| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to privacy concerns and hacking of Google Glass could potentially happen again within the same organization (Google) or with its products and services. The incident highlighted the lack of a PIN or authentication system in Google Glass, making it vulnerable to hacking and privacy breaches [18122]. Google acknowledged the importance of building device-specific protections and mentioned that they are experimenting with solutions to enhance the security of Glass [18122].
(b) The software failure incident involving privacy and security vulnerabilities in Google Glass could also serve as a cautionary example for other organizations developing wearable technology or similar devices. The incident demonstrated the risks associated with not having adequate security measures in place, such as a PIN mechanism or biometric authentication, which could lead to unauthorized access and privacy violations [18122]. This incident could prompt other organizations to prioritize security features in their own wearable devices to prevent similar vulnerabilities and breaches. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident related to the design phase is evident in the case of Google Glass as reported in Article 18122. The lack of a PIN or authentication system in Google Glass was identified as a significant design flaw that could potentially compromise users' privacy and security. This design vulnerability allowed hackers to exploit the device's "root" capability by connecting it to a desktop computer and running specific commands, giving them control over the device's output, including the camera and microphone. The absence of a PIN mechanism upon turning on the device made it immediately usable and susceptible to security issues commonly found in Android devices. The design oversight of not incorporating a protection system that activates when the device is taken off, such as biometric authentication or a PIN, was highlighted as a critical flaw that could lead to unauthorized access and privacy breaches.
(b) The software failure incident related to the operation phase is also evident in the case of Google Glass. The operational aspect of the failure is linked to the potential misuse or exploitation of the device's vulnerabilities by hackers. The ease with which a hacker could install a "rooted" version of the software on Glass within a short timeframe, as mentioned in the article, indicates a failure in the operational security of the device. Additionally, the article discusses how a hacked Glass device could monitor and record various activities of the user, such as capturing passwords, door codes, keys, and written information, highlighting the operational risks associated with compromised devices. The lack of a clear indication to users when the camera is in use, despite a red light indicator, further underscores the operational challenges in detecting unauthorized surveillance or data collection activities. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident reported in the article is primarily within the system. The lack of a PIN or authentication system in Google Glass allowed hackers to exploit the device's "root" capability by attaching it to a desktop computer and running commands, giving them control over the device's output, including the camera and microphone. This vulnerability within the system enabled hackers to potentially monitor everything the owner was doing and access sensitive information like passwords [18122].
(b) outside_system: There is no explicit mention in the article of the software failure incident being caused by contributing factors originating from outside the system. The focus is primarily on the internal vulnerability of Google Glass due to the absence of proper security measures like a PIN or authentication system, which allowed hackers to exploit the device's capabilities [18122]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident related to non-human actions in this case is the lack of a PIN or authentication system in Google Glass, which allowed hackers to exploit the device's "root" capability by attaching it to a desktop computer and running commands. This lack of security feature introduced a vulnerability that could be exploited without direct human involvement, leading to potential privacy breaches and control over the device's camera and microphone [18122].
(b) On the other hand, the software failure incident related to human actions is highlighted by the actions of Jay Freeman, a programmer who discovered the security vulnerability in Google Glass. Freeman's exploration and demonstration of how a hacker could take control of Glass's output by enabling the "root" capability through technical tricks and software installation showcased how human actions can also contribute to software failures and security breaches [18122]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident related to hardware:
- The incident with Google Glass highlighted a potential privacy threat due to a hardware vulnerability. The device lacked a PIN or authentication system, making it susceptible to being hacked by connecting it to a desktop computer and running certain commands [18122].
(b) The software failure incident related to software:
- The software failure incident with Google Glass was primarily due to software vulnerabilities. The device's design flaw, specifically the lack of a PIN mechanism, allowed hackers to exploit the software and gain control over the device's camera and microphone, compromising user privacy [18122]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
malicious |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article is malicious in nature. The incident involves a security vulnerability discovered by a programmer, Jay Freeman, who found that Google Glass, a wearable computer, lacked proper authentication mechanisms, making it susceptible to hacking. Freeman highlighted that once a hacker gains root access to Glass, they could potentially control the device's camera and microphone, compromising the user's privacy and security. The article emphasizes the potential dangers posed by this vulnerability, such as the ability to monitor the user's activities, capture sensitive information like passwords, and even track physical items like keys. Freeman also suggested potential solutions to enhance the security of Glass, such as implementing biometric authentication or a PIN system to prevent unauthorized access. Overall, the incident involves intentional actions by individuals to exploit the software's weaknesses for malicious purposes [18122].
(b) The software failure incident is non-malicious in the sense that it was not caused by accidental or unintentional factors. The lack of proper security measures in Google Glass, such as a PIN mechanism, was a design flaw that left the device vulnerable to exploitation. While the incident itself was not caused by accidental errors, it does highlight the importance of addressing security vulnerabilities in software systems to prevent potential malicious attacks. The article mentions that Google is aware of the need to enhance device-specific protections and is working on solutions to improve the security of Glass. Additionally, the article notes that the Explorer program for Glass is primarily targeted at developers rather than general consumers, indicating that the device may have been released with certain security limitations due to its developmental stage [18122]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions, accidental_decisions |
(a) The software failure incident related to the Google Glass security vulnerability can be attributed to poor decisions made in the design and implementation of the device's security features. The lack of a PIN or authentication system on Google Glass allowed hackers to exploit its root capability, giving them control over the device's camera and microphone. This poor decision in the design of Google Glass's security features led to significant privacy concerns for users [18122].
(b) Additionally, the incident can also be linked to accidental decisions or unintended consequences. The discovery of the security vulnerability by Jay Freeman, a programmer specializing in smartphone security, was likely an unintended consequence of the design choices made in developing Google Glass. The lack of a PIN mechanism and the presence of a Debug Mode that allowed for easy installation of unauthorized software were accidental decisions that contributed to the vulnerability [18122]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, unknown |
(a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence is evident in the Google Glass incident reported in Article 18122. The lack of professional competence in designing the authentication system for Google Glass led to a significant privacy threat. The absence of a PIN or authentication system in Glass allowed hackers to exploit its root capability easily, giving them control over the device's camera and microphone. This lack of proper security measures, such as a PIN mechanism, made Glass susceptible to security issues similar to those plaguing Android devices [18122].
(b) The software failure incident related to accidental factors is not explicitly mentioned in the provided article. |
| Duration |
permanent, temporary |
(a) The software failure incident described in the article is more of a permanent nature. The article discusses how Google Glass, due to its lack of PIN or authentication system, is vulnerable to being hacked, allowing a hacker to take control of the device's output, camera, and microphone. The article highlights the serious privacy implications of such a hack, indicating that once the Glass is hacked, it can potentially monitor everything the owner does, including capturing passwords, door codes, keys, and even handwritten notes. The article also mentions that the device lacks a PIN mechanism, making it immediately usable once turned on, further emphasizing the severity of the security vulnerability [18122].
(b) The software failure incident can also be considered temporary to some extent. The article mentions that Google is aware of the importance of building device-specific protections and is experimenting with solutions to enhance the security of Glass. Additionally, the article notes that the "Explorer" program, which the Glass is part of, is aimed at developers rather than the average consumer, suggesting that the security vulnerabilities may be more relevant during the development and testing phase rather than in widespread consumer use. The existence of a "remote wipe" system in the Explorer program also indicates that there are measures in place to address security breaches, albeit the effectiveness against a hacked device is uncertain [18122]. |
| Behaviour |
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. Instead, the focus is on the potential security vulnerability of Google Glass due to the lack of a PIN or authentication system, allowing hackers to take control of the device's output [18122].
(b) omission: The software failure incident does not involve the system omitting to perform its intended functions at an instance(s). The main concern highlighted in the article is the security risk posed by the lack of proper authentication mechanisms in Google Glass, which could lead to unauthorized access and control of the device by hackers [18122].
(c) timing: The software failure incident is not related to the system performing its intended functions correctly but too late or too early. The primary issue discussed is the security vulnerability arising from the immediate usability of Google Glass upon activation without any PIN mechanism, making it susceptible to hacking [18122].
(d) value: The software failure incident does not involve the system performing its intended functions incorrectly. Instead, the concern is about the potential misuse of the device's capabilities by hackers who could gain control over the camera and microphone, compromising the user's privacy and security [18122].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not exhibit the characteristics of a byzantine failure where the system behaves erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. The focus is on the security implications of unauthorized access to Google Glass rather than erratic or inconsistent behavior of the device itself [18122].
(f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident can be categorized as a security vulnerability due to the lack of proper authentication measures in Google Glass, which could allow hackers to exploit the device and gain control over its functions, potentially compromising user privacy and security [18122]. |