| Recurring |
one_organization, multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident having happened again at one_organization:
- The article discusses how smart cities are vulnerable to hackers due to lack of proper security measures in the technology they use, such as traffic control sensors vulnerable to attacks [36264].
- It is mentioned that some vendors of internet of things products are not allowing security researchers to test their products, even when researchers are willing to buy them, indicating a lack of transparency and security testing [36264].
(b) The software failure incident having happened again at multiple_organization:
- The article mentions that smart cities around the world, from Melbourne to London, have vulnerable traffic control sensors that are susceptible to attacks from hackers, indicating a widespread issue across different cities [36264].
- The article also highlights a smart power meter hack investigated by the FBI that could be costing utility firms millions, suggesting that similar vulnerabilities may exist in power meter systems used by different utility companies [36264]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The article discusses the vulnerability of smart city systems to hackers due to the lack of proper security measures during the design and development phases. It mentions that many city authorities and governments do not conduct security testing on the systems they buy, trusting the vendors instead [36264]. Additionally, it highlights that some vendors of internet of things products do not allow security researchers to test their products, indicating a lack of emphasis on security during the development phase [36264].
(b) The article also touches upon the potential for software failure incidents related to operation. It mentions a smart power meter hack investigated by the FBI that allowed tech-savvy users to reprogram the meter and get energy for free, indicating a failure in the operation or use of the system [36264]. Additionally, it discusses the need for cities to have a Computer Emergency Response Team (CERT) to handle attacks or vulnerabilities, suggesting a focus on operational aspects of security [36264]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system, outside_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident discussed in the articles is primarily related to failures within the system. The articles highlight that smart cities, with their interconnected technologies like traffic lights, smart meters, and public transport systems, are vulnerable to cyber attacks due to inadequate security measures within the systems themselves. For example, the lack of proper security testing, encryption, and vulnerability of traffic control sensors to hackers are all internal system issues [36264]. Additionally, the articles mention that some vendors of internet of things products are not allowing security researchers to test their products, indicating a lack of internal security measures within these systems [36264].
(b) outside_system: While the articles focus on failures within the system, they also touch upon the external factors contributing to the software failure incident. One key external factor mentioned is the lack of responsibility on the part of governments and city authorities when purchasing smart city solutions. They often prioritize features over security, relying on vendors without ensuring proper security measures are in place [36264]. This external factor of negligence in decision-making contributes to the vulnerability of smart city systems to cyber attacks originating from outside the system. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident occurring due to non-human actions:
- The article discusses how smart cities, with their interconnected systems and devices, are vulnerable to hackers due to lack of proper security measures such as encryption [36264].
- It mentions that the 200,000 traffic control sensors installed worldwide were vulnerable to attacks from hackers [36264].
- The article also highlights a smart power meter hack investigated by the FBI that allowed tech-savvy users to reprogram the meter and get energy for free, costing utility firms millions [36264].
(b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions:
- The article points out that city authorities and governments purchasing technology for smart cities often do not conduct security testing on the systems they buy, trusting the vendors instead [36264].
- It mentions that some vendors selling internet of things products are reluctant to let security researchers test their products, viewing security research as a threat [36264].
- The article also discusses the challenge of pushing out security updates to city-wide systems, with some companies taking months or even years to address identified software flaws [36264]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The articles do not specifically mention any software failure incident occurring due to contributing factors originating in hardware. Therefore, there is no information available regarding a software failure incident related to hardware in the provided articles.
(b) The articles discuss software failure incidents related to security vulnerabilities in smart city systems. The incidents are attributed to contributing factors originating in software, such as the lack of proper security measures like encryption in smart systems [36264]. The vulnerabilities in software systems, including traffic control sensors and smart power meters, were highlighted as potential targets for hackers, leading to security risks in smart cities. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
malicious |
(a) The software failure incident discussed in the articles is related to malicious intent. The articles highlight the vulnerability of smart city systems to hackers and cyber attacks. Security researchers have warned that smart cities are highly hackable and could be targeted by malicious actors for various purposes, including fraud and causing chaos. For example, the articles mention vulnerabilities in traffic control sensors and smart power meters that could be exploited by hackers [36264]. Additionally, there are concerns about the lack of security testing by city authorities and governments when purchasing smart city solutions, leaving these systems open to attacks [36264]. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions, accidental_decisions |
The articles discuss software failure incidents related to poor decisions and accidental decisions:
(a) poor_decisions: The articles highlight that city authorities and governments purchasing smart city solutions are not testing the security of the systems they buy. They focus more on functionality testing rather than security testing, trusting the vendors to provide secure systems [36264].
(b) accidental_decisions: The articles mention that some vendors selling internet of things products are not allowing security researchers to test their products, even when researchers are willing to buy them. This lack of collaboration with security researchers can lead to unintentional vulnerabilities in the software [36264]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, accidental |
(a) The article highlights the issue of software vulnerabilities in smart city systems due to the lack of security testing by city authorities and governments. Cesar Cerrudo, a security researcher, pointed out that many firms selling smart systems fail to incorporate effective security measures like encryption, making the systems vulnerable to attacks [36264].
(b) The article mentions a smart power meter hack investigated by the FBI that allowed tech-savvy users to reprogram the meter and get energy for free, potentially costing utility firms millions. This incident could be considered accidental as it was likely not intended by the utility firms [36264]. |
| Duration |
permanent, temporary |
The articles discuss the potential vulnerabilities and security risks associated with smart city technologies. These risks could lead to software failure incidents that may be either permanent or temporary.
1. Permanent Failure:
The articles highlight the lack of proper security measures in smart city technologies, such as the absence of encryption in wireless data transmission, making them vulnerable to attacks [36264]. This lack of security could lead to permanent software failure incidents if exploited by hackers, compromising the integrity and functionality of the systems.
2. Temporary Failure:
The articles also mention the possibility of temporary disruptions caused by hackers, such as pranks or one-day outages on transport systems that could cause chaos [36264]. These temporary disruptions may not result in a permanent failure but can still impact the normal operation of smart city services.
Therefore, the software failure incidents related to smart city technologies could range from temporary disruptions caused by specific circumstances to permanent failures resulting from broader security vulnerabilities. |
| Behaviour |
crash, omission, value, other |
(a) crash: The articles mention vulnerabilities in smart city systems that could lead to crashes or outages in transport systems causing chaos [36264].
(b) omission: The software failure incident related to the smart city systems could lead to omission of performing intended functions, such as the vulnerability of traffic control sensors to attacks from hackers [36264].
(c) timing: The articles do not specifically mention any software failure incident related to timing issues.
(d) value: The software failure incident could lead to the system performing its intended functions incorrectly, as seen in the example of a smart power meter hack allowing users to reprogram the meter and get energy for free, costing utility firms millions [36264].
(e) byzantine: The articles do not specifically mention any software failure incident related to byzantine behavior.
(f) other: The software failure incident could involve other behaviors not explicitly mentioned in the options, such as security vulnerabilities in smart city systems that could lead to fraud, pranks, or compromise of security [36264]. |