| Recurring |
unknown |
(a) The software failure incident related to the vulnerability of the SnapShot device used by Progressive Insurance has not been reported to have happened again within the same organization or with its products and services. Therefore, there is no information available in the provided article to suggest a similar incident occurring again at Progressive Insurance.
(b) The article does not mention any similar incident happening at other organizations or with their products and services related to the specific vulnerability of the SnapShot device used by Progressive Insurance. Thus, there is no indication of this software failure incident occurring again at multiple organizations based on the information provided in the article. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident related to the design phase is evident in the article. The incident with the SnapShot device used by Progressive Insurance highlights a significant design flaw in the system. The device, which is meant to monitor driving habits for insurance purposes, was found to be vulnerable to hacking due to its lack of security measures. The security expert, Corey Thuen, discovered that the firmware running on the dongle was minimal and insecure, lacking essential security technologies such as secure boot, secure communications, encryption, and more. This design flaw allowed hackers to potentially gain remote control of a vehicle or a fleet of vehicles, leading to severe consequences ranging from privacy data loss to life-threatening situations [32684].
(b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase is also evident in the article. The vulnerability of the SnapShot device to hacking highlights an operational failure in the system. Despite the potential security risks identified by the security expert, Corey Thuen, the manufacturer of the device, Xirgo Technologies, did not respond to the notification of the security vulnerability. Additionally, Progressive Insurance expressed disappointment that Thuen did not share his findings with them privately before presenting the flaw at a hacking conference. This lack of communication and response between the involved parties reflects an operational failure in addressing and mitigating the identified security risks in a timely and effective manner [32684]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident in the article is related to within_system factors. The security vulnerability in the SnapShot device used by Progressive Insurance was due to the minimal and insecure firmware running on the dongle. The lack of security measures such as no validation or signing of firmware updates, no secure boot, no cellular authentication, no secure communications or encryption, and no data execution prevention made the device susceptible to hacking. The flaw was discovered by a security expert who reverse-engineered the software on the SnapShot device, highlighting the internal vulnerabilities within the system itself [32684].
(b) outside_system: The software failure incident in the article is not primarily related to outside_system factors. The vulnerability in the SnapShot device was a result of internal security flaws within the system rather than external factors beyond the control of the system. The article does not mention any external factors contributing to the software failure incident [32684]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is related to non-human actions, specifically the lack of security measures in the SnapShot gadget used by Progressive Insurance. The article mentions that the SnapShot device, which connects to a car's CAN bus system, lacks security technologies such as validation or signing of firmware updates, secure boot, secure communications, encryption, data execution prevention, or attack mitigation technologies. This lack of security measures makes it vulnerable to hacking, potentially allowing hackers to affect steering or braking of the vehicle remotely [32684].
(b) The software failure incident in the article also involves human actions. The security expert, Corey Thuen, reverse-engineered the software included on the SnapShot device and discovered the security vulnerabilities that could allow hackers to compromise the device and gain remote control of a vehicle or a fleet of vehicles. Additionally, Thuen contacted the manufacturer of the SnapShot device, Xirgo Technologies, to inform them of the security vulnerability, but reportedly received no response. Progressive Insurance expressed disappointment that Thuen did not share his findings with them privately before presenting the flaw at a hacking conference, indicating a lack of communication between the parties involved [32684]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to hardware:
- The article reports on a software failure incident where an electronic gadget called SnapShot, used by Progressive Insurance to monitor driving habits, could be hacked to potentially affect steering or braking of vehicles [32684].
- The vulnerability was found in the SnapShot device, which connects to a car's CAN bus system through the car's diagnostic port. The lack of security measures in the device allowed hackers to potentially gain control over the vehicle's functions [32684].
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to software:
- The software failure incident in this case was primarily due to the lack of security measures in the firmware running on the SnapShot device. The firmware was described as minimal and insecure, lacking validation or signing of firmware updates, secure boot, secure communications, encryption, and other security technologies [32684].
- The software failure incident was exacerbated by the fact that the manufacturer of the SnapShot device, Xirgo Technologies, did not respond to the security vulnerability report, indicating a lack of proper software security response mechanisms [32684]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
malicious |
(a) The software failure incident in the article is malicious in nature. The incident involves a security vulnerability in the SnapShot gadget used by Progressive Insurance, which could be exploited by hackers to gain remote control of a vehicle, potentially affecting steering or braking. The security expert who reverse-engineered the software on the SnapShot device highlighted the lack of security measures, such as no validation or signing of firmware updates, no secure boot, no secure communications or encryption, among others. This lack of security technologies makes the device vulnerable to skilled attackers who could compromise it for malicious purposes, ranging from privacy data loss to life-threatening consequences [32684].
(b) The incident does not involve a non-malicious software failure. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
(a) The software failure incident related to the Snapshot device used by Progressive Insurance to monitor driving habits was primarily due to poor decisions made in the design and implementation of the software. The device was found to be vulnerable to hacking, with minimal security measures in place. The firmware running on the dongle was described as minimal and insecure, lacking basic security technologies such as secure boot, secure communications, encryption, and attack mitigation technologies [32684].
The security expert who reverse-engineered the software on the Snapshot device highlighted the lack of security measures, stating that a skilled attacker could compromise the dongles to gain remote control of a vehicle or even an entire fleet of vehicles. The consequences of such a compromise were deemed potentially disastrous, ranging from privacy data loss to life and limb [32684].
The incident also involved poor communication and response from the manufacturer of the Snapshot device, Xirgo Technologies, as they reportedly did not respond to the security vulnerability report from the researcher who discovered the flaw. Progressive Insurance expressed disappointment in the way the vulnerability was revealed and emphasized the importance of disclosing potential vulnerabilities to them first for evaluation and correction [32684]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, accidental |
(a) The software failure incident in the article can be attributed to development incompetence. The security expert, Corey Thuen, reverse engineered the software included on the SnapShot device and found significant security vulnerabilities. He highlighted that the firmware running on the dongle is minimal and insecure, lacking essential security measures such as validation or signing of firmware updates, secure boot, secure communications or encryption, among others. This lack of security technologies in the software indicates a failure in professional competence during the development of the gadget [32684].
(b) Additionally, the failure to address the security vulnerability in the SnapShot device can be seen as accidental. Progressive Insurance expressed disappointment that the security flaw was publicly revealed at a hacking conference instead of being disclosed to them privately. The company stated that they would have preferred to receive information about the potential vulnerability so they could evaluate and correct it before it could be exploited. The lack of private disclosure and subsequent public exposure of the vulnerability can be considered an accidental aspect of the software failure incident [32684]. |
| Duration |
permanent |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article is more likely to be considered as a permanent failure. The security vulnerability in the SnapShot device used by Progressive Insurance was highlighted by a security expert who reverse-engineered the software and found significant flaws in its security measures. The expert mentioned that the firmware running on the dongle is minimal and insecure, lacking essential security technologies such as secure boot, secure communications, encryption, and attack mitigation technologies. This lack of security measures makes the device vulnerable to hacking, potentially allowing attackers to gain remote control of a vehicle or a fleet of vehicles, leading to severe consequences ranging from privacy data loss to life-threatening situations [32684].
(b) The software failure incident can also be seen as a temporary failure in terms of Progressive Insurance's response to the security vulnerability. The company expressed disappointment that the security flaw was publicly revealed at a hacking conference before being disclosed to them privately. Progressive Insurance stated that they would prefer individuals to report potential vulnerabilities to them first so that they could evaluate and correct them before any exploitation occurs. The company also mentioned that they would welcome detailed input to properly evaluate the claims regarding the security vulnerability. Additionally, the security expert who discovered the vulnerability reportedly contacted the manufacturer of the SnapShot device to inform them of the issue but received no response, indicating a lack of immediate action to address the problem [32684]. |
| Behaviour |
byzantine, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident described in the article does not specifically mention a crash where the system loses state and does not perform any of its intended functions.
(b) omission: The incident does not directly relate to the system omitting to perform its intended functions at an instance(s).
(c) timing: The software failure incident does not involve the system performing its intended functions correctly but too late or too early.
(d) value: The incident does not involve the system performing its intended functions incorrectly.
(e) byzantine: The behavior of the software failure incident can be categorized as a byzantine failure. The article describes how hackers could theoretically affect steering or braking by gaining access to the SnapShot gadget, which connects to the car's CAN bus system. This unauthorized access could lead to inconsistent and potentially dangerous interactions with the vehicle's components [32684].
(f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident can also be described as a security vulnerability. The lack of security measures in the SnapShot gadget, such as no validation or signing of firmware updates, no secure boot, no secure communications or encryption, exposes the system to potential attacks and compromises [32684]. |