The Risks Digest

The RISKS Digest

Forum on Risks to the Public in Computers and Related Systems

ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator

Volume 20 Issue 61

Friday 1 October 1999

Contents

o English or Metric - why Mars Climate Orbiter was lost!
Lord Wodehouse
o Japanese Nuclear accident: a case study of bad design
Chiaki Ishikawa
o Massive Fiber Cut Pauses East-West Traffic
David Farber
o FBI warns some Y2K fixes may be suspect
NewsScan
o Misreading and nuclear war -- or not
Simon Hogg
o Internet Explorer 5.0 flaws
Steve Wildstrom
o Elliptic curve 97-bit challenge broken
Dorothy Denning
o Intuit "Shuts Down" Privacy Site After PRIVACY Forum Query
Lauren Weinstein
o Henry Petroski, books, and risks of technology
PGN
o Linux banned after Samba misconfigation blocks NT authentication
B. W. Fitzpatrick
o Cyber-Speak
Ira J Rimson
o Info on RISKS (comp.risks)

English or Metric - why Mars Climate Orbiter was lost!

Lord Wodehouse <w0400@ggr.co.uk>
Fri, 01 Oct 1999 20:07:30 +0100
The following quoted from NASA's press release shows that for the
second time a mix-up in units resulted in an experiment failure, but
this time it was a spacecraft.

>     The peer review preliminary findings indicate that one team
> used English units (e.g., inches, feet and pounds) while the other
> used metric units for a key spacecraft operation.  This
> information was critical to the maneuvers required to place the
> spacecraft in the proper Mars orbit.
>
>       "Our inability to recognize and correct  this simple error
> has had major implications," said Dr. Edward Stone, director of
> the Jet Propulsion Laboratory.  "We have underway a thorough
> investigation to understand this issue."

Risks - too many to list, but if after 40 years NASA can't sort out
measurement units, what hope have we for Starwars projects. It is a terrible
inditement to have to admit to. It certainly ranks with the HST mirror as a
fiasco.

Perhaps Europe has got it right for once. Metric units at least mean factors
of ten or more out, which tend to show up errors. The English still have
miles and pints and galleons (UK not US), but they do their science in
metric units.

Global Research Information Systems, Glaxo Wellcome Medicines Research Centre
Gunnels Wood Road, Stevenage SG1 2NY UK  +44 1438 76 3222  w0400@ggr.co.uk

  [Thanks to all of you, too numerous to cite, for noting this item.
  The measure in question was apparently kilograms per second vs. pounds per
  second of force, off by a factor of 2.2, which would seem to explain the
  too-close approach.  The need for very strong typing strikes again.  PGN]


Japanese Nuclear accident: a case study of bad design

Chiaki Ishikawa <Chiaki.Ishikawa@personal-media.co.jp>
Fri, 1 Oct 1999 04:34:00 +0900 (JST)
By now, many of you are aware of the Japanese nuclear accident where a large
amount of Uranium solution was placed in one condensation container and
achived the "critical" condition for runaway fission and thus released
high-energy particles (and heat) and generally radio active materials.

For example,
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/
has an article titled "Radiation Leak in Japan".

Already the incident seriously injured three people and 21 more people were
exposed to high dose of radiation.  (The number of people found to be
exposed has been increasing over the last few hours.)

That a certain amount of Uranium solution would reach such critical
condition has been known for years. For example, Richard Feynmann's "Surely
you are joking, Mr. Feynmann" chronicles the author's experience of seeing a
rather sloppy handling at Oak Ridge laboratory where the army people
were not aware that the water solution needs much smaller amount of Uranium
to reach the critical condition than solid or powder since water acts as a
slowing material and increases the chance of neutron's interaction with
Uranium and such.  Feynmann and his superior Segre(spelling?) explained the
basics of the nuclear material and how to calculate the critical mass (of
solutions) in order to work out the practical avoidance guideline.  This
happened before the atomic bombs of 1945.

So, WHY ON EARTH, in today's fuel processing facility, such concentration of
Uranium solution can happen or is allowed to happen?!

According to a news article (in Japanese) at Mainichi Shimbun newspaper site
    http://www.mainichi.co.jp
a few bad design and operation decisions emerge.

First, there was no strict oversight of the line operators who moved the
solution during a condensation process.  The operators move the solution to
a large condensation tank from a container. But, there is no checking
mechanism that the critical amount of uranium is deposited in this
condensation tank.  It seems that the reckless handling of the solution
marginally below the limit was routine (I may be wrong. I hope I am wrong,
but the article seems to suggest that this was the case.)

It is reported about 7 times as much solution allowed was dumped by
mistake. Agah.

Furthermore, the designers and management people of the processing plant
don't seem to believe in Murphy's Law.

There was no automatic warning or similar when the amount of over the
allowed amount (below the critical amount of course) is thrown into the
condensation tank.  So there was no incentive to the line operators not to
go over the threshold carefully. (Weren't they taught about basics?!).

No procedural manual exists to handle such "critical condition" event,
should it happen.

The three operators who directly caused the incident were found lying on the
floor when three colleagues entered the area after hearing the siren warning
the high radiation level.

The village people near the plant was furious since they were not notified
promptly. They learned the accident TWO (2) hours after the incidence: by
then, radiation material escaped the building.  A clearly written well
prepared manual at least could have warned these people much quicker. After
all, the plant people had the time to check out radiation level outside the
plant around 11:45 am. The village people were notified around 12:30. The
accident was believed to have happened around 10:35 am.

Aside from the three people, the plant workers in the next buildings were
found to be exposed to large dose and some small radio active particles were
found in some people's hairs.

Oh well, as of now at 3 am in the morning, the local provincial government
where the plant is located shielded off 350 meters radius area (it seems
that it is being extended to 500 meters as I write this post now.).  People
living in the 10 km radius, (310,000 people) are being advised not to go
outside until tomorrow morning (as if something would happen by then.).

A few bad designs indeed. Why don't people get things right, what the
people back in the 1940's managed to handle?

I have had some bad things to say about the Japanese nuclear power
industry. I have no idea HOW these guys would continue operating in this
manner.  We need a Saturday night massacre style of shuffling of heads and
inject some sense of scientific integrity to the newly hired workers and
management, I guess.

That a renowned nuclear physicist turned politician, Dr. Arima is in charge
of the government agency overseeing the industry could be a good
omen. However, if he can handle the guys with such shoddy history behind
them in the industry effectively in a short time is a question.  In any
case, Dr. Arima was quickly assigned the chair of the ad-hoc overseeing
committee yesterday.

I bet criminal investigation would commence for the plant operators and
such. (I wish it does.)

PS: Right now, the water container that surrounds the condensation tank is
being emptied.  I hate to think who is/are doing this where. The water
surrounding the condensation tank is believed to act as "mirror" for the
neutron particles that cause the runaway fission. By emptying the water
tank, it is hoped that the neutrons are no longer reflected back to the
condensation tank and fission somehow subsides.

Oh, I forgot to mention. After more than 12 hours, it seems that the
critical condition still continues!. Counts of neutron has been high meaning
that the runaway fission in small scale continues.  (But not much dust
particles seem to be blown into the air.)

Can we call this a micro-Chernobyl?  It's up to you.

I am not sure if the reported better preparedness of a currently planned
processing plant in Aomori (the northern part of Honsyu island) against this
type of accident is a blessing or too little too late.

Chiaki Ishikawa <ishikawa@personal-media.co.jp.NoSpam>
Personal Media Corp., Shinagawa, Tokyo, Japan 142-0051

  [slight spelling corrections, including one in archive copy.  PGN]


Massive Fiber Cut Pauses East-West Traffic

David Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>
Wed, 29 Sep 1999 17:17:49 -0400
 [from Dave's IP distribution]

Massive Fiber Cut Pauses East-West Traffic

Click on our sponsors! Updated 11:42 AM ET September 29, 1999By Max
Smetannikov, Inter@ctive Week

At least four Internet service providers are experiencing severe traffic
backlogs because of a massive fiber-optic cable cut that put out four OC-192
lines connecting data networks on the East and West Coasts.  Industry
sources told Inter@ctive Week that the cut was accidentally made by an
unidentified gas company in Ohio around 12:30 EST today.

The news is sending shockwaves through the networking community, with many
carrier operators struggling to understand why, all of a sudden, their
traffic is routed through London and Denmark. At least four Internet service
providers are being affected by the outage. Various online sources have
named AboveNet; GTE Internetworking; and MFS Communications, a WorldCom
subsidiary, as ISPs hit the worst.

"Let me tell you, it really hurts right now," said Dave Rand, AboveNet's
chief technology officer. "We were given a 1 hour estimate for this problem
to be corrected."

GTE Internetworking's public relations department had heard of an outage in
Pennsylvania earlier today, but had no comment on the Ohio development. MCI
WorldCom public relations didn't have an immediate answer to the query.

  [The cut apparently resulted from gas company workers during construction.
  Various ISPs were still down hours later.  PGN]


FBI warns some Y2K fixes may be suspect

"NewsScan" <newsscan@newsscan.com>
Fri, 01 Oct 1999 06:10:52 -0700
The Federal Bureau of Investigation says that some of the Y2K-related
programming fixes that were undertaken by foreign contractors may contain
malicious code. "We have some indications that this is happening," says
Michael Vatis, head of the inter-agency National Infrastructure Protection
Center. "A tremendous amount of remediation of software has been done
overseas or by foreign companies operating within the United States." A
Central Intelligence Agency officer assigned to the Center said recently
that India and Israel appeared to be the "most likely sources of malicious
remediation" of U.S. software. "India and Israel appear to be the countries
whose governments or industry may most likely use their access to implant
malicious code in light of their assessed motive, opportunity and means,"
CIA officer Terrill Maynard wrote in the June issue of Infrastructure
Protection Digest. Such code could contain "time bombs" set to detonate at
some future date, disrupting service or compromising security and password
protections. The Special Senate Y2K committee, in its final report last
week, called such scenarios "unsettling."  (Reuters/TechWeb 1 Oct 99)
http://www.techweb.com/wire/story/reuters/REU19991001S0001;
NewsScan Daily,  1 October 1999, with permission)
  [See also http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/19991001/tc/yk_code_2.html . PGN]


Misreading and nuclear war -- or not

Simon Hogg <s.hogg@freeuk.com>
Fri, 01 Oct 1999 12:36:48 +0100
I get a 'digest' of 'interesting' news stories once a month from a computer
magazine here in the UK (not that interesting, but I have never gone to the
trouble of cancelling the subscription).  Just this minute, I received this
months issue, which contained the headline / abstract; SIX OUT OF SEVEN
US-RUSSIAN "HOTLINES" WILL NOT SURVIVE Y2K.  Worried (or just interested) I
followed the link and found; Six Out of Seven US-Russian Telephone "Hot
Lines" Will Survive Y2K.

Note the clever insertion of 'not' into the first version.  So, do we have
a 14% or an 85% chance of an unfortunate mis-understanding?  Do the
operators at the end of those hotlines suffer withe the same mis-reading
condition?  'Hello Russia, we are [not] really shooting at you'

[The original story came from DNWire and talks about a US Congressional Y2K
committee]

Simon Hogg


Internet Explorer 5.0 flaws

"Steve Wildstrom" <steve_wildstrom@businessweek.com>
Thu, 30 Sep 1999 21:05:54 -0400
Followers of Microsoft security bulletins have noticed pattern lately: A
security hole in Internet Explorer is announced together with a workaround,
followed by a patch, followed by a new hole, the workaround, etc.
   In fact, all of these holes are part of a much larger problem, one that
Microsoft doesn't seem to know how to fix. The difficulty, no surprise here
to RISKS readers, lies in ActiveX and its interaction with the
browser. ActiveX controls can be marked "safe for scripting," meaning that a
script on any HTML page can activate them without requesting permission or
giving notification. And the controls turn out to have holes. So far,
Microsoft has identified two buffer overruns and one case of improper
filesystem access among Microsoft-supplied, marked-safe controls (Security
Bulletins MS0099-33, 37, and 40).
   But the risks are a great deal worse than that. Anyone, it turns out, can
write an ActiveX control and mark it safe for scripting. There's no
validation and no enforceable rules. So it's not hard to imagine
MyTrojans.com putting a really nasty control on a Web site. The only thing
then standing between the user and disaster is Microsoft's flimsy
requirement that controls be signed. Most users, confronted by an
official-looking certificate, will just click OK, no matter who has signed
it. Or a nasty control could be signed with a hijacked certificate.
   For now, Microsoft recommends turning off ActiveScripting.
Unfortunately, that breaks a good many Web sites, including most of
Microsoft's. A less draconian solution suggested to me by a Microsoft
developer is to deny permission to run "safe for scripting" controls.  But
even this breaks a lot of sites, including Windows Update, which is most
Windows 98 users' best hope of installing security patches.  Fortunately,
there don't appear to have been any Trojan control exploits yet.

Steve Wildstrom <steve_wildstrom@businessweek.com> Technology & You,
*Business Week* 1200 G St NW Suite 1100   202-383-2203  Fax: 202-383-2125


Elliptic curve 97-bit challenge broken

Dorothy Denning <denning@cs.georgetown.edu>
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:44:17 -0400
  [Courtesy of David Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>'s IP distribution]

http://www.inria.fr/Actualites/pre55-eng.html

INRIA leads nearly 200 international scientists in cracking code following
challenge by Canadian company Certicom

Paris, September 28.  1999 - A new code-cracking challenge set by Certicom
has been successfully overcome using 740 computers in 20 countries over a
period of 40 days.  The code, ECC2-97, is based on a technique known as
elliptic curves.

Led by Robert Harley, a member of the Cristal project at INRIA, France's
National Institute for Research in Computer Science and Control, the 195
researchers involved showed that a 97-bit encryption system based on
elliptic curves is more difficult to crack than a 512-bit system based on
integers such as RSA-155.

Encryption systems based on elliptic curves have been known since the
mid-1980s, but have only recently been adopted by leading encryption
companies such as RSA Security Inc.  Certicom issued its "ECC Challenge" in
November 1997, specifying a series of challenges of increasing difficulty.
The company offers prizes up to US$100,000.  The aim of the challenge is to
encourage research in the field of elliptic curves and their applications in
encryption, and to strengthen arguments in favor of using elliptic curve
cryptography instead of systems based on integer factorization.

The challenge dubbed "ECC2-97" took place in a set of about 10^29 points on
an elliptic curve chosen by Certicom.  To solve the problem, participants
first computed 119,248,522,782,547 (more than 10^14) using open-source
software developed by Harley.  Among these points, they screened 127,492
"distinctive" points and collected them on a Alpha Linux workstation at
INRIA where further processing revealed two twin points.  Finally Harley
computed the solution using information associated with these two points,
thus nailing the problem.

The solution was found after less than one third of the predicted
computation.  The probability of finding the answer so quickly was less than
one in ten.  Two other twins were detected a few hours after the first - a
less than one in 100 probability!  Nevertheless the computing power used,
around 16,000 MIPS/years, was twice as much as that used for the
factorization of RSA-155 announced by Herman Te Riele of CWI (Amsterdam) and
his colleagues on 26 August 1999.

"These results strengthen our confidence in codes based on properly-chosen
elliptic curves," said Harley.  "This needs to be taken into account in
standards for security and confidentiality on the Internet."

According to Andrew Odlyzko, Head of Mathematics and Cryptography Research,
at AT&T Labs, the code-cracking operation was "a great achievement that
demonstrates the value of fruitfully harnessing some of the huge
computational power of the Internet that is idle most of the time".  He
added: "It validates theoretical security predictions, and demonstrates the
need to keep increasing cryptographic key sizes to protect against growing
threats."

Arjen K. Lenstra, Vice President at Citibanks's Corporate Technology Office
in New York and one of the main contributors to the recent successful attack
on the RSA-155 challenge, compared the two computational efforts and noted
that the present result makes 160-bit ECC keys look even better compared to
1024-bit RSA keys, from a security point of view.  "Ideally we would like
new theoretical advances to further reinforce these practical results,
although such advances appear out of reach for the moment."

Out of the $5000 prize money, the team members will give $4,000 to the Free
Software Foundation to encourage the creation of new free software.  The
remaining $1,000 go to the team members who identified the twin points.
Both were in fact found by Paul Bourke using a network of Alpha
workstations, mainly used for studying pulsars at the Centre of Astrophysics
at Swinburne University in Australia.

The most active teams in the project were:

 Astrophysics & Supercomputing,  Australia
 INRIA,                          France
 University of New South Wales,  Australia
 "Friends of Rohit Khare",       USA and France
 Ecole Polytechnique,            France
 Compaq,                         USA and Italy
 Technischen Universitaet Wien,  Austria
 University of Vermont,          USA
 "WinTeam",                      International
 British Telecom Labs,           UK
 Internet Security Systems,      UK
 Rupture Dot Net,                USA
 "Jabberwocky",                  USA
 Ecole Normale Superieure de Paris, France

For a complete list of participants consult the project's Web pages.

Further information:
 The ECDL Project: http://cristal.inria.fr/~harley/ecdl/
 The Certicom ECC Challenge: http://www.certicom.com/chal/

Technical contact: Robert Harley, INRIA :
 33 1 39 63 51 57 - Robert.Harley@inria.fr

Media contacts: Christine Genest, INRIA :
 33 1 39 63 55 18 - Christine.Genest@inria.fr
Sylvie Baranger, Andrew Lloyd & Associates :
 33 1 43 22 79 56 - sylvie@ala.com

  [Added note from Seth David Schoen <schoen@loyalty.org> in Dave Farber's IP:
  Actually, they did not "show" this in the most important sense, which is
  the mathematical sense.  They showed that, using generally available
  techniques, they found it more difficult; they did not show that the
  problem is inherently more difficult. [...]]


Intuit "Shuts Down" Privacy Site After PRIVACY Forum Query

Lauren Weinstein; PRIVACY Forum Moderator <lauren@vortex.com>
Sat, 25 Sep 99 12:04 PDT
Greetings.  An alert PRIVACY Forum reader recently brought a somewhat
bizarre and certainly ironic situation to my attention.  Intuit (makers of
"Quicken" and other extremely widely-used financial software packages) had a
web site (http://privacy.intuit.com) that presented various information
regarding their privacy policies.

It also included a feature which allowed any registered Intuit customer to
view and alter their "privacy preferences."  This included data such as
whether or not they wished to receive promotional materials from Intuit, how
they should or should not be contacted (e.g. e-mail, phone, etc.), and
whether or not their name and address would be released to outside firms.

To access this feature, the customer needed to supply their last name, zip
code, and ... *nothing else*!  Upon entering any last name and zip code (and
given the number of Intuit customers, a hit would be pretty likely for most
common names) the user would see the associated first name, city, and last
four digits of phone number for that person.  The user could then freely
modify the privacy preferences for that customer.

Needless to say, I immediately expressed my concern over this situation to
Intuit officials.  Within a few days, I was contacted by their VP Corporate
Communications, informing me that the preference access features of the site
had been shut down, and that any users attempting to access them would be
directed to an 800 number.  A live customer service representative would then
verify their contact information before performing any preferences changes.
Intuit plans to restore the web preferences feature to the site after making
security enhancements, probably within a month or two.

That Intuit responded promptly to my concerns by closing down the feature is
to be commended.  One must still wonder, however, about the chain of events
and review which permitted such an obviously flawed feature to have been
implemented in the first place--it is, unfortunately, an all too common
sort of situation.

Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>, Moderator, PRIVACY Forum; Member, ACM
Committee on Computers and Public Policy; Host, "Vortex Reality Report &
Unreality Trivia Quiz" http://www.vortex.com/reality

  From PRIVACY Forum Digest Saturday, 25 September 1999 Volume 08 : Issue 13
            (http://www.vortex.com/privacy/priv.08.13)
            Moderated by Lauren Weinstein (lauren@vortex.com)
              Vortex Technology, Woodland Hills, CA, U.S.A.
                     http://www.vortex.com

Subscriptions are via an automatic list server system; for subscription
information, please send a message consisting of the word "help" (quotes not
included) in the BODY of a message to: "privacy-request@vortex.com".
Mailing list problems should be reported to "list-maint@vortex.com".


Henry Petroski, books, and risks of technology

"Peter G. Neumann" <neumann@csl.sri.com>
Wed, 29 Sep 99 19:51:20 PDT
In the most recent issue of *The New Yorker*, 4 Oct 1999, John Updike
reviews the latest book by Henry Petroski, someone who has been mentioned in
many previous issues of RISKS (e.g., 3.25, 9.15-16, 12.51, 18.61).  The
newest book is indeed a metabook, ``The Book on the Bookshelf'' (Knopf,
$26), a book about books and how they evolved.  Updike's review concludes
with some of the risks of books using computer technology as the medium
itself, the constraints of reading from CD-ROMs, the effects of hackers and
electromagnetic catastrophes on the computer forms, the gradual ebbing away
of seldom-read books into computer warehouses, and the MIT Overbook.  Both
Petroski's book and Updike's review make fascinating reading.


Linux banned after Samba misconfigation blocks NT authentication

"B. W. Fitzpatrick" <fitz@red-bean.com>
Fri, 01 Oct 1999 00:04:09 -0500
I received this from a friend who works at A Very Large Corporation
and has requested that both he and the company remain anonymous. From
what I can tell, someone at said company was fiddling with a Linux box
and configured it to be the Primary Domain Controller (instead of
authenticating off of the Primary Domain Controller). Well, this hosed
all NT domain authentication in the company and prevented anyone from
authenticating until the offending PDC was removed from the
network. The end result? The company is banning Linux.

Now, this *exact* same thing happened to a friend of mine at another
company, but it was quickly fixed, identified, and Linux is still in
use there today. Same problem, different result.

While I'm not by any means an NT guru, this seems to be a HUGE
vulnerability in the NT Domain Authentication mechanism--if I ran a
network where anyone can plug into my network and stop all
authentication this easily, I would be scared out of my wits.

Here's the body of the e-mail. I for one would like to send the author a
copy of "On Writing Well." The names have been changed to protect the
ignorant:

  We have encountered an incident with the Linux desktop operating
  system.  A Linux box named <foobar> had assumed control of our domain
  yesterday and temporarily paralyzed our network.  The box has been
  identified and shut down.  Affective[sic] immediately, all use of
  Linux systems within the 

Cyber-Speak

Ira J Rimson <irimson@compuserve.com>
Tue, 28 Sep 1999 15:27:11 -0400
Maybe some of you can explain the logic behind the following note received
from my UK friend Jonathan Berman:

  We've just bought a new colour printer for the office.
  The instructions included the following important message:
  "Note:  The Starter CD includes a utility to easily copy the HP Deskjet
  1120C printer software to 3.5-inch, high-density diskettes.  This allows
  you to use the diskettes to install the software on systems that do not
  have a CD-ROM drive.  See the Printer Software menu in the Starter CD"

  Am I missing something obvious here?

Please report problems with the web pages to the maintainer

Top