| Recurring |
one_organization |
<Article 47714> reports on a software failure incident involving HP printers rejecting third-party ink cartridges due to a software update. This incident is specific to HP printers, indicating a software failure within the same organization (a) [47714]. The article mentions that HP has promised to reverse the software update that caused the issue, indicating that this specific incident has happened within the organization itself. There is no mention of similar incidents happening at other organizations or with their products and services (b) in the provided article. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design |
(a) The software failure incident in Article 47714 is related to the design phase. HP released a software update that included a dynamic security feature to prevent third-party ink cartridges from working, even if they had previously functioned. This change in the authentication procedure was aimed at protecting customers from counterfeit and third-party ink cartridges that did not contain an original HP security chip. The lack of communication about this update and the introduction of the time-delay in rejecting ink cartridges indicate a failure in the design phase of the software update process [47714].
(b) The software failure incident in Article 47714 is not directly related to the operation phase or misuse of the system. The failure was primarily due to the design and implementation of the software update by HP, which led to printer owners being unable to use third-party ink cartridges [47714]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) The software failure incident reported in the article is primarily within_system. HP released a software update that included a dynamic security feature causing printers to reject third-party ink cartridges that did not contain an original HP security chip. This update led to the rejection of previously accepted ink cartridges, affecting customers' ability to use non-HP ink cartridges [47714]. The failure originated from within the system as it was a deliberate update by HP to enforce authentication procedures and protect against counterfeit cartridges. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
non-human_actions, human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in this case was primarily due to non-human actions. HP introduced a software update that included a dynamic security feature to prevent third-party ink cartridges with cloned security chips from working, even if they had previously functioned. This update led to printers rejecting ink cartridges that did not contain an original HP security chip, causing inconvenience to customers [47714].
(b) However, human actions also played a role in this software failure incident. HP acknowledged that they should have done a better job of communicating about the authentication procedure to customers, apologizing for the lack of communication. Additionally, the reversal of the software update and the decision to issue an optional firmware update to remove the dynamic security feature were actions taken by the company in response to customer feedback and criticism [47714]. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
hardware, software |
(a) The software failure incident in the article was primarily due to contributing factors originating in hardware. HP released a software update that caused printers to reject ink cartridges without a specific security chip made by HP. This hardware-related security chip was the key factor leading to the failure as the printers were designed to only accept cartridges with this chip, causing issues for customers using third-party ink cartridges [47714].
(b) The software failure incident also had contributing factors originating in software. The software update introduced a dynamic security feature that prevented some third-party cartridges from working, even if they had previously functioned. This software-based authentication procedure caused the failure by blocking the use of certain ink cartridges, leading to customer dissatisfaction and the need for a firmware update to reverse this feature [47714]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
non-malicious |
(a) The objective of the software failure incident was non-malicious. The failure was due to contributing factors introduced without intent to harm the system. HP implemented a software update that aimed to ensure the best consumer experience, protect customers from counterfeit and third-party ink cartridges, and maintain the integrity of their printing systems [47714]. The update included a dynamic security feature that unintentionally prevented some untested third-party cartridges from working, even if they had previously functioned. HP acknowledged the lack of communication around the update and apologized for the inconvenience caused to customers. The company later decided to reverse the update and issue a firmware update to remove the dynamic security feature, indicating a non-malicious intent behind the software failure incident. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions, accidental_decisions |
(a) The intent of the software failure incident related to poor decisions can be inferred from the article. HP introduced a software update that caused printers to reject third-party ink cartridges that did not contain a security chip made by HP. This decision was aimed at ensuring the best consumer experience and protecting customers from counterfeit and third-party ink cartridges that infringed on HP's intellectual property. However, the lack of communication around the update and the delayed activation of the feature caused inconvenience to customers. The decision to remotely disable third-party ink cartridges without proper communication and transparency led to backlash and the need for a reversal of the update [47714].
(b) The software failure incident can also be attributed to accidental decisions or unintended consequences. The update included a dynamic security feature that unexpectedly prevented some previously functioning third-party cartridges from working. This unintended consequence led to a negative customer experience, prompting HP to issue an apology for the lack of communication and to promise a firmware update to remove the dynamic security feature. The company acknowledged that the update caused problems for some customers and expressed regret for not communicating effectively about the authentication procedure [47714]. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence, accidental |
(a) The software failure incident in the HP printer case can be attributed to development incompetence. The update introduced by HP caused printers to reject third-party ink cartridges that did not contain a specific security chip made by HP. This change was not communicated effectively to customers, leading to confusion and frustration. HP's chief operating officer acknowledged the lack of communication and stated that they should have done a better job of informing customers about the authentication procedure [47714].
(b) Additionally, the incident can also be considered accidental as the update included a dynamic security feature that unexpectedly prevented some third-party cartridges from working, even if they had previously functioned. This accidental introduction of a feature that caused issues for customers highlights a lack of thorough testing and consideration of potential negative impacts before deploying the update [47714]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
(a) The software failure incident in this case was temporary. The failure was due to a software update that introduced a dynamic security feature causing printers to reject third-party ink cartridges with cloned security chips. This issue was not permanent as HP announced they would issue an optional firmware update to remove the dynamic security feature, which was expected to be ready in the next two weeks [47714]. |
| Behaviour |
crash, omission, timing, value, other |
(a) crash: The software update by HP caused printers to crash in the sense that they rejected ink cartridges that did not contain a security chip made by HP, even if the printer had previously accepted those ink cartridges and printed perfectly acceptably. This resulted in the printers being unable to perform their intended function of printing with third-party ink cartridges [47714].
(b) omission: The software update omitted to perform its intended function of communicating effectively with customers about the changes introduced. HP acknowledged the lack of communication around the update and apologized for it [47714].
(c) timing: The software update introduced a time-delay feature, described as a "timebomb" by some, where the ink cartridges were only rejected several months after the update was shipped. This delayed response of rejecting the ink cartridges falls under the timing failure category [47714].
(d) value: The software update caused a failure in terms of value as it prevented some untested third-party cartridges from working, even if they had previously functioned. This incorrect behavior of the system led to a negative customer experience and affected the value proposition of using third-party ink cartridges [47714].
(e) byzantine: There is no specific mention of the software failure incident exhibiting byzantine behavior in the provided article.
(f) other: The software failure incident also involved the system behaving in a way that aimed to protect the quality of the customer experience, maintain the integrity of the printing systems, and protect HP's intellectual property. This behavior, although not explicitly mentioned in the options, can be categorized as a form of protective or defensive action taken by the system [47714]. |