embedded software vulnerabilities [23794].
Communication connectivity_level The software failure incident reported in the article [23794] was related to the connectivity level of the cyber physical system. The incident involved a global cyberattack launched from more than 100,000 everyday consumer gadgets, including routers, televisions, and a smart refrigerator. The attack utilized waves of malicious emails targeting businesses and individuals worldwide, indicating a network-level failure where the devices were commandeered by "thingbots" and used to send out malicious emails. The compromised devices were exposed on public networks due to the use of default passwords, highlighting a vulnerability at the network or transport layer of the cyber physical system.
Application TRUE The software failure incident described in the article [23794] was related to the application layer of the cyber physical system. The failure was attributed to poorly protected "smart" devices, including home-networking routers, televisions, and a "smart" refrigerator, being commandeered by "thingbots" or robotic programs. These devices were compromised due to default passwords, leaving them exposed on public networks. The incident involved waves of malicious emails being sent from more than 100,000 appliances that had been infected, indicating a failure at the application layer due to bugs, operating system errors, and incorrect usage.

Other Details

Category Option Rationale
Consequence property, non-human (d) Property: People's material goods, money, or data was impacted due to the software failure. The software failure incident described in the article resulted in a global cyberattack launched from more than 100,000 everyday consumer gadgets, including home-networking routers, televisions, and a "smart" refrigerator. These appliances had been commandeered by "thingbots," or robotic programs, to send waves of malicious emails targeting businesses and individuals worldwide. It was mentioned that the victims were not immediately clear, and it was uncertain whether the scammers were successful in collecting any personal information. This indicates that people's data and potentially financial information could have been impacted by the cyberattack [23794].
Domain information (a) The software failure incident reported in the article is related to the industry of information. The incident involved a global cyberattack launched from more than 100,000 everyday consumer gadgets, including home-networking routers, televisions, and a "smart" refrigerator [23794]. The attack featured waves of malicious emails targeting businesses and individuals worldwide, indicating a disruption in the production and distribution of information. (b) The software failure incident is not directly related to the transportation industry. (c) The software failure incident is not directly related to the natural resources industry. (d) The software failure incident is not directly related to the sales industry. (e) The software failure incident is not directly related to the construction industry. (f) The software failure incident is not directly related to the manufacturing industry. (g) The software failure incident is not directly related to the utilities industry. (h) The software failure incident is not directly related to the finance industry. (i) The software failure incident is not directly related to the knowledge industry. (j) The software failure incident is not directly related to the health industry. (k) The software failure incident is not directly related to the entertainment industry. (l) The software failure incident is not directly related to the government industry. (m) The failed system in this incident is related to the industry of information and is not directly linked to any other specific industry mentioned in the options provided.

Sources

Back to List