Published Date: 2016-03-14
| Postmortem Analysis | |
|---|---|
| Timeline | 1. The software failure incident involving a Google self-driving car crashing into a municipal bus in Mountain View, California, occurred on 14 February [41759]. (Note: The incident date is directly mentioned in the article.) |
| System | The software failure incident reported in the provided article did not involve a specific system failure. Instead, the article discussed the potential threat of hackers targeting self-driving cars and the vulnerabilities associated with autonomous vehicles being hacked for ransom or malicious purposes. Therefore, the specific system failure or component that failed is unknown. |
| Responsible Organization | 1. The software failure incident was caused by the hackers who took control of the self-driving cars and demanded ransom from the owners to regain control [41759]. |
| Impacted Organization | 1. Owners of self-driving cars [41759] 2. Potential victims of ransomware attacks on autonomous vehicles [41759] |
| Software Causes | 1. The software cause of the failure incident was the vulnerability of self-driving cars to hacking, specifically ransomware attacks, as highlighted by security experts [41759]. |
| Non-software Causes | 1. The Google self-driving car struck a municipal bus in Mountain View, California, in a minor crash on 14 February, with Google bearing 'some responsibility' for the incident, which may be the first crash that was the fault of the self-driving vehicle [41759]. |
| Impacts | 1. The software failure incident involving self-driving cars being vulnerable to hacking could lead to cyber criminals taking control of a car and holding it ransom to extort money from owners [41759]. 2. The incident highlighted the potential threat of ransomware affecting self-driving cars, where users could be locked out of their vehicles until a ransom is paid to the attackers [41759]. 3. The software failure incident raised concerns about the lack of expertise in software security engineering within legacy car companies, emphasizing the need for improved security measures in autonomous vehicles [41759]. 4. The incident also showcased the need for collaboration between security and automotive industry experts to stay ahead of cybercriminals and secure vulnerabilities in connected cars [41759]. 5. The crash involving a Google self-driving car striking a municipal bus highlighted the real-world implications of software failures in autonomous vehicles, leading to concerns about safety and potential accidents [41759]. |
| Preventions | 1. Implementing robust cybersecurity measures to prevent hacking attempts on self-driving cars [41759]. 2. Conducting thorough software security engineering to identify and address vulnerabilities in autonomous car systems [41759]. 3. Establishing collaborations between security experts and the automotive industry to proactively address potential cyber threats [41759]. |
| Fixes | 1. Implementing robust cybersecurity measures to prevent unauthorized access and hacking attempts on self-driving car systems [41759]. 2. Conducting thorough software security engineering to identify and address vulnerabilities in autonomous car software [41759]. 3. Establishing collaborations between security experts and the automotive industry to proactively address potential cyber threats [41759]. 4. Continuous monitoring and updating of software systems to stay ahead of cybercriminals and secure vulnerabilities [41759]. 5. Enhancing safety engineering practices to ensure the overall safety of autonomous cars on the road [41759]. | References | 1. Mikko Hypponen, chief research officer of cyber security firm F-secure [41759] 2. The Insurance Information Institute [41759] 3. Elon Musk [41759] 4. Security software developer McAfee [41759] 5. Raj Samani, CTO EMEA Intel Security [41759] |
| Category | Option | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Recurring | multiple_organization | (a) The software failure incident related to hacking and ransomware affecting self-driving cars has not been reported to have happened again at the same organization or with its products and services as per the provided article [41759]. (b) The article mentions that the potential threat of hacking and ransomware affecting self-driving cars is a real concern that could impact multiple organizations involved in developing autonomous vehicles. It highlights that hackers, particularly 'black hat' hackers, are likely to target autonomous cars due to the vulnerabilities in connected cars. The article also mentions the collaboration of top security and automotive industry talent globally to address these vulnerabilities and stay ahead of cybercriminals [41759]. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) | design, operation | (a) The article discusses the potential software failure incident related to the design phase in the context of self-driving cars being vulnerable to hacking. Security experts warn that as self-driving car technology advances rapidly, hackers may exploit vulnerabilities in the system design to take control of vehicles and demand ransom from owners to regain control ([41759]). (b) The article also touches upon the potential software failure incident related to the operation phase. It mentions that the safety of autonomous cars remains a concern, as evidenced by a Google self-driving car causing a minor crash with a municipal bus in Mountain View, California. This incident highlights the operational risks and challenges associated with self-driving vehicles ([41759]). |
| Boundary (Internal/External) | within_system | (a) The software failure incident related to the hacking of self-driving cars and the potential for ransomware attacks can be categorized as within_system. The incident involves vulnerabilities within the autonomous car systems that hackers can exploit to take control of the vehicles and demand ransom from owners to regain control [41759]. The security expert mentioned in the article highlighted that autonomous cars can be hacked, indicating that the vulnerability lies within the system itself. Additionally, the article discusses the lack of experience in software security engineering within legacy car companies, further emphasizing the internal nature of the potential threats [41759]. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) | non-human_actions, human_actions | (a) The software failure incident occurring due to non-human actions: The article discusses the potential threat of ransomware affecting self-driving cars. Ransomware is a type of malware that restricts access to computer systems and demands a ransom to remove the restriction. This kind of threat is likely to affect self-driving cars, as mentioned by security experts in the article [41759]. (b) The software failure incident occurring due to human actions: The article mentions that hackers, specifically 'black hat' hackers who are motivated to get paid, are most likely to be hacking into autonomous cars. These hackers are considered bad guys and are generally motivated by financial gain [41759]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) | software | (a) The articles do not provide specific information about a software failure incident occurring due to contributing factors originating in hardware. Therefore, there is no mention of a software failure incident related to hardware in the provided articles. (b) The articles extensively discuss the potential software failure incidents related to self-driving cars being hacked by cybercriminals. The main concern is the vulnerability of autonomous cars to hacking, which is a software-related issue. The articles highlight the possibility of hackers taking control of self-driving cars, holding them ransom, and extorting money from owners. The threat of ransomware affecting self-driving cars is emphasized, indicating a software failure incident originating in software vulnerabilities [41759]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) | malicious, non-malicious | (a) The objective of the software failure incident was malicious, as it involved the potential for hackers to take control of self-driving cars and demand ransom from owners to regain control [41759]. The threat of ransomware attacks on autonomous vehicles was highlighted, with experts warning about the possibility of cyber criminals holding cars ransom for financial gain. The article discussed how hackers, particularly 'black hat' hackers motivated by financial incentives, could exploit vulnerabilities in self-driving car technology to extort money from owners. The concept of locking users out of their cars until a ransom is paid was compared to the tactics used in ransomware attacks on computer systems. (b) The software failure incident was non-malicious in the sense that the crash involving a Google self-driving car and a municipal bus in Mountain View, California, was not intentional or caused by hackers seeking to harm the system [41759]. This incident was described as a minor crash where the self-driving car prototype caused the crash, indicating a failure in the system's ability to avoid collisions. The article mentioned that Google accepted some responsibility for the incident, suggesting that it was a result of a non-malicious software failure rather than a deliberate act of sabotage. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) | poor_decisions | (a) The intent of the software failure incident: - The incident involving the Google self-driving car striking a municipal bus in Mountain View, California, was attributed to poor decisions or contributing factors introduced by poor decisions. Google admitted some responsibility for the crash, indicating that it may have been the fault of the self-driving vehicle [Article 41759]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) | development_incompetence, unknown | (a) The software failure incident related to development incompetence is evident in the article as it discusses the lack of experience in software security engineering within legacy car companies. The article mentions that while these companies have expertise in safety engineering, they have little experience in software security engineering, highlighting a potential gap in their professional competence in addressing cybersecurity threats [41759]. (b) The software failure incident related to accidental factors is not explicitly mentioned in the provided articles. |
| Duration | unknown | The articles do not provide specific information about the duration of the software failure incident related to self-driving cars being permanent or temporary. |
| Behaviour | crash, omission, value | (a) crash: The article mentions a software failure incident where a Google self-driving car struck a municipal bus in Mountain View, California, resulting in a minor crash. This crash was the fault of the self-driving vehicle, marking the first time in several years of testing on public roads that a Google self-driving car prototype caused a crash [41759]. (b) omission: The potential threat of ransomware affecting self-driving cars is highlighted in the article. Ransomware is a type of malware that restricts access to the infected computer system and demands a ransom to remove the restriction. In the context of self-driving cars, hackers could potentially lock users out of their vehicles until a ransom is paid, indicating an omission of the system to perform its intended functions [41759]. (c) timing: The article does not specifically mention any software failure incident related to timing issues. (d) value: The article discusses the threat of ransomware affecting self-driving cars, where hackers could demand money from owners to regain control of their vehicles. This type of attack involves the system performing its intended functions incorrectly by allowing unauthorized control over the vehicle [41759]. (e) byzantine: The article does not provide information about a software failure incident related to a byzantine behavior. (f) other: The article does not describe any other specific behavior of a software failure incident. |
| Layer | Option | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Perception | sensor, embedded_software | (a) sensor: The incident involving the Google self-driving car striking a municipal bus in Mountain View, California, was attributed to the car's sensors and cameras that let it drive itself. The footage recorded by cameras on the bus showed the Lexus SUV, equipped with sensors and cameras, edging into the path of the bus, resulting in the crash [41759]. (b) actuator: The articles do not specifically mention any failure related to the actuator in the context of the self-driving car incident. (c) processing_unit: The articles do not specifically mention any failure related to the processing unit in the context of the self-driving car incident. (d) network_communication: The articles do not specifically mention any failure related to network communication in the context of the self-driving car incident. (e) embedded_software: The incident involving the Google self-driving car crash with a municipal bus could be related to embedded software error as the car's functionality heavily relies on software controlling its autonomous driving capabilities. The failure in this case could be attributed to issues within the embedded software controlling the car's actions [41759]. |
| Communication | unknown | Unknown |
| Application | FALSE | The failure related to the software incident discussed in the articles was not directly related to the application layer of the cyber physical system. The incident primarily focused on the potential threat of hackers taking control of self-driving cars and demanding ransom from owners, highlighting the cybersecurity risks associated with autonomous vehicles. The articles did not mention any specific software failure incident at the application layer caused by bugs, operating system errors, unhandled exceptions, or incorrect usage. Therefore, the information provided does not align with the definition of a failure at the application layer of the cyber physical system. |
| Category | Option | Rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Consequence | property, non-human, theoretical_consequence | (a) death: People lost their lives due to the software failure - There is no mention of people losing their lives due to the software failure incident reported in the articles [41759]. (b) harm: People were physically harmed due to the software failure - There is no mention of people being physically harmed due to the software failure incident reported in the articles [41759]. (c) basic: People's access to food or shelter was impacted because of the software failure - There is no mention of people's access to food or shelter being impacted due to the software failure incident reported in the articles [41759]. (d) property: People's material goods, money, or data was impacted due to the software failure - The software failure incident discussed in the articles [41759] primarily focuses on the potential threat of hackers taking control of self-driving cars and demanding ransom from owners. This could impact the property of individuals if they are locked out of their cars until a ransom is paid. (e) delay: People had to postpone an activity due to the software failure - There is no mention of people having to postpone an activity due to the software failure incident reported in the articles [41759]. (f) non-human: Non-human entities were impacted due to the software failure - The software failure incident discussed in the articles [41759] primarily revolves around the potential impact on self-driving cars and the threat of hackers taking control of these vehicles. Non-human entities like self-driving cars could be impacted by such software failures. (g) no_consequence: There were no real observed consequences of the software failure - The articles [41759] discuss the potential consequences of hackers taking control of self-driving cars and demanding ransom, but there is no mention of any real observed consequences resulting from such incidents. (h) theoretical_consequence: There were potential consequences discussed of the software failure that did not occur - The articles [41759] discuss the theoretical consequences of hackers potentially taking control of self-driving cars and holding them ransom, but there is no mention of these consequences actually occurring. (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 [41759] do not mention any other specific consequences of the software failure incident beyond the potential impact on property and the theoretical discussions about ransomware attacks on self-driving cars. |
| Domain | transportation | (a) The failed system was related to the transportation industry, specifically self-driving cars. The incident involved the hacking of self-driving cars, which are a part of the transportation sector [41759]. |
Article ID: 41759