Incident: Tesla Model S Software Vulnerabilities Allow Remote Hacking and Control

Published Date: 2015-08-06

Postmortem Analysis
Timeline 1. The software failure incident with the Tesla Model S car happened before the article was published on August 6, 2015, as it mentions that Tesla had just issued a fix and cars would automatically receive software updates on Thursday, which implies the incident occurred earlier in the same week as the article was published. Therefore, the incident likely occurred in the first week of August 2015. [38915]
System 1. Tesla Model S car's software [38915]
Responsible Organization 1. The software failure incident in the Tesla Model S was caused by computer flaws in the car's software, as discovered by security researchers Kevin Mahaffey and Marc Rogers [38915].
Impacted Organization 1. Tesla (TSLA) [38915]
Software Causes 1. Computer flaws in the car's software allowed a deranged mechanic to remotely hack and hijack a Tesla Model S car [38915]. 2. The Tesla cars were using an outdated, four-year-old Web browser, making them susceptible to known hacks that other browsers like Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox had already fixed [38915]. 3. Sensitive instruments inside the car were not verifying that they were receiving instructions from a legitimate source, leaving the car vulnerable to remote control by hackers [38915].
Non-software Causes 1. Physical access to the inside of the Tesla Model S was a non-software cause of the failure incident, as the hack required initial physical access to the car [38915].
Impacts 1. The software flaw in Tesla Model S cars allowed hackers to remotely control the vehicle, including turning it off without warning, opening doors, and manipulating the electronics display [38915]. 2. The outdated web browser in Tesla cars made them susceptible to known hacks, potentially allowing hackers to infect the car and gain remote control [38915]. 3. The security researchers were able to demonstrate the vulnerabilities by remotely sending commands to the Tesla car, such as unlocking doors, opening the trunk, and halting the car at slow speeds [38915]. 4. The incident highlighted the risks associated with adding Internet connectivity to vehicles, turning them into potential targets for cyber attacks [38915].
Preventions 1. Regular security audits and testing of the car's software to identify vulnerabilities before they can be exploited [38915]. 2. Keeping software up to date with the latest security patches and updates to prevent known vulnerabilities from being exploited [38915]. 3. Implementing stricter verification processes for instructions received by the car's sensitive instruments to ensure they are from legitimate sources [38915]. 4. Enhancing security measures to prevent unauthorized access to the car's internal systems, such as requiring authentication for any changes made to the software [38915].
Fixes 1. Tesla issued a fix by automatically sending software updates over existing wireless Internet connections to address the computer flaws in the car's software [38915].
References 1. Security researchers Kevin Mahaffey and Marc Rogers [38915]

Software Taxonomy of Faults

Category Option Rationale
Recurring one_organization, multiple_organization (a) The software failure incident related to Tesla's Model S car being vulnerable to remote hacking and hijacking due to computer flaws is an example of a software failure incident that happened within the same organization (Tesla) again. The article mentions that security researchers Kevin Mahaffey and Marc Rogers found half a dozen other flaws with the Model S, indicating that this was not an isolated incident within Tesla [38915]. (b) The article also mentions a similar incident involving Chrysler, where researchers revealed that Chryslers can be hacked over the Internet, leading to a recall of Jeeps and other models. This indicates that similar software failure incidents have occurred at other organizations as well, in this case, Chrysler [38915].
Phase (Design/Operation) design, operation (a) The software failure incident in the article is related to the design phase. The security researchers discovered computer flaws in the car's software that allowed a hacker to remotely control the Tesla Model S long after it left the shop. They found that anyone with physical access to the inside of the car could infect it with malware, giving them remote control of the car to turn it off without warning, open doors, or manipulate the electronics display with faulty information. This flaw was addressed by Tesla through a software update sent wirelessly to the cars [38915]. (b) The software failure incident is also related to the operation phase. The security researchers demonstrated that after infecting the car's dashboard with malware, they were able to send remote commands to the car from an iPhone, unlocking doors, opening the trunk, and even lurching the car to a halt at slow speeds. This manipulation of the car's functions showcases how the operation of the car could be compromised by external parties exploiting software vulnerabilities [38915].
Boundary (Internal/External) within_system (a) within_system: The software failure incident reported in the article is primarily within the system. The security researchers, Kevin Mahaffey and Marc Rogers, identified computer flaws in the car's software that allowed for remote hacking and hijacking of the Tesla Model S. They found several flaws within the Model S, such as an outdated web browser and vulnerabilities that could be exploited by hackers. Tesla responded by issuing a fix through software updates delivered over wireless Internet connections to address these internal software issues [38915]. (b) outside_system: The article does not mention any contributing factors originating from outside the system that led to the software failure incident. The focus is on the vulnerabilities and flaws within the Tesla Model S software that allowed for remote hacking and control of the car.
Nature (Human/Non-human) non-human_actions, human_actions (a) The software failure incident in the Tesla Model S was primarily due to non-human actions. Security researchers Kevin Mahaffey and Marc Rogers discovered computer flaws in the car's software that allowed for remote hacking and hijacking of the vehicle. They were able to infect the car with malware that later gave them remote control of various functions such as turning off the car, opening doors, and manipulating the electronics display [38915]. (b) However, human actions were also involved in the software failure incident. The security researchers physically accessed the inside of the Model S to infect it with malware, which was a necessary step for the remote hacking to take place. Additionally, the researchers intentionally loaded the car with malware and sent remote commands to demonstrate the vulnerabilities [38915].
Dimension (Hardware/Software) hardware, software (a) The software failure incident related to hardware: - The article mentions that the hack on the Tesla Model S required initial physical access to the inside of the car, indicating a hardware-related vulnerability [38915]. (b) The software failure incident related to software: - The article highlights computer flaws in the car's software that allowed a hacker to remotely control the car after infecting it with malware [38915]. - It also mentions that the Tesla cars were using an outdated web browser, making them susceptible to known hacks that other browsers have already fixed, indicating software-related vulnerabilities [38915].
Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) malicious (a) The software failure incident reported in Article 38915 was malicious in nature. The security researchers, Kevin Mahaffey and Marc Rogers, discovered computer flaws in the Tesla Model S software that allowed a deranged mechanic to remotely hack and hijack the car long after it left the shop. The hackers could turn off the car without warning, open doors, make the electronics display faulty information, and even remotely control the car's functions. This incident involved intentional actions to exploit vulnerabilities in the software for malicious purposes [38915].
Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) accidental_decisions (a) The software failure incident related to the Tesla Model S car being remotely hackable was not due to poor decisions but rather due to accidental decisions or mistakes. The security researchers, Kevin Mahaffey and Marc Rogers, discovered computer flaws in the car's software that allowed for remote hacking and hijacking of the vehicle. They found several vulnerabilities in the Model S, such as using an outdated web browser and lack of verification for instructions from legitimate sources. The incident highlighted the susceptibility of modern cars with internet connectivity to cyber attacks, emphasizing the need for better security measures in automotive software systems [38915].
Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) development_incompetence (a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence is evident in the article as security researchers Kevin Mahaffey and Marc Rogers discovered computer flaws in the car's software of the Tesla Model S. They found that anyone with physical access to the inside of the Model S could infect it with malware, allowing remote control of the car, such as turning it off without warning, opening doors, or displaying faulty information [38915]. (b) The software failure incident related to accidental factors is highlighted in the article when it mentions that the Tesla cars were using an outdated, four-year-old web browser, making them susceptible to known hacks. This vulnerability could allow hackers to gain remote control of the car by infecting it through visiting the wrong website. The sensitive instruments inside the car were not verifying instructions from a legitimate source, leading to potential unauthorized access and control [38915].
Duration temporary (a) The software failure incident described in the article was temporary. The security researchers discovered computer flaws in the car's software that allowed a hacker to remotely control the Tesla Model S long after it left the shop. However, Tesla quickly issued a fix by automatically sending software updates to the cars over their existing wireless Internet connections, addressing the vulnerabilities [38915]. This indicates that the software failure was not permanent but was mitigated through a software update.
Behaviour crash, omission, value, other (a) crash: The software failure incident in the article can be categorized as a crash. The security researchers were able to remotely hack and hijack a Tesla Model S car by infecting it with malware, which allowed them to remotely control various functions of the car such as turning it off without warning, opening doors, and making the electronics display faulty information. This behavior indicates a failure of the system losing its state and not performing its intended functions [38915]. (b) omission: The software failure incident can also be categorized as an omission. The researchers found flaws in the car's software that allowed hackers to remotely control the car after infecting it with malware. This resulted in the system omitting to perform its intended functions correctly, as the car could be controlled by unauthorized individuals [38915]. (c) timing: The software failure incident does not align with the timing failure category as there is no indication in the article that the system performed its intended functions too late or too early. (d) value: The software failure incident can be categorized as a value failure. The researchers discovered that the Tesla cars were using an outdated web browser, making them susceptible to known hacks that could give hackers remote control of the car. This indicates a failure of the system performing its intended functions incorrectly [38915]. (e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not align with the byzantine failure category as there is no indication in the article that the system behaved erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. (f) other: The other behavior exhibited by the software failure incident is the vulnerability of the system to external attacks due to security flaws in the software. This vulnerability allowed hackers to gain remote control of the car, showcasing a failure in the system's security measures [38915].

IoT System Layer

Layer Option Rationale
Perception sensor, processing_unit, network_communication, embedded_software (a) sensor: The software failure incident reported in the article is related to the embedded software of the Tesla Model S car. Security researchers found computer flaws in the car's software that allowed a hacker to remotely control the car after infecting it with malware. The sensitive instruments inside the car were not verifying instructions from a legitimate source, which could be considered a sensor-related issue [38915]. (b) actuator: The article does not specifically mention any issues related to actuators in the Tesla Model S car during the software failure incident. (c) processing_unit: The software failure incident involved flaws in the car's software, including an outdated web browser and vulnerabilities that allowed hackers to take remote control of the car. These issues point to potential failures introduced by errors in the processing unit of the car's software [38915]. (d) network_communication: The software failure incident involved the car's existing wireless Internet connection being used to automatically receive software updates to fix the vulnerabilities discovered by the security researchers. This highlights the importance of network communication in delivering updates and potentially preventing future cyber attacks [38915]. (e) embedded_software: The main focus of the software failure incident was on flaws found in the embedded software of the Tesla Model S car, which allowed hackers to remotely control various functions of the vehicle after infecting it with malware. The outdated web browser and vulnerabilities in the software were key factors contributing to the security issues [38915].
Communication link_level The software failure incident reported in Article 38915 was related to the communication layer of the cyber physical system that failed. The security researchers discovered computer flaws in the car's software that allowed a hacker to remotely control the Tesla Model S after infecting it with malware. This hack required initial physical access to the inside of the car, indicating a vulnerability at the link_level of the cyber physical system [38915]. Additionally, the outdated web browser used in Tesla cars made them susceptible to known hacks, highlighting weaknesses in the communication layer of the system [38915].
Application TRUE The software failure incident reported in Article 38915 was related to the application layer of the cyber physical system. The security researchers discovered computer flaws in the car's software that allowed a hacker to remotely control the Tesla Model S after infecting it with malware. This hack required initial physical access to the inside of the car, indicating that the failure was due to contributing factors introduced by bugs and incorrect usage at the application layer of the system [38915].

Other Details

Category Option Rationale
Consequence theoretical_consequence (a) death: People lost their lives due to the software failure (b) harm: People were physically harmed due to the software failure (c) basic: People's access to food or shelter was impacted because of the software failure (d) property: People's material goods, money, or data was impacted due to the software failure (e) delay: People had to postpone an activity due to the software failure (f) non-human: Non-human entities were impacted due to the software failure (g) no_consequence: There were no real observed consequences of the software failure (h) theoretical_consequence: There were potential consequences discussed of the software failure that did not occur (i) other: Was there consequence(s) of the software failure not described in the (a to h) options? What is the other consequence(s)? The articles do not mention any direct consequences such as death, harm, impact on basic needs, property loss, or delays caused by the software failure incident. The focus is on the security vulnerabilities discovered in Tesla Model S cars and the potential risks associated with these flaws. The researchers demonstrated how a hacker could remotely control various functions of the car after infecting it with malware, but there is no mention of actual harm or damage caused by these vulnerabilities.
Domain transportation (a) The software failure incident reported in the articles is related to the transportation industry. Specifically, the incident involved a Tesla Model S car being vulnerable to remote hacking, allowing hackers to take control of various functions of the vehicle [38915]. The security researchers identified computer flaws in the car's software that enabled remote control of the car after infecting it with malware, highlighting vulnerabilities in the transportation sector's move towards connected and smart vehicles.

Sources

Back to List