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 28 Issue 97

Tuesday 29 September 2015

Contents

EPA v VW cheatware, AI & "machine learning"
Henry Baker
Volkswagen Law
Bloomberg
Security Standards: cars, voting, medical, critical infrastructure, etc.
Alister Wm Macintyre
Re: VW Scandal
Robert Schaefer
Gaming security
Michael Albaugh
Storing secret crypto keys in the Amazon cloud? New attack can steal them
Ars Technica
GCHQ operation "Karma Police"
Slashdot
Network scientists have discovered how social networks can create the illusion that something is common when it is actually rare
MIT
Law Enforcement's Love/Hate Relationship with Cloud Auto Backup
Lauren Weinstein
Hello Barbie
The Week
Re: U.S. and China cyber establish 'hotline'
Henry Baker
Re: Ad-blocking
L. Mark Stone
Info on RISKS (comp.risks)

EPA v VW cheatware, AI & "machine learning"

Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com>
Sat, 26 Sep 2015 06:46:36 -0700
The tech world is very excited, but also frightened, about AI & machine
learning these days; we worry about AI/machine learning algorithms replacing
doctors, lawyers, teachers, taxi drivers.

Perhaps one of the most straightforward applications of AI & machine
learning today would be a computer that "learns" how to control the
emissions of a vehicle engine so that it can pass the EPA emissions tests.

Consider the following conceptual model: a computer with a bunch (hundreds?)
of sensors and a bunch of actuators (tens?) that watches over a diesel
engine while it is being driven through a standard EPA emissions test.

The computer can sense perhaps air temperature, humidity, engine speed,
engine load, engine temperature, etc., and can control perhaps the air flow,
the fuel flow, the flow of Adblue (aka DEF/ISO 22241), etc.  Sensors don't
cost very much, so there may also be sensors for the engine hood/bonnet
being open, the position of the steering wheel, etc.

We now put this system through hundreds of thousand of miles of "learning"
(millions of miles if the testing & learning can be virtualized & run in
parallel), so that the AI/machine learning algorithm learns to optimize
inputs like fuel and Adblue while still meeting EPA testing limits.

I can guarantee you that this AI/machine learning algorithm will quickly
notice that the best way to optimize for the EPA test is to "cheat"—i.e.,
to notice that when the hood/bonnet is open and the steering wheel is
straight ahead, this would be a good time to optimize NOx and other
emissions, while during other conditions—hood/bonnet closed and steering
wheel twisting back & forth (perhaps a curving country lane)—emissions
aren't so important relative to performance.

(Perhaps someone—Google might be in the best position with their work on
autonomous robots and its expertise in "machine learning" for their
self-driving cars—is already working on such AI/machine learning
experiments for engine optimization; I'd be interested in hearing about them
if anyone can send me links.)

So is this AI/machine learning program "unethical" wrt the EPA tests ?
Should it be fined or go to jail ?

This is no longer idle speculation, as these AI/machine learning programs
are "recognizing" speech, gaits, faces, writing styles, etc.  Are they also
"cheating" ?

As automobiles become more complex, and as machine learning algorithms
become more sophisticated, engine optimization computers may no longer be
"programmed" by humans using coding techniques, but will be "taught" by
following a long sequence of example situations and "learning" the correct
responses.

The DMCA may no longer be relevant to such computers, because *there is no
source code* to look at, and indeed, the *binary code* may itself simply be
a huge pile of random-looking floating point numbers in a *neural network*.
The *only* way to check such a system will be through exhaustive (!)
behavioral testing, as there won't be any source code to logically check for
"cheats" and "defeats".

I'm not trying to excuse the VW management that has already admitted to
"cheating" on the EPA tests, but as a computer scientist, I'm not so sure
where we go forward from here.  We have terrific new opportunities with
electric and self-driving cars, so "optimizing" the government regulation of
diesel engines may simply be re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.


Volkswagen Law

"Alister Wm Macintyre \(Wow\)" <macwheel99@wowway.com>
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:39:20 -0500
Bloomberg Business Week, 28 Sep-4 Oct issue:

Germany has a law, about state ownership of corporations, called the
Volkswagen Law.  Because of it, Lower Saxony owns 20% of VW, giving its
Prime Minister virtual veto power over VW.  Thanks to the VW law, which the
EU has been fighting, many German companies have two boards of directors.
There is the management board, with Executives, which answers to the
Supervisory Board, run by the state, labor leaders, and shareholders.

As yet, there is no evidence which part of VW leadership structure had
anything to do with the emissions deception.

The article does not address the car hacking cover-up.


Security Standards: cars, voting, medical, critical infrastructure, etc.

"Alister Wm Macintyre \(Wow\)" <macwheel99@wowway.com>
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 14:05:05 -0500
I retired early this year.  Previously I managed an IBM midrange system at
my day job.

The IBM OS tracked all sorts of updates, changes into a log, which we could
examine for suspicious activity, and I regularly checked it for potential
breaches, and some types of human error. We had some control over how much
activity to log, and for how many days, because of disk space constraints,
but some things, such as changes to the OS itself, we could not change the #
days below a certain point.  I had occasion to alter the system date, so I
learned it was theoretically possible to erase the security log by advancing
the date, so that all contents were now past the erase date.  It was
impossible to erase the fact that someone had messed with the system date.

For an OS log to be meaningful, some humans need to be able to dig out
what's important from the huge volume of frequently geeky entries.

All the passwords were changeable, but IBM knew how to bust their own
security.  We found this out on the occasion of a relocation, where IBM
techs could not reassemble everything correctly, could not get into some
diagnostics, because of the security, which was on the hard drive which was
not reconnecting properly.  They needed authorization from our CEO to bust
the security.  Fortunately the CEO was watching the operation, so there was
no delay getting this.

If this is true across vendors, then there is a potential risk from former
and present employees of the computer vendors.

In my IBM Midrange world, there's a software monitoring package marketed
under the name "Needle in Haystack" which sends alerts to IT people, when
stuff happens which can have adverse impact on the enterprise.  If the IT
people do not respond, in a reasonable time frame, the alerts go up the
management ladder.

I imagine that other platforms, outside the IBM world, ought to have similar
standards.  Capture activity of a potentially suspicious nature, make it
available to relevant people in an intelligible and timely manner.

The next question is who this data belongs to, who may access it, update it
- employees, regulators, vendors of the hardware & software.  I recently had
something weird happen with my auto, so I was re-reading the owner's manual.
I encountered a statement that data is captured about the vehicle
operations, and that this data belongs to the vehicle's owner.


Re: VW Scandal

Robert Schaefer <rps@haystack.mit.edu>
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 15:56:11 -0400
For those who don't have long memories, in the late 1980s, there was serious
attention to processor benchmarking by running compilers on well known
libraries and benchmark test programs' source code.  It was claimed that
certain vendor's compilers (back then, compilers were often bespoke) would
recognize the library or test program, and optimize the number crunching to
the point where the benchmark test became worthless.  Googling the terms
computer+benchmark+cheating shows that this is still going on today.


Gaming security (Re: Murray comment on casino slots)

Michael Albaugh <m.e.albaugh@gmail.com>
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 10:37:12 -0700
You might want to keep in mind the incident (possibly multiple) of slot
machines gaffed by the gaming board inspectors themselves.  Back in the
1990s, but can we be sure they do not continue?

  [Of course not.  The gambling machines are held to a `higher' standard,
  but it is still not a very high one.  Remember, the best is the enemy
  of the good, but the so-called good is nowhere near good enough.  PGN]


Storing secret crypto keys in the Amazon cloud? New attack can steal them

Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 12:04:00 -0700
http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/09/storing-secret-crypto-keys-in-the-amazon-cloud-new-attack-can-steal-them/

  Now a separate team of researchers has constructed a new method for
  recovering the full private key used in a modern implementation of the
  widely used RSA crypto system. Like the 2009 work, the new research
  implements a CPU cache attack across two Amazon accounts that happen to be
  located on the same chip or chipset. They recently used their technique to
  allow one Amazon instance to recover the entire 2048-bit RSA key used by a
  separate instance, which they also happened to control. The newer
  technique works by probing the last level cache of the Intel Xeon
  processor chipsets used by Amazon computers.


GCHQ operation "Karma Police" (Slashdot)

Werner U <werneru@gmail.com>
Tue, 29 Sep 2015 12:58:41 +0200
Ars Technica's story on the revelations reported today by The Intercept that
the UK's GCHQ has been tracking World Wide Web users since 2007 with an
operation called "Karma Police"—"a program that tracked Web browsing
habits of people around the globe in what the agency itself billed as the
'world's biggest' Internet data-mining operation, intended to eventually
track 'every visible user on the Internet.'"
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/15/09/25/2349201/gchq-tried-to-track-web-visits-of-every-visible-user-on-internet
<https://theintercept.com/2015/09/25/gchq-radio-porn-spies-track-web-users-online-identities/>
<http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/09/gchq-tried-to-track-web-visits-of-every-visible-user-on-internet/>,


Network scientists have discovered how social networks can create the illusion that something is common when it is actually rare

Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 12:00:47 -0700
MIT via NNSquad
http://www.technologyreview.com/view/538866/the-social-network-illusion-that-tricks-your-mind/

  Today, we get an insight into why this happens thanks to the work of
  Kristina Lerman and pals at the University of Southern California. These
  people have discovered an extraordinary illusion associated with social
  networks which can play tricks on the mind and explain everything from why
  some ideas become popular quickly to how risky or antisocial behavior can
  spread so easily.


Law Enforcement's Love/Hate Relationship with Cloud Auto Backup

Lauren Weinstein <lauren@vortex.com>
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 20:16:15 -0700
             http://lauren.vortex.com/archive/001126.html

There's a story going around today regarding an individual who was arrested
and charged with assaulting a police officer when authorities arrived over a
noise complaint. But cellphone video recorded by the arrestee convinced a
judge that police had assaulted him, not the other way around. What's
particularly unusual in this case is that the arrestee's cellphone had
"mysteriously" vanished at the police station before any video was
discovered.

So how was the exonerating video ultimately resurrected? Turns out it was
saved up on Google servers via the phone's enabled auto backup system. So
the phone's physical vanishing did not prevent the video from being saved to
help prevent a serious miscarriage of justice.

Lawyers and law enforcement personnel around the world are probably
considering this story carefully tonight, and they're likely to realize that
such automatic backup capabilities may be double-edged swords.

On one hand, abusive cops can't depend on destroying evidence by making
cellphones disappear or be "accidentally" crushed under a boot. Evidence
favorable to the defendant might still be up on cloud servers, ready to
reappear at any time.

But this also means that we may likely also expect to see increasing numbers
of subpoenas triggered by law enforcement, lawyers, government agencies, and
other interested parties, wanting to go on fishing expeditions through
suspects' cloud accounts in the hopes of finding incriminating photographic
or video evidence that might have been auto-backed up without the knowledge
or realization of the suspects.

While few would argue that guilty suspects should go free, there is more at
stake here.

The fact of such fishing expeditions being possible may dissuade many
persons from enabling photo/video auto backup systems in the first place --
not because they plan to commit crimes, but just based on relatively vague
privacy concerns. Even if the vast majority of honest persons would have no
realistic chance of being targeted by the government for such a cloud
search, an emotional factor is likely to be real for many innocent persons
nonetheless.

And of course, if you've turned off auto backup due to such concerns, video
or other data that might otherwise have been available to save the day at
some point in the future, instead may not be available at all.

Adding to the complexities of this calculus is the fact that most uploaded
videos or photos on these advanced systems are not subject to the kind of
strong end-to-end encryption that has been the focus of ongoing
controversies regarding proposed "back door" access to encrypted user data
by authorities.

Obviously, for photos or videos to be processed in the typical manner by
service providers, they will be stored in the clear—not encrypted—at
various stages of the service ecosystem, at least temporarily.

What this all amounts to is that we're on the cusp of a brave new world when
it comes to photos and videos automatically being protected in the cloud,
and sometimes being unexpectedly available as a result.

The issues involved will be complicated both technically and legally, and we
have only really begun to consider their ramifications, especially in
relationship to escalating demands by authorities for access to user data of
all kinds in many contexts.

Fasten your seatbelts.


Hello Barbie (The Week)

"Alister Wm Macintyre \(Wow\)" <macwheel99@wowway.com>
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 18:39:20 -0500
Toymaker Mattel is coming out with $75.00 Hello Barbie, a wi-fi enabled
doll.  The little-girl owners shall press the belt buckle, and she'll ask
questions, like "Where do you live?" and answer the child's questions.  I am
only guessing at what questions might be asked, as the list probably not yet
published where I can find it. The child's conversations with Hello Barbie
will be stored on Toy Talk servers, allegedly only to help Mattel improve
their speech recognition software.  But how long before Mattel sells this
info to advertisers, or their data gets hacked?  Can Hello Barbie get
software updates, so she can promote future Mattel toys, more Barbie
clothing, etc.?


Re: U.S. and China cyber establish 'hotline' (RISKS-28.96)

Henry Baker <hbaker1@pipeline.com>
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 11:22:39 -0700
Any bets about how long it will take for someone to hack this cyber 'red
phone' / 'red skype'?


Re: Ad-blocking (Ross, RISKS-28.96)

"L. Mark Stone" <lmstone@lmstone.com>
Mon, 28 Sep 2015 20:55:00 +0000 (UTC)
Mr. Ross's remarks regarding ad-blocking software in Risks 28.94 ends with
the two questions:

"Why can I not choose to block advertisements on the Internet? What is it
about the Internet that mandates its advertisements on me, something other
media cannot do?"

Intended to highlight that the equivalent of Internet ad-blocking is allowed
with radio, television, magazines and newspapers by turning the page,
hitting the mute button or changing the channel, unfortunately the real
answer to Mr. Ross's questions is "money".

A quick Google search shows that Internet advertising is the largest single
category of advertising, outpacing even television. Online advertising can
be targeted as we know with much greater specificity than any other
advertising outlet. Neither advertisers nor online media therefore have any
incentive (and indeed extremely strong disincentives) to allow ad blocking
if they have any say-so. So why would they?

Please report problems with the web pages to the maintainer

Top