Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident related to the flaw in home security cameras made by Trendnet potentially exposing customers to hackers is an example of a software failure incident happening again within the same organization. Trendnet acknowledged the flaw in their cameras and is in the process of updating firmware to correct the problem in 26 vulnerable models of its product [10135]. This indicates that a similar incident has happened before with Trendnet's products.
(b) The incident involving the vulnerability in Trendnet's home security cameras could also be seen as a case where a similar software failure incident has happened at multiple organizations. The vulnerability allowed hackers to access live video feeds without a password, potentially affecting thousands of customers who had these cameras installed. This type of security flaw could potentially exist in other brands or models of internet-connected cameras, indicating a broader issue in the industry [10135]. |
Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident in this case was related to the design phase. The vulnerability in the home security cameras made by Trendnet that exposed thousands of customers to hackers accessing live video feeds without a password was due to a flaw introduced with code added to the product in 2010 [10135].
(b) The software failure incident was also related to the operation phase. Users setting up the cameras with a password did not prevent the video stream from being accessible to anyone who knew the camera's net address, leading to unauthorized access to the cameras [10135]. |
Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident involving the Trendnet home security cameras was primarily due to a flaw within the system itself. The vulnerability that exposed thousands of customers to hackers accessing live video feeds without a password was acknowledged by Trendnet as being introduced with code added to the product in 2010 [10135]. Trendnet mentioned that they were in the process of updating firmware to correct the problem in 26 vulnerable models of their product, indicating that the issue originated from within the system and required internal software updates to address it. |
Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in this case was primarily due to non-human actions. The vulnerability in the home security cameras made by Trendnet that exposed thousands of customers to hackers was a result of a flaw in the product's code introduced in 2010. This flaw allowed hackers to access live video feeds without a password, and the vulnerability was discovered by a blogger using a search engine to find internet-connected devices [10135].
(b) However, human actions also played a role in this software failure incident. Users could set up passwords for the cameras, but even with a password, the video stream was accessible to anyone who knew the camera's net address. Additionally, the company, Trendnet, acknowledged the flaw and was in the process of updating firmware to correct the problem in 26 vulnerable models of its product. The company's director of global marketing mentioned that they were scrambling to discover how the code was introduced, indicating a potential human error or oversight in the coding process [10135]. |
Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident in this case was primarily due to a hardware-related issue. The vulnerability in home security cameras made by Trendnet allowed hackers to access live video feeds without a password. This vulnerability was introduced with code added to the product in 2010, indicating a hardware-related flaw in the design or implementation of the cameras [10135].
(b) The software failure incident also had contributing factors originating in software. Trendnet acknowledged the flaw and mentioned that they were in the process of updating firmware to correct the problem in 26 vulnerable models of their product. The company stated that the vulnerability was due to a coding oversight, indicating a software-related issue in the development process [10135]. |
Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
malicious |
(a) The software failure incident in this case was malicious. The vulnerability in the home security cameras made by Trendnet potentially exposed thousands of customers to hackers who could access the live video feeds without a password. The flaw was discovered by a blogger who posted details of the flaw online, leading to the exposure of vulnerable cameras, including those inside businesses and children's bedrooms [10135]. |
Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
(a) The intent of the software failure incident related to poor_decisions:
- The vulnerability exposing thousands of customers to hackers accessing live video feeds without a password was due to a flaw in the home security cameras made by Trendnet [10135].
- The vulnerability was acknowledged by Trendnet, who mentioned that the flaw was introduced with code added to the product in 2010, indicating a poor decision in the coding process [10135].
- Trendnet's director of global marketing mentioned that the issue seemed like a coding oversight, further pointing towards a poor decision in the development process [10135]. |
Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, accidental |
(a) The software failure incident in Article 10135 can be attributed to development incompetence. The vulnerability in the home security cameras made by Trendnet that exposed thousands of customers to hackers was acknowledged by the company as being introduced with code added to the product in 2010. Trendnet mentioned that the vulnerability was due to a coding oversight, indicating a lack of professional competence in the development process [10135].
(b) Additionally, the incident can also be categorized as accidental, as the vulnerability was not intentionally introduced by the manufacturer but was a result of unintentional coding oversight. This accidental introduction of the vulnerability led to the exposure of the cameras to potential hackers, highlighting the accidental nature of the software failure incident [10135]. |
Duration |
permanent, temporary |
The software failure incident related to the flaw in Trendnet home security cameras can be categorized as both temporary and permanent.
(a) Permanent: The vulnerability in the home security cameras that exposed customers to hackers accessing live video feeds without a password was a permanent failure as it was due to contributing factors introduced by all circumstances. The flaw was introduced with code added to the product in 2010, and it allowed unauthorized access to the video stream even if a password was set up. Trendnet acknowledged the flaw and was in the process of updating firmware in 26 vulnerable models to correct the problem [10135].
(b) Temporary: The temporary aspect of the failure can be seen in the fact that once the firmware updates are completed and the vulnerability is patched, the specific issue that allowed unauthorized access to the video feeds will be resolved. This indicates that the failure was due to contributing factors introduced by certain circumstances but not all, and it can be rectified through software updates [10135]. |
Behaviour |
crash, omission, value, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident described in Article 10135 can be categorized as a crash. The flaw in the home security cameras made by Trendnet potentially exposed thousands of customers to hackers who could access the live video feeds without a password. This vulnerability led to the system losing its intended state of security and not performing its function of protecting the privacy of the camera users [10135].
(b) omission: The software failure incident can also be categorized as an omission. The vulnerability allowed hackers to access the live video feeds without a password, indicating an omission in the system's intended function of requiring authentication for access to the cameras [10135].
(c) timing: The timing of the software failure incident is not explicitly mentioned in the article.
(d) value: The software failure incident can be categorized as a value failure. The system performed its intended function of providing live video feeds, but it did so incorrectly by allowing unauthorized access without a password, compromising the value of security and privacy for the users [10135].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not exhibit characteristics of a byzantine failure as described in the article.
(f) other: The other behavior exhibited by the software failure incident is a security vulnerability that allowed unauthorized access to the live video feeds of the home security cameras, leading to a breach of privacy and potential misuse of the camera feeds by hackers [10135]. |