Text File

RISKS-LIST: RISKS-FORUM Digest Thursday 19 January 1989 Volume 8 : Issue 11

FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTERS AND RELATED SYSTEMS ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator

Contents: Risks of no backup systems for critical applications (Yoram Eisenstadter) Computer malfunction downs traffic lights, one killed, one injured (Scott Campbell) Chaos Theory Predicts Unpredictability (PGN) China accused of software piracy (PGN) Friday the 13th Again (PGN) Computer error locks out politicians (D. Steele) Re: Losing Systems (Jerome H. Saltzer) Technical brilliance v. commercial acumen (Jerry Harper) National Credit Information Network (Sidney Marshall) Re: Ethics of the Internet (John Gilmore) RISKs of reading newspapers: Credit card fraud is not hacking. (Mike Van Pelt) Counting engines (Don Alvarez)

The RISKS Forum is moderated. Contributions should be relevant, sound, in good taste, objective, coherent, concise, and nonrepetitious. Diversity is welcome. * RISKS MOVES SOON TO csl.sri.com. FTPable ARCHIVES WILL REMAIN ON KL.sri.com. CONTRIBUTIONS to RISKS@CSL.SRI.COM, with relevant, substantive "Subject:" line (otherwise they may be ignored). REQUESTS to RISKS-Request@CSL.SRI.COM. FOR VOL i ISSUE j / ftp KL.sri.com / login anonymous (ANY NONNULL PASSWORD) / get stripe:<risks>risks-i.j ... (OR TRY cd stripe:<risks> / get risks-i.j ... Volume summaries in (i.j)=(1.46),(2.57),(3.92),(4.97),(5.85),(6.95),(7.99).

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 00:16:37 EST From: Yoram Eisenstadter <yoram@garfield.cs.columbia.edu> Subject: Risks of not having backup systems for critical applications

The following article, which appeared in the "Metropolitan Diary" section of today's New York Times, illustrates the risk of not having backup systems for super-critical computerized applications.

The other day, Gloria Ross was late for an appointment at a company on the Avenue of the Americas. She holds herself blameless for being tardy and in defense she offers this explanation: The high-technology building where the company has its offices has a computerized directory. To find the floor of the person you wish to visit, you push a button with the first letter of the last name. Aware of this procedure, Ms. Ross pressed the button marked "O" on one of the computer monitors mounted on a large black column. Nothing happened. A guard told her to try the next column. Again, nothing. The computer was down. Her next stop: the information desk in the lobby. "I get my information the same way you do, lady," the man at the desk said, informing her that even he did not have a printed directory...

The article goes on to describe the chaos that ensued in the building, with "dozens of people desperately cruising from floor to floor" looking for the right offices. Let's hope that the building's managers learned the obvious lesson from this incident.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1989 22:48:49 PST From: Peter Neumann <neumann@csl.sri.com> Subject: Computer malfunction downs traffic lights. One killed, one injured.

One child was killed and another injured [Mon 9 Jan 1989] when they were hit by a truck after entering a crosswalk where the pedestrian signals were not working. The malfunction was caused by a computer error that affected traffic signals at 22 school crossings. The pedestrian signal cycles failed to switch to the school schedule. The cause reportedly may have been a breakdown in the radio communications between a computer in Colorado Springs and an atomic clock in Boulder. [Colo Spgs Gazette Telegraph, 10 and 11 Jan 1989; contributed by Scott Campbell, PAR Gov't Sys Corp, Colo Spgs.]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1989 22:39:33 PST From: Peter Neumann <neumann@csl.sri.com> Subject: Chaos Theory Predicts Unpredictability

A physicist who applied the new mathematics of `chaos theory' to the Star Wars missile shield foudn that the equations pointed again and again to crisis and war or -- at best -- a continued and precarious balance of terror. ``The question is not really Star Wars, but what do you do if all you can predict is unpredictableness?'' Alvin M. Saperstein of Wayne State University asked [at the AAAS meeting in San Francisco]. [From an article by Charles Petit, SF Chronicle, 18 Jan 1989, p. A18]

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1989 22:32:31 PST From: Peter Neumann <neumann@csl.sri.com> Subject: China accused of software piracy

Beijing (Washington Post, 18 Jan 1989) -- American companies are losing "many millions" of dollars in potential business in China because the companies' computer softwae has been widely pirated... China has no copyright law of its own...

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Jan 1989 22:28:34 PST From: Peter Neumann <neumann@csl.sri.com> Subject: Friday the 13th Again

There were various reports of Friday-the-13th virus deletions in Britain, attacking MS-DOS systems. The so-called virus "has been frisky and hundreds of people, including a large firm with over 400 computers, have telephoned with their problems," according to Alan Solomon, director of S and S Enterprises, a data recovery center in Chesham. The virus reportedly bore similarities to the Friday the 13th Israeli virus (13 May 1988, the previous Friday the 13th). [Source: SF Chronicle, 14 Jan 1989, p. B1]

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 09:27:15 EST From: uivkey@NADC.ARPA (D. Steele) Subject: Computer error locks out politicians

Just to show that computer systems play no favorites in politics, local news reports are blaming a computer error for denying Pennsylvania Republicans tickets and access to many of the Presidential inauguration balls and festivities. The politicians are complaning "its like being all dressed up with no place to go".

Submitted by Scott Berger, Naval Air Development Center, Warminster, PA

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 12:31:05 gmt From: "Jerome H. Saltzer" <jhs%computer-lab.cambridge.ac.uk@NSS.Cs.Ucl.AC.UK> From: Jerome H. Saltzer <Saltzer@LCS.MIT.Edu> Subject: re: Losing Systems

The question as to why there are so many losing systems may have a simpler, more fundamental answer than has been suggested in the contributions over the last couple of weeks. So far, those contributions have (1) suggested incompetence in management or technical ability, and (2) questioned some of the currently fashionable magic bullets, such as structured programming.

I believe that the more fundamental answer is that the pace of improvement of hardware technology in the computer business has, for 35 years now, simply been running faster than our ability to develop the necessary experience to use it effectively, safely, and without big mistakes.

The losing systems almost always contain some elements of newness; in fact on close inspection they usually contain several such elements. (If someone claims there is nothing new in a project that involves software development, then ask why they aren't just using previously existing software. It is the attraction of taking advantage of new possibilities, usually as the result of hardware being either more functional or cheaper than it used to be, that leads to new software systems.) If these new elements were to arrive on the scene one at a time, and spaced far enough apart that thorough experience could be assimilated with each previous new element, then I submit that traditional engineering practice, as applied to pyramids, cathedrals, bridges, consumer electronics, and even airplanes, would lead to higher success probabilities. Mistakes would still be made, but they would tend to occur on the far-out projects that are expected to carry an element of risk, rather than the ones that intuitively seem like they ought to be routine, such as automating the county records.

Arguing that managers should become computer wizards, or offering structured programming to fix the problem, just don't seem to me to get to the heart of this more fundamental issue.

When the technology ground rules change at a rate that is ten times faster than in other engineering disciplines, it would seem that unless one can figure out how to accumulate and assimilate experience also at a ten-times-faster rate, system failures are an expected result. Perhaps a more interesting question is how it is that some computer systems manage to be successful. I observe two related things that are often associated with successful systems:

1. Those systems that are successful are usually conservative, with somewhat simpler objectives than the state of technology would have permitted.

2. Systems that are succesful often had the management advantage of a system dictator who had the absolute power to say NO to ideas that didn't seem to fit in. A dictator is one of the few mechanisms that can keep an implementation conservative in the face of pressures to be state-of-the-art.

My conclusion from these observations is that since: (1) it is hard to be conservative in the face of tempting technology advances; and (2) appointing dictators isn't a common management practice; successful systems aren't very common either. And having conservative goals and a dictator doesn't guarantee that the system will be winning or that its future users will like it, it just sets the stage for that possibility. Jerry Saltzer

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Jan 89 15:34:31 GMT From: Jerry Harper <jharper@euroies.UUCP> Subject: Technical brilliance v. commercial acumen

Steven C. Beste made the point that managers are trying to come to grips with computer technology moreso now than ever before; this I would generally agree with subject to the caveat that the degree of managerial immersement in the technology will never match that of the technical expert. One of the last companies I was consultant to actually lost sales because the management didn't understand either the product or the market, and knowing both was especially important as the company was making the transition from conventional DP through Cobol to providing a logic programming environment on a mainframe. The permanent technical staff couldn't have sold their souls for ice pops and the management were having fiercesome difficulty in making the paradigmatic shift from Cobol inspired projects to AI (expert system bespoke applications). Just as you thought the management was grasping the core issues Sisyphus would pop up and roll progress back. Even more lamentable were the salesforce who new sweet f.a. about either methodology. Because AI was "sexy" the salespeople were inclined to promise the earth (one salesman reckoned he had a contract for a complete CASE system for a major motor manufacturer in the UK even though neither he nor the company had any experience in this area) and take umbrage when it was explained that the company simply couldn't deliver. The net result was that the company became unsatisfactory for quite a number of the technical people who carried their skills elsewhere.Nevertheless, observing the company's progress from a distance it seems to be doing quite well and the mangement have made the learning curve.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 89 15:50 EST From: marshall.wbst@Xerox.COM Subject: National Credit Information Network

I just received in the mail as part of the BYTE magazine package of postcards from manufacturers etc. a post card selling a program capable of accessing the National Credit Information Network (if I qualify). Here is the text of the postcard (the typography of the card was ragged and this is as exact as I could make it):

NATIONAL CREDIT INFORMATION NETWORK ON-LINE ACCESS PACKAGE

AVOID SLOW PAY - NO PAY HIRE QUALITY EMPLOYEES

SAVE $200.00 $498.00 * SAVE $200.00

------------------------------------------------------- * Federal Trade Commission Regulated data " * 250 Million Credit Profiles on Individuals * 9 Million Credit Profiles On Business * Drivers License Records from 49 of 50 States * Nationwide Tracing Of Social Security Numbers * Information / 1000 Credit Bureaus Nationwide -------------------------------------------------------

IF YOU QUALIFY FOR ACCESS...THIS INFORMATION IS IDEAL FOR:

------------------------------------------------------- * Qualifying Clients, Buyers, Sellers, Potential Partners * Pre-employment Qualification for your firm * Collecting Delinquent Accounts made easier * Nationwide Skip Tracing via Social Security Number * Child Support Litigation and/or Collection Data * Extension of Credit -OR- Opening an Account -------------------------------------------------------

FREE ON-LINE DEMO

"MONEY-BACK GUARANTEE IF YOU DO NOT QUALIFY

------------------------------------------------------- CALL NOW for an immediate on-line presentation Set your computer/modem to support {300, 1200 or 2400 baud}, (8-N-1 or 7-E-1 format}, & {full duplex and xon/xoff handshaking}. Have your modem dial the NCI Network. From Cincinnati, Ohio dial 521-4420 Nationwide dial 1-513-521-4420 After connection, slowly press the [ENTER] key 4 times. When prompted for a Username: type DECK4 then press [ENTER] -------------------------------------------------------

For more information use the reverse side of this card or call 1-800-242-6246

Is this scary or what?

--Sidney Marshall

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 17:29:00 PST From: gnu@toad.com (John Gilmore) Subject: Re: Ethics of the Internet

Someone [Cliff Stoll neglected to say who] wrote in "Ethics of the Internet", draft RFC:

> The IAB strongly... characterized as unethical and unacceptable any > activity which purposely: ... or (e) compromises the privacy of users ...

Does the NSA monitoring the Internet come under these guidelines? Or are there some things that THEY are secretly allowed to do, while WE are publicly told that these things are unethical and unacceptable?

If they aren't monitoring the net, why do they have 5 IMPs?

John Gilmore {sun,pacbell,uunet,pyramid,amdahl}!hoptoad!gnu gnu@toad.com

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 14:30:37 PST From: Mike Van Pelt <mvp@v7fs1.UUCP> Subject: RISKs of reading newspapers: Credit card fraud is not hacking.

I read the excerpt from the 1/17/89 "The Australian" with extreme aggravation. Where do these idiot reporters get the idea that garden-variety credit card fraud has anything to do with computer "hacking" by any definition of "hacking"? The only place where computers even came into the story was that the criminals were using bulletin boards to distribute the stolen credit card numbers.

With the exception of the first paragraph of the story, of course. The paragraph which had all the obligatory vague references to "defence and banking networks". This paragraph, which speaks of the alleged "hackers" breaking into alleged dial-up numbers to alleged "anti-ballistic missile launch silos" is obviously bogus. The only country on this planet that has any anti-ballistic missiles is the Soviet Union.

Mike Van Pelt Video 7

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Jan 89 15:20:50 EST From: Don Alvarez <boomer@space.mit.edu> Subject: Counting engines

Various contributors have discussed the relative merits of two or three engine planes. Anybody who thinks they can rate the reliability of a commercial jet simply by counting the numbers of engines is certainly ignoring something. Engineering is tradeoffs. I challenge anyone to present a pair of airplanes whose relative reliabilty can be determined simply by counting the number of engines.

Imagine two planes which are identical except that one plane has 2 Bratt&Zittley Foobar-900 engines, and the other has 3 B&Z F-900 engines. Well, clearly the second will fly better on n-1 engines, but it takes in the same number of $ in revenue for each flight, and costs 50% more to maintain than the 2 engine plane. Economics tells you that the $ have to be made up somewhere. Chances are you will do a risk/benefit analysis and drop the maintenance schedule on the second until its reliability drops to the level of the cheaper plane. Otherwise you go broke. If you say the second plane brings in more revenues because it holds more seats, then either you are overloading the airframe of the second plane or else it is bigger than the two engine plane. If you overload the airframe, that clearly affects safety. If its a bigger plane, then its a different plane, and you can't compare apples and oranges. Ditto for putting smaller engines in the three engine plane.

Second guessing the tradeoffs made in designing a system as complicated as a commercial airliner is more than a simple exercise in counting. - Don Alvarez

------------------------------

End of RISKS-FORUM Digest 8.11 ************************