| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
a) The software failure incident at the Economic Development Administration (EDA) involved a significant overreaction to a potential malware infection, leading to the destruction of hardware and incurring substantial financial losses [20576].
b) The incident at EDA, where employees destroyed hardware due to a mistaken belief of a network hack, showcases a case of a software failure incident that involved multiple organizations. The U.S. Computer Emergency Response Team (part of the Department of Homeland Security) detected the potential malware infection within the Commerce Department's computer system, triggering the response at EDA [20576]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident in Article 20576 can be attributed to the design phase. The incident occurred due to contributing factors introduced by the system development and the procedures to operate or maintain the system. The agency's decision to destroy all tech-related hardware was based on faulty information and a misunderstanding of the malware situation, leading to significant damages and disruptions in operations [20576].
(b) Additionally, the software failure incident can also be linked to the operation phase. The employees and contractors hired by the agency made several blunders based on faulty information during the operation of the system. This included the incorrect assumption that a computer mouse can carry a virus, which led to the extreme response of destroying hardware components [20576]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system, outside_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident at the Economic Development Administration (EDA) was primarily caused by factors originating from within the system. The incident involved employees and contractors making a series of blunders based on faulty information, such as the incorrect assumption that a computer mouse can carry a virus. Additionally, the decision to physically destroy all tech-related hardware was a drastic and unnecessary response to the perceived malware infection, leading to significant financial damages [20576].
(b) outside_system: The incident was triggered by an initial notification from the U.S. Computer Emergency Response Team, an external entity operating under the Department of Homeland Security, about a potential malware infection within the Commerce Department's computer system. This external notification set off a chain of events that ultimately led to the misguided actions taken by the EDA in response to the perceived threat [20576]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in Article 20576 was primarily due to non-human actions. The incident was triggered by a potential malware infection detected by the U.S. Computer Emergency Response Team, leading to the EDA hiring a cybersecurity contractor to investigate. The contractor initially found evidence of corrupt software but later concluded that the findings were false positives. Despite only six infected components being identified and deemed easily fixable, the agency decided to physically destroy its hardware system, resulting in significant financial losses [20576].
(b) However, human actions also played a significant role in the failure incident. Employees at the Economic Development Administration reacted in an unorthodox and unnecessary manner by destroying all tech-related hardware with hammers after incorrectly believing their network had been hacked. This extreme response led to $2.7 million in damages, more than half of the agency's annual technology budget. Additionally, employees and contractors made repeated blunders based on faulty information, such as assuming a computer mouse could carry a virus [20576]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident in Article 20576 was primarily related to hardware. Employees at the Economic Development Administration took extreme measures to destroy all tech-related hardware, including desktop computers, printers, TVs, cameras, mice, and keyboards, after incorrectly believing their network had been hacked. This resulted in $2.7 million in damages, with $4,300 specifically spent on destroying $170,000 worth of tech equipment [20576].
(b) The software failure incident in Article 20576 also had elements related to software. Initially, the U.S. Computer Emergency Response Team detected a potential malware infection within the Commerce Department's computer system, leading to the hiring of a cybersecurity contractor to investigate. The contractor found evidence of corrupt software but later concluded that the findings were false positives. The agency wanted assurance that its computer system was infection-free, which proved challenging to guarantee. Ultimately, only six infected components were identified, all of which were easily fixable, but the agency decided to physically destroy its hardware system instead of pursuing a software-based solution [20576]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The software failure incident described in Article 20576 was non-malicious. The incident involved employees at the Economic Development Administration reacting in an unorthodox and unnecessary manner to a potential malware infection, leading to the destruction of hardware components like computers, keyboards, and mice. The employees mistakenly believed their network had been hacked, leading to the extreme response of physically destroying the hardware. The inspector general report highlighted repeated protocol breaches and bizarre blunders based on faulty information, indicating a lack of malicious intent but rather a series of missteps and misunderstandings [20576]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
(a) The intent of the software failure incident was primarily due to poor decisions made by employees at the Economic Development Administration. The employees reacted in an unorthodox and unnecessary manner by destroying all of the agency's tech-related hardware, including desktop computers, printers, TVs, cameras, mice, and keyboards, after incorrectly believing their network had been hacked. This decision resulted in $2.7 million in damages, which was more than half of the agency's annual technology budget [20576]. Additionally, the agency repeatedly broke protocol and embarked on a series of bizarre blunders based on faulty information, such as assuming that a computer mouse can carry a virus. The decision to physically destroy the hardware system instead of pursuing less costly and more effective solutions was a key factor in the software failure incident [20576]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, accidental |
(a) The software failure incident in Article 20576 can be attributed to development incompetence. Employees at the Economic Development Administration took extreme and unnecessary actions, such as destroying hardware, based on faulty information and assumptions. The agency spent a significant amount of money on cybersecurity contractors and destroying equipment due to a lack of understanding and competence in handling the situation ([20576]).
(b) Additionally, the incident can also be categorized as accidental, as the employees and contractors hired by the agency made a series of bizarre blunders based on incorrect information. For example, the assumption that a computer mouse can carry a virus led to the destruction of hardware. The actions taken by the agency were not deliberate but rather accidental due to misinformation and misinterpretation of the situation ([20576]). |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident described in the article was temporary. The incident involved the Economic Development Administration (EDA) mistakenly believing their network had been hacked, leading to a series of bizarre actions such as destroying hardware components like computers, keyboards, and mice. The incident started on December 6, 2011, when the U.S. Computer Emergency Response Team detected a potential malware infection within the Commerce Department's computer system. The EDA hired a cybersecurity contractor to investigate, but after several months of investigation, it was concluded that there was no evidence of a targeted attack or extremely persistent malware on EDA's systems [20576]. This indicates that the failure was temporary and not a permanent issue. |
| Behaviour |
crash, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in the article can be categorized as a crash. Employees at the Economic Development Administration took extreme measures, including physically destroying hardware components like computers, keyboards, and mice, in response to a perceived malware infection. This action led to the system losing its state and not performing its intended functions [20576].
(b) omission: The incident does not directly involve a failure due to the system omitting to perform its intended functions at an instance(s). The primary issue was the overreaction and destruction of hardware based on faulty information about a potential malware infection [20576].
(c) timing: The incident does not relate to a failure due to the system performing its intended functions correctly but too late or too early. The focus was on the extreme response to a perceived cybersecurity threat rather than timing issues [20576].
(d) value: The software failure incident does not align with a failure due to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly. The main issue was the unnecessary and costly response to a false positive regarding malware infection, leading to the destruction of hardware components [20576].
(e) byzantine: The incident does not exhibit a failure due to the system behaving erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. The primary issue was the extreme and unorthodox reaction to a perceived cybersecurity threat, rather than erratic system behavior [20576].
(f) other: The behavior of the software failure incident can be categorized as an overreaction or extreme response to a perceived cybersecurity threat. The employees' actions of physically destroying hardware components based on faulty information about malware infection can be considered an extreme and unnecessary behavior in response to a system security concern [20576]. |