| Recurring |
multiple_organization |
(a) The software failure incident having happened again at one_organization:
- The article does not mention any specific incident of a similar nature happening again within the same organization or with its products and services. Therefore, there is no information available to indicate a repeat of this specific incident within the same organization.
(b) The software failure incident having happened again at multiple_organization:
- The article mentions that the hacker, Matthew Anderson, was part of an international hacking gang called 'm00p' with at least three others. Only one other member, from Finland, has been caught [3646]. This suggests that similar incidents involving hacking and unauthorized access may have occurred with other organizations or individuals involved in cybercrime activities. |
| Phase (Design/Operation) |
design, operation |
(a) The software failure incident in the article can be attributed to the design phase as the hacker, Matthew Anderson, manipulated home webcams by sending out 'spam' emails containing an attachment for recipients to click on. This attachment infected the computers with a virus that allowed Anderson to gain control over the systems and access private files, saved photographs, and even activate web cameras without the users' knowledge [3646].
(b) The software failure incident can also be linked to the operation phase as Anderson's actions involved the operation of the infected computers by remotely accessing and controlling them to spy on individuals. He was able to record every word typed, copy the computer screen, and access personal data, including nude photos and bank account details, by operating the compromised systems from a remote location [3646]. |
| Boundary (Internal/External) |
within_system |
(a) within_system: The software failure incident in this case was primarily due to contributing factors that originated from within the system. The hacker, Matthew Anderson, manipulated recipients into clicking on a malicious attachment in spam emails, which infected their computers with a virus that allowed him to gain unauthorized access to their webcams and personal files [3646]. Anderson and his hacking gang operated by sending out spam emails, infecting computers, and then remotely accessing and controlling the compromised systems to spy on individuals [3646]. The failure to secure the systems and prevent unauthorized access from within led to the successful exploitation of the victims' devices and data. |
| Nature (Human/Non-human) |
human_actions |
(a) The software failure incident in this case was primarily due to human actions rather than non-human actions. The hacker, Matthew Anderson, manipulated recipients into clicking on a malicious attachment in spam emails, leading to their computers being infected with a virus that allowed him to take control and spy on them using their webcams [3646]. This incident involved deliberate actions by the hacker to exploit vulnerabilities in the victims' systems, rather than any non-human factors causing the failure. |
| Dimension (Hardware/Software) |
software |
(a) The software failure incident in the article was not directly attributed to hardware issues. The incident primarily involved a hacker, Matthew Anderson, who manipulated webcams and infected computers with a virus through spam emails, allowing him to access private files and control web cameras remotely [3646].
(b) The software failure incident in the article was primarily due to software-related factors. Anderson and his hacking gang used sophisticated software to infect computers, hijack them, and gain unauthorized access to personal data, including sensitive information like CVs, medical reports, and intimate photographs. The incident involved the use of malicious software to exploit vulnerabilities in computer systems and manipulate webcams without users' knowledge [3646]. |
| Objective (Malicious/Non-malicious) |
malicious |
(a) The software failure incident in this case is malicious. The hacker, Matthew Anderson, intentionally manipulated victims' home webcams by infecting their computers with a virus through spam emails. He then spied on the victims without their knowledge, accessing private files, photographs, and even switching on web cameras to watch them in their own homes. Anderson was part of an international hacking gang called 'm00p' and derived a sense of power from controlling others' devices without their consent. He also profited from selling harvested email addresses and had access to personal data like nude photos and bank account details, which he copied and cataloged [3646].
(b) The software failure incident cannot be classified as non-malicious as it was clearly driven by malicious intent to harm the victims and exploit their personal information for financial gain. |
| Intent (Poor/Accidental Decisions) |
poor_decisions |
(a) The intent of the software failure incident related to poor decisions can be seen in the actions of the hacker, Matthew Anderson. He deliberately sent out 50 million 'spam' emails containing an attachment that, when clicked on, infected the recipients' computers with a virus, effectively enslaving them. This deliberate action led to the hacking and spying on countless computer users through their webcams [3646].
(b) The intent of the software failure incident related to accidental decisions is not evident in this case. The failure was primarily driven by deliberate and malicious actions taken by the hacker, rather than by mistakes or unintended decisions. |
| Capability (Incompetence/Accidental) |
development_incompetence |
(a) The software failure incident in this case can be attributed to development incompetence. The hacker, Matthew Anderson, manipulated home webcams by sending out 50 million 'spam' emails containing an attachment that infected recipients' computers with a virus, effectively 'enslaving' them. Anderson was part of an international hacking gang called 'm00p' and had developed sophisticated software that allowed him to remotely access and control victims' computers, including activating their webcams without their knowledge [3646]. This incident highlights the consequences of malicious actions driven by a lack of professional competence in cybersecurity and ethical development practices.
(b) Additionally, the software failure incident can be considered accidental in the sense that the victims of the hack were unaware of Anderson's intrusion into their privacy. The victims had no knowledge that their webcams were being accessed and their personal files and activities were being monitored by the hacker. This accidental intrusion into the private lives of individuals demonstrates the unintended consequences of cyber attacks and the potential harm that can result from such breaches of privacy [3646]. |
| Duration |
temporary |
The software failure incident described in the article is more aligned with a temporary failure rather than a permanent one. This is evident from the fact that the hacker, Matthew Anderson, was able to manipulate victims' webcams and access their personal data by infecting their computers with a virus. This incident was not a result of inherent flaws in the system but rather due to the specific actions taken by the hacker to exploit vulnerabilities in the victims' computers [3646]. |
| Behaviour |
omission, value, other |
(a) crash: The software failure incident in this case did not involve a crash where the system lost its state and stopped performing its intended functions. The hacker, Matthew Anderson, was able to manipulate the victims' computers and webcams without causing a system crash [3646].
(b) omission: The software failure incident can be categorized under omission as the system omitted to perform its intended functions at instances. Anderson infected victims' computers with a virus that allowed him to spy on them through their webcams, access private files, and record their activities without their knowledge or consent, indicating a failure of the system to protect users' privacy and security [3646].
(c) timing: The software failure incident did not involve a timing failure where the system performed its intended functions correctly but at the wrong time. The actions of the hacker, Anderson, were deliberate and targeted, indicating a systematic intrusion rather than a timing issue [3646].
(d) value: The software failure incident aligns with a value failure as the system performed its intended functions incorrectly. Anderson's actions of infecting computers with a virus, spying on individuals, accessing personal data, and selling email addresses to marketing firms demonstrate a clear violation of ethical and legal boundaries, indicating a failure in the system's intended function to protect user data and privacy [3646].
(e) byzantine: The software failure incident does not exhibit a byzantine behavior where the system behaves erroneously with inconsistent responses and interactions. Anderson's actions were methodical and calculated, indicating a consistent pattern of intrusion and exploitation rather than erratic behavior [3646].
(f) other: The software failure incident can be categorized under the "other" behavior as it involves a deliberate and malicious exploitation of the system's vulnerabilities by the hacker, Anderson. His actions of infecting computers, spying on individuals through webcams, and accessing sensitive data demonstrate a breach of trust and a violation of privacy, showcasing a behavior beyond typical software failures [3646]. |