Recurring |
unknown |
The article does not mention any software failure incident related to either one_organization or multiple_organization. Therefore, the information about the software failure incident happening again at the same organization or at multiple organizations is unknown. |
Phase (Design/Operation) |
design |
(a) The software failure incident in this case seems to be related to the design phase. The article mentions that Subaru identified a production-related defect in the wiring connection that can cause a fire while the heater is in operation due to excessive heat, leading to melting of the ground terminal and surrounding components. This defect was introduced during the production process, indicating a failure in the design or manufacturing phase [137658].
(b) There is no specific information in the article pointing to the software failure incident being related to the operation phase or misuse of the system. |
Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident in the Subaru vehicles was due to a production-related defect in a wiring connection that could cause a fire while the heater is in operation. This defect was identified as a result of a change in the production line tools in early 2020, where air tools were introduced to replace a battery tool. The issue was corrected in production on April 29, 2022, with an updated tightening tool to prevent incomplete tightening, as reported by Reuters [137658].
(b) outside_system: There is no specific mention in the article of the software failure incident being caused by contributing factors originating from outside the system. |
Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in this case is not related to non-human actions but rather to a production-related defect in the wiring connection that can cause a fire while the heater is in operation. This defect was identified as a contributing factor to the increased fire risks in Subaru Ascent sport utility vehicles [137658].
(b) Human actions were involved in addressing the software failure incident as Subaru took action to correct the issue in production by introducing an updated tightening tool on April 29, 2022, to prevent incomplete tightening. Additionally, Subaru decided to conduct a voluntary safety recall out of an abundance of caution, indicating a human-initiated response to the software failure incident [137658]. |
Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware |
(a) The software failure incident in the Subaru recall was not directly related to software issues but rather to a hardware defect. The article mentions that the recall was due to a wiring connection with a production-related defect that could cause a fire while the heater is in operation [137658]. This indicates that the root cause of the failure was a hardware issue in the wiring connection, not a software-related problem. |
Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident in this case is non-malicious. The failure was attributed to a production-related defect in a wiring connection that could cause a fire while the heater is in operation due to excessive heat, leading to melting of the ground terminal and surrounding components. Subaru mentioned that the issue was corrected in production on April 29, 2022, with an updated tightening tool to prevent incomplete tightening, indicating a non-malicious intent to address the problem [137658]. |
Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
unknown |
The software failure incident reported in Article 137658 regarding the Subaru recall does not directly mention any software-related issues or failures. Therefore, it is unknown whether the incident was due to poor decisions or accidental decisions. |
Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
unknown |
Unknown |
Duration |
unknown |
The articles do not mention any software failure incident related to the Subaru recall of 271,000 Ascent sport utility vehicles due to fire risks. Therefore, the duration of the software failure incident in this case is unknown. |
Behaviour |
other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in the Subaru vehicles was not described as a crash where the system loses state and does not perform any of its intended functions [137658].
(b) omission: The software failure incident did not involve the system omitting to perform its intended functions at an instance(s) [137658].
(c) timing: The software failure incident was not related to the system performing its intended functions correctly but too late or too early [137658].
(d) value: The software failure incident was not due to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly [137658].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident did not involve the system behaving erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions [137658].
(f) other: The software failure incident in the Subaru vehicles was related to a wiring connection defect that could cause a fire while the heater is in operation due to excessive heat, leading to melting of components. This behavior does not fit into the options provided [137658]. |