Text File

Subject: RISKS DIGEST 9.80 REPLY-TO: risks@csl.sri.com

RISKS-LIST: RISKS-FORUM Digest Friday 13 April 1990 Volume 9 : Issue 80

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 Daylight Savings Time (Chuck Weinstock) Authentication via User-Defined Fields (Jim Kimble) Rites of consumption (Phil Agre) Franklin Resources Computer Glitch (John Murray) Risks of computerized publishing (Henry Spencer) Re: Computer generated letters (Benjamin Ellsworth, Nathaniel Borenstein) Software: A320 vs. shuttle (Michael) The C3 legacy, Part 5: Subsystem I (Les Earnest) COMPASS 90 program and registration information (John Cherniavsky)

The RISKS Forum is moderated. Contributions should be relevant, sound, in good taste, objective, coherent, concise, and nonrepetitious. Diversity is welcome. CONTRIBUTIONS to RISKS@CSL.SRI.COM, with relevant, substantive "Subject:" line (otherwise they may be ignored). REQUESTS to RISKS-Request@CSL.SRI.COM. TO FTP VOL i ISSUE j: ftp CRVAX.sri.com<CR>login anonymous<CR>AnyNonNullPW<CR> cd sys:[risks]<CR>get risks-i.j . Vol summaries now in risks-i.0 (j=0)

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

Date: Mon, 09 Apr 90 16:34:47 EDT From: Chuck Weinstock <weinstoc@SEI.CMU.EDU> Subject: Risks of Daylight Savings Time

With the time change a week ago, I personally experienced the results of a programming error. On Saturday, March 31, some friends and I left Chicago on the Amtrak train Southwest Chief bound for Flagstaff, AZ. Because of the time change that occurred that night, the train was automatically an hour late at 3am on the 1st. This meant that we would arrive in Flagstaff at 10:24pm Sunday instead of the 9:24pm scheduled. However, by Albuquerque due to some excellent train handling by the Santa Fe Railroad, the train had made up most of that hour, and by Winslow, the first stop in Arizona, we were on time.

Unfortunately the Amtrak ticket computer had not been programmed correctly to deal with daylight savings time in Arizona (there isn't any...it retains Mountain Standard Time == Pacific Daylight Time), and the incorrect train departure time had been printed on the tickets. The conductor decided we couldn't leave Winslow until the time on the tickets, so we sat in the station for an hour and eventually arrived in Flagstaff an hour late.

Chuck Weinstock

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

Date: Mon, 9 Apr 90 15:43:01 CDT From: jkimble@nostromo.austin.ibm.com (The Programmer Guy) Subject: Authentication via User-Defined Fields

I was picking up a prescription at my local pharmacy when I was told by the clerk that the order had not yet been phoned in by the doctor. I was asked to wait for a few minutes while the clerk rifled through a stack of FAXed prescriptions.

After the clerk found the FAX from my doctor's office and passed it on to the pharmacist, I began thinking how easy it would be to forge a prescription by using your favorite desktop publishing software, a scanner, and a PC-FAX board. This might have taken a little skill and a lot of ingenuity a few years ago, but as extremely easy-to-use software proliferates into the general public, this task becomes almost trivial.

I asked the clerk how they went about verifying that the FAX transmissions were legitimate. She said the Sending FAX transmits the name of the doctor's office and its phone number; the clerks simply ensures that the phone number listed is correct. The obvious flaw in this system is that the FAX machine itself does NO VERIFICATION of your name or phone number -- you simply "roll your own" banner as you see fit! The hopper holding the received documents was sitting in plain sight so obtaining a "legitimate" banner wouldn't be at all difficult.

I point this out as an example that the only thing worse than *no* verification of authenticity, is *assumed* authenticity.

--Jim Kimble, TCP/IP Development, IBM Austin, TX

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

Date: Mon, 9 Apr 90 17:35:33 199 From: "Phil Agre" <agre@gargoyle.uchicago.edu> Subject: Rites of consumption

The articles about automation in fast food restaurants brought to mind a recent article in the New York Times about the McDonald's in Moscow. It seems that the Russians did not yet have the skills necessary to eat at McDonald's. In particular, though they all have extensive experience at waiting in line, they were accustomed to lines parallel to the counter, not orthogonal to it. And they were entirely unaccustomed to the precise, stylized form of dialogue that is involved in purchasing a meal at such a restaurant. The exuberant managers of the restaurant had taken this as a kind of challenge, it seems, and declared their intention to "McDonaldsize" the Russians. For the managers of McDonald's, this wasn't just a matter of helping the poor Russians learn to order a hamburger, nor was it simply a matter of running an efficient restaurant. It was symbolic, both for the people who own McDonald's and for the New York Times -- the perspectives of the two of them were quite indistinguishable throughout -- of the larger process of `converting' the Russians to a capitalist way of life. It was explicit in their explanations of this process that living in a capitalist social and economic system is a *skill*, something located not nearly so much in the mind as in the body, in a cultivated habituation to the various forms and interfaces of efficient consumption. It would seem that these Russians are getting their remedial lessons just in time, given that the process of buying fast food is about to become even more of a skill. The touch screens will be confusing at first, given that everyone has been so reliant upon the small space of `slop' in the human contact -- minimal, to be sure, but real -- between consumer and counter attendant. But soon we will all get used to it, and the skill of sorting one's desires into the combinatorial space of a touch-screen menu will become part of each new citizen's socialization, another technological boundary joining our own bodies to the rational machinery of a system without a face or a meaning beyond the pure excitation of standardized desires.

Phil Agre, University of Chicago

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

Date: 9 Apr 90 21:22:19 GMT From: johnm@uts.amdahl.com (John Murray) Subject: Franklin Resources Computer Glitch

Franklin Resources of San Mateo CA was critized recently in the San Francisco Chronicle over its sales commission policy. The company runs a family of "loaded" mutual funds, meaning that customers pay an up-front commission charge to invest. The criticism related to how Franklin charges an additional, hidden commission on those dividends which are reinvested in the fund, rather than paid out in cash. It turns out that the fine print contains a provision which allows an investor to avoid this hidden commission by paying a minimum annual fee of $50. However, Franklin doesn't promote this discount feature.

According to the Chronicle (April 7 1990), the company will soon kill the special arrangement. Chuck Johnson, VP of corporate development, says "It was never a deliberate policy, it was a data processing snafu which we ignored for a while. But an increasing number of brokers caught on, and it's reached the point where we have to address it."

Some points to ponder:

1) A prospectus is the legal document on which an investor is supposed to make financial decisions. But what's to stop Franklin, or anyone else, from arbitrarily ignoring ANY of its provisions, and blame a data processing snafu?

2) What sort of 'snafu' could possibly cause a variety of prospectuses to contain a complete description of a non-existent feature? A text processing error seems most likely, but that doesn't say much for Franklin's proof-readers.

Mr. Johnson makes Franklin seem particularly sleazy. The company waited until "an increasing number" of brokers (not just one or two) drew attention to the error, or "caught on" as he puts it. Then, instead of sending out correction notices, the company just "ignored it for a while".

In any case, it seems that Franklin will no longer let you pay them to avoid having to pay them for getting what you originally paid them to do up-front in the first place!

- John Murray, Amdahl Corp. (My own opinions, etc.)

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

Date: Thu, 12 Apr 90 23:20:19 EDT From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu Subject: Risks of computerized publishing

The April issue of Locus, the major trade magazine of science fiction and fantasy writing and publishing, contains an interesting news item. Some excerpts:

_The_Fall_of_Hyperion_, the new book by Dan Simmons, appeared with a critical page missing. All 20,000 copies of the hardcover and trade editions were shipped before bookseller and Locus reviewer Tom Whitemore called Bantam/Doubleday/Dell to point out that page 305 is missing, and page 306 appears twice. Their initial statement is not printable...

The page was correct in the advance galleys... The mistake was in the film shooting at the printer. Now that publishers and printers are computerized, there seem to be more mistakes, not less. Last year, Tor's edition of _Angel_Station_ by Walter Jon Williams had several sections turned into gibberish by a computer glitch. Again, the checked galleys were correct...

The piece goes on to mention that such problems, of course, are not new. There have been some major disasters -- entire chapters or crucial scenes omitted -- even in pre-computer days.

Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry

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

Date: Mon, 9 Apr 90 17:25:06 pdt From: Benjamin Ellsworth <ben@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com> Subject: Re: Computer generated letters

> [great story about a erroneous computer generated letter and bogus > signature]... [These tales continue to come out of the woodwork. Please > don't take this as a challenge to submit still more of them. Thanks. > PGN!]

Yes, but in the interest of good science (and having a good laugh ;-) we should definitely collect an archive of as many as possible. You never know when such data will be needed by a someone doing a "study." ;-)

This is a call for such stories. If you have a story, please send it to ben@cv.hp.com. If the incident happened to you, make your subject "Letter story, first-hand." If you just heard the story, the subject should be "Letter story, hearsay." Mailings using other subject lines are not guaranteed to make it into the archive.

Once the mailing slows down a little, I'll find away to make the archive generally available.

Benjamin Ellsworth | ben@cv.hp.com

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

Date: Tue, 10 Apr 90 00:15:58 -0400 (EDT) From: Nathaniel Borenstein <nsb@thumper.bellcore.com> Subject: Re: Wonderfully mistaken letter generators

My mother-in-law is the President of a small synagogue, Congregation Beth El in Potsdam, NY. She frequently receives some very amusing examples of this form, most notably ones that conclude from the "Beth" that the recipient is female, e.g.:

Dear Miss. El,

Dear Beth,

And of course, they make frequent references to "the El family" which is particularly amusing when you realize that "El" in this context means nothing less than God Himself (Beth El is Hebrew for "House of God").

In a related matter, one of my relatives, whose last name is Glasser, decided to throw away $17 on the "Glasser family newsletter". This turned out to be a 20 page Macintosh-generated newsletter that was obviously completely generic -- globally replacing "Glasser" with "Smith" would have yielded an equally reasonable Smith family newsletter. Anybody know how much money such companies manage to make by selling such dubious computer-personalized products?

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

Date: Wed, 11 Apr 90 10:36:53 EST From: bigm@batserver.cs.uq.oz.au Subject: Software: A320 vs. shuttle (RISKS-9.79)

brahme@vlsic2.ti.com (Dan Brahme) writes [...] >A look at how many times the space shuttle launch had to be postponed >due to some software problem should shed some light.

I don't think you can validly compare the two systems, the shuttle software was a generation or more of technology behind that of airbus. I remember reading an article in communications of the ACM about the shuttle software (1982 I think), and in many ways it was a disaster waiting to happen. The method of mutual exclusion used in the shuttle was called "alibies" and involved proving that at the instant your process wanted to access a variable, no other process would. This was dubious for a few processes, but when the system complexity increased trying to calculate this n^2 problem for 10's to 100's of processes was ridiculous. One of the reasons for delay was each time someone wanted to change a process, they had to recalculate all its alibis.

When one of the first flights was delayed due to weather, and the crew went back to base to practice more in the simulator. (Real shuttle software/hardware attached to a enviroment simulator.) They ran a senario called "Trans-Atlantic Abort" in which something happens to thrust so that they are too high to return to base, and too low to go into orbit. The idea was to glide to Spain. In the middle of this, all CRTs went into an error mode indicating they had not recieved any updated info from the computers in 5 seconds, and that there data was invalid. The astronauts were understandably shaken, and the software enginiers traced the problem to a bad "goto" into the middle of code without reinitialising the data.

The shuttle software was written in a goto orientated sequential language on redundent IBM computers of the same design. The A320 has 3 or 4 separate computers with CPU's from different manufactures each running software from different companies written with different compilers for high level languages that include process management and security. Goto's are forbidden in the design.

This makes it likely that the problem (if any) in the airbus software is in the problem specification/design rather than the implementation.

I have been appalled at Airbus' behaviour regarding the A320. It is not unlikely that there are some software errors, but until now Airbus has had an excellent reputation for installing good saftey features not available on other aircraft (e.g. completely fire retardent cabin materials with non toxic fumes years ahead of other manufacturers). It seems silly to risk that reputation by not being as open as possible.

Michael

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

Date: 11 Apr 90 1635 PDT From: Les Earnest <LES@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> Subject: The C3 legacy, Part 5: Subsystem I

(Continuing from RISKS 9.74)

Of the dozens of command and control system development projects that were initiated by the U.S. Air Force in the early 1960s, none appeared to perform its functions as well as the manual system that preceded it. I expect that someone will be willing to argue that at least one such system worked, but I suggest that any such claims not be accepted uncritically.

All of the parties involved in the development of C3 systems knew that their economic or power-acquisition success was tied to the popular belief that the use of computers would substantially improve military command functions. The Defense Department management and the U.S. Congress must bear much of the responsibility for the recurring fiascos because they consistently failed to insist on setting rational goals. Goals should have been specified in terms of information quality or response time for planning and executing a given set of tasks. The performance of these systems should have been predicted in the planning phase and measured after they were built so as to determine whether the project was worthwhile.

Instead, the implicit goal became "to automate command and control," which meant that these systems always "succeeded," even though they didn't work. Despite a solid record of failure in C3 development, I know of just one such project that was cancelled in the development phase. That was Subsystem I, which was intended to automate photo-interpretation and was developed for the Air Force by Bunker Ramo, as I recall.

The "I" in the name of this project supposedly stood for "Intelligence" or "Interpretation." This cryptic name was apparently chosen to meet the needs of the prospective users in the intelligence community, who liked to pretend that nobody knew what they were doing. This pretense occasionally led to odd conduct, such as when they assigned code names to various devices and tried to keep them secret from outsiders. For example, a secret name was assigned to one of the early U.S. spy satellites -- as I recall it was Samos -- but when that name somehow showed up in the popular press they tried to pretend that no such thing existed. In support of this claim, everyone in the intelligence community was directed to stop using that name immediately.

When I attended a meeting in the Pentagon a few days after this decree and mentioned the forbidden word, the person operating the tape recorder immediately said "Wait while I back up the tape to record over that!" This was a classified discussion, so there was no issue of public disclosure involved, just the belief that there should be no record of the newly contaminated name.

Sometime in the 1981-82 period, the Air Force decided to terminate the development of Subsystem I. A group of about 30 people from various parts of the defense establishment, including me, was invited to visit the facility in suburban Los Angeles where the work was going on to see if any of it could be used in other C3 systems. We were given a two day briefing on the system and its components, the principal one being a multiprocessor computer.

The conceptual design of this Polymorphic Computer, as they called it, was attributed to Sy Ramo, who had earlier helped lead Hughes Aircraft and Ramo-Wooldridge (later called TRW) to fame and fortune. The architecture of this new machine was an interesting bad idea. The basic idea was to use many small computers instead of one big one, so that the system could be scaled to meet various needs simply by adjusting the number of processors. The problem was that these units were rather loosely coupled and each computer had a ridiculously small memory -- just 1K words. Each processor could also sequentially access a 1K buffer. Consequently it was very awkward to program and had extremely poor performance.

I sought out the Subsystem I program manager while I was there and asked if our group was the only one being offered this "free system." He said that we were just one of a number of groups that were being flown in over several months time. When I asked how much they were spending on trying to give it away, he said about $9 million (which would be equivalent to about $38 million today). The Air Force Systems Command seemed to be trying desparately to make this program end up as a "success" no matter how much it cost. When I asked why the program was being cancelled, I got a very vague answer.

I did not recommend that my group acquire any of that equipment and as far as I know nobody else did. The question of why Subsystem I was cancelled remained unresolved as far I was was concerned. It is conceivable that it was because they figured out that it wasn't going to work, but neither did the other C3 systems, so the reason must have been deeper (or shallower, depending on your perspective). My guess is that they got into some kind of political trouble, but I will probably never know.

(Next part: the Foggy Bottom Pickle Factory)

-Les Earnest (Les@Sail.Stanford.edu)

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

Date: Thu, 5 Apr 90 10:58:07 -0400 From: jcc@cs.UMD.EDU (John Cherniavsky) Subject: COMPASS '90 program and registration information

COMPASS '90 Monday June 25 PRE-CONFERENCE TUTORIALS

0800 Registration; Coffee 0900 Software Safety by Archibald McKinlay of McDonnell-Douglas Corporation

1300 Software Verification and Validation for High Risk Applications by Janet R. Dunham and Linda Lauterbach of Research Triangle Institute 1700 Close of tutorials

COMPASS '90 PROGRAM: Tuesday June 26

0800 Registration; Coffee 0900 Opening, General Chair, Dolores R. Wallace, National Institute of Standards and Technology

0915 Honorary Chair Address, Honorable Mike Parker, U.S. House of Representatives

0930 Keynote Address, "Safety in Numbers?" Air Marshal M J D Brown, RAF, Director General of Strategic Electronic Systems, UK Ministry of Defence

1030 Program Chair, H. O. Lubbes, Naval Research Laboratory 1100 Break 1130 Systems Engineering: The Forgotten Discipline, Dario De Angelis, Logicon

Verification and Validation: A Systems Engineering Discipline for Producing Quality Software Systems, Roger Fujii, Logicon 1300 Lunch 1400 A Vital Digital Control System with a Calculable Probability of an Unsafe Failure, David Rutherford, Rail Transportation Systems, Inc.

1430 Using Symbolic Execution to Aid Automatic Test Data Generation, A. Jeff Offut, E. Jason Seaman, Clemson University

1500 A Case Study: Production Problems in an Application Running on the Prodigy Service, Marnie L. Hutcheson, Prodigy Services Company 1530 Break 1600 Fast Static Analysis of Real-time Rule-Based Systems to Verify Their Fixed Point Convergence, Albert Mo Kim Cheng, Chih-Kan Wang, University of Texas at Austin

1630 Real-Time Software Failure Characteristics, Janet R. Dunham, Research Triangle Institute and George Finelli, NASA Langley Research Center

1700 Uncovering Redundancy, Rule-Inconsistency and Conflict in Knowledge Bases via Deduction, James McGuire, Lockheed AI Center

1900 Banquet; On Quality, W. Earl Boebert, Secure Computing Technology Corporation

COMPASS '90 PROGRAM: WEDNESDAY June 27

0830 Registration; Coffee 0900 Mathematics for Digital Systems Engineering, Donald Good, Computational Logic, Inc.

1000 The Rigorous Specification and Verification of the Safety Aspects of a Real-time System, Derek P. Mannering, Rex, Thompson & Partners, LTD

1030 An Analysis of Ordnance System Software Using the MALPAS Tools, Ken Hayman, Department of Defence, Australia 1100 Break 1130 Proving Proof Rules: A Proof System for Concurrent Programs, David Goldschlag, Computational Logic, Inc.

1200 A Formal Approach to Railway Signalling, W. J. Cullyer and W. Wong, University of Warwick

1230 A Structured Approach to Code Correspondence Analysis, J.W. Freeman and R. B. Neely, Ford Aerospace Corporation 1300 Lunch 1400 Maintaining Abstractions with Verification, William D. Young and Warren A. Hunt, Jr., Computational Logic, Inc.

1430 Using CSP to Develop Trustworthy Hardware, Andrew P. Moore, Naval Research Laboratory 1500 Break 1530 Trusted Computer System Standards, Chuck Pfleeger, Trusted Information Systems

1630 Panel: Are Trusted Computer System Standards Useful for the Development of Systems Whose Criticality Is Other Than Security? Chair, H. O. Lubbes, Naval Research Laboratory

COMPASS '90 PROGRAM: THURSDAY June 28

0830 Registration; Coffee 0900 Rationale for the Development of the UK Defence Standards for Safety-Critical Software, Air Marshal M J Brown, RAF, Director General of Strategic Electronic Systems, UK Ministry of Defence

1000 Safety-related Programmable Electronic Systems: Guidelines and Standards, R. Bell, Health and Safety Executive, UK

1030 DRIVE-ing Standards - A Safety Critical Matter, T. F. Buckley, P. H. Jesty, K. Hobley, and M. West, University of Leeds 1100 Break 1130 Panel: Should Government Regulate Medical Software? Chair: Diane Jackinowski, Varian Associates

1230 The Computer-Related Risk of the Year: Distributed Control, Peter Neumann, SRI International 1300 Lunch 1400 SAFETYNET 89, Digby Dyke, Charter Technologies, LTD 1430 Product Liability in the UK - Issues for Developers of Safety- Critical Software" - Ranald Robertson, Stephenson Harwood Solicitors 1530 Break 1600 Panel: Are Certification and Accreditation Useful Concepts for Safety Critical Systems? Chair, H. O. Lubbes, Naval Research Laboratory

1700 Verifiable Microprocessors: Architectures and Verification Techniques, John Kershaw, Royal Signal and Radar Establishment and John Wise, Charter Technologies, LTD

FOR REGISTRATION INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT Dolores Wallace wallace@swe.ncsl.nist.gov 301-975-3340

SPONSORS: IEEE AESS, IEEE NCAC, in Cooperation With: ACM SIGSOFT. Co-sponsors: Advanced Ordnance Technology Incorporated, Charter Tehcnologies, Ltd., Computational Logic, Incoroporated, Computer Sciences Corporation, Georgetown University, Logicon, Incorporated, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Naval Reseqarch Laboratory, Naval Surface Warfare Center, Research Triangle Institute, Tri-Service Software System Safety Working Group, Trusted Information Systems

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

End of RISKS-FORUM Digest 9.80 ************************