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 6 Issue 72

Thursday 28 April 1988

Contents

o Yet another skunk in the squirrel story
Rick Jaffe
o Garbage ($20) in, garbage ($20) out
Joel Kirsh
o Re: KAL 007
Steve Philipson
o Civil aviation risks
Jon Jacky
o Re: Creating alternatives to whistleblowing
John Gilmore
o Re: textual tampering
John Gilmore
o Re:Fault tolerant systems...
Hugh Davies
Andrew Klossner
o DoD (and the rest of us) protecting ourselves against viruses
John Gilmore
o Re: Computer Viral Center for Disease Control?
Prentiss Riddle
o Info on RISKS (comp.risks)

Yet another skunk in the squirrel story

Rick Jaffe <umix!oxtrap!rsj@rutgers.edu>
Wed, 27 Apr 88 14:02:29 edt
I hadn't previously seen this particular risk relating to the story of
"the squirrel that skunked NASDAQ".

(from "SIAC Preps Net for DP Backup Site", _Network World_, vol. 5, no. 17)

"Unfortunately, when NASDAQ switched data centers, it learned that
most of its largest customers didn't have communications lines
connecting them with the alternate site."


Garbage ($20) in, garbage ($20) out

Joel Kirsh <KIRSH@NUACC.ACNS.NWU.Edu>
Wed, 27 Apr 88 15:00 CDT
(without permission from The Chicago Tribune, April 27th: )

    NEW YORK (AP) "... Because some hapless employee loaded an canister
of $20 bills into the slot for $5 bills, the First Federal Savings and
Loan Association of Rochester's branch at 1st Avenue and 14th Street 
launched an accidental exercise in income redistribution.
    "Although the cash machine panel has a 24-hour telephone for reporting
problems ... the response was ... 'one or two calls,' according to bank
spokesman Robert Nolan.
    "Instead, a line of eager card holders quickly formed at the machine.
    ...
    "Nolan said the machine's records would show who used it and how large
a withdrawal each person requested.  He said customer accounts would be
charged for the amount overpaid.
    "...But it was unclear whether the bank would be able to prove that all
the bills in the $5 slot were really $20s.
    "...Overpayments like Sunday's are said to be extremely rare."
    "'It's much more common for the reverse to happen - a customer is
shortchanged,' said John Love of Bank Network News, an industry newsletter."


[If the Post Office has automatic stamp dispensers that can discriminate
between $1s, $5s etc., why don't ATM's have a similar test at the output?  JK]


Re: KAL 007 (RISKS-6.70)

Steve Philipson <steve@ames-aurora.arpa>
Wed, 27 Apr 88 11:15:32 PDT
   The article in RISKS 6.70 by Clifford Johnson sent me reeling.  I don't
have direct access to any primary sources of information on the KAL007
incident, but this story sounds like bunk to me.  Here's an example of a
major error:

    To this day there has been no public congressional investigation 
    into the KAL007 incident, even though the Air Force irregularly 
    destroyed radar tapes of the flight, and even though Japanese tapes
    of the incident, et alia, strongly indicate that the course of 
    KAL007 was deliberate.  A statutorily required investigation by 
    the National Transport Safety Board was inexplicably cancelled, 
    documents lost, and gag orders placed on all civilian employees.

    Let's begin with part of the last sentence.  "statutorily required 
investigation by the [NTSB] was inexplicably cancelled".  To quote NTSB
Part 830.1 Applicability:

    This part contains rules pertaining to:
   (a) Notification and reporting aircraft accidents and incidents and
certain other occurrences in the operation of aircraft when they involve
CIVIL AIRCRAFT OF THE UNITED STATES wherever they occur, or FOREIGN CIVIL
AIRCRAFT WHEN SUCH EVENTS OCCUR IN THE UNITED STATES, ITS TERRITORIES OR
POSSESSIONS. [emphasis added]

   The KAL 007 incident does thus not even require a report.  To my
knowledge, there is no US statute requiring investigation of military
actions against nor accidents involving aircraft of US manufacture.  As 
for "radar tapes", it seems unlikely that such tapes would have been 
useful, as the flight was outside of the coverage range of both US 
and Japanese ground radars.

   The rest of the article proceeds with various claims that are counter
to information printed in a host of reliable publications including 
the New York Times and Aviation Week.  Johnson refers to _Shootdown_ by
R.W. Johnson, who provides "astonishing" evidence that KAL007 was on
an espionage mission.  This certainly is astonishing, as all other
available information leads away from this conclusion.

    What we had here was a civilian aircraft blundering into airspace that
is a military espionage playground.  The Soviets appear to have demonstrated
incompetence in shooting down a civilian aircraft when they were after a 
US military intelligence aircraft.

   What has all this to do with RISKS?  If we classify a massive error as a 
deliberate act, we dismiss the need for investigation as to why the error 
occured, and remove all possibility of discovering and/or correcting any
problems.  The "deliberate act" explanation is a variation on "pilot error".
If an accident is simply hand-waved away as "pilot error", we lose the
opportunity to understand what in the system allowed that error to 
occur, and we do nothing to decrease risk and the possibility that the
error will occur again.  The really interesting things that have come
up in the investigation of this incident are the multiplicity of ways
that such an error could occur.  It has given us much food for thought
in designing systems that are more safe.


Civil aviation risks (not computers, interesting anyway)

Jon Jacky <jon@june.cs.washington.edu>
Wed, 27 Apr 88 09:13:48 PDT
Here is a story about manufacturing defects in commercial airliners
and how they were discovered and fixed.  It is excerpted from

FAA, BOEING AND PROBLEM-SOLVING by Polly Lane, SEATTLE TIMES Sun Apr 17 88

"Maintenance being performed on an American Airlines 767 in the carrier's
Tulsa maintenance center was fairly routine, until a mechanic discovered
that cargo fire-extinguisher lines were crossed.  The swapped lines meant
trouble.  Should a pilot discover an in-flight fire in the rear cargo 
compartment, he would immediately tigger the extinguisher system - but it
would go off in the front compartment instead.

The mechanic reported his find to a Boeing Co. representative at American's
center and to the Federal Aviation Administration.  The Boeing rep called 
Boeing officials here (in Seattle) later that day, March 3, and followed
uyp with a telex the following morning, a Friday.  By Friday afternoon,
inspectors were looking at 767's on the assembly line at Everett to determine
whether it was an isolated case ... They found some repeat instances
- they didn't say how many - during inspections the following week.

On March 9, Boeing reported the findings to the FAA.  The next day, a week
after the discovery in Tulsa, Boeing sent a service letter advising customers
of the potential problem.

The FAA backed up Boeing's letter by issuing a telegram, known as an
airworthiness directive, to owners and operators of 767's.  After a worldwide
check it was determined that 27 of the 190 767's in service had
fire-extinguishing hoses that were swapped. ...

The FAA telegram was the result of a system dictated by Federal law. ... The
directive to fix the 767 fire-extinguishing system was relatively urgent, but
not serious enough for the FAA to ground the airplanes until corrections were
made.  That hasn't happened since 1979, after an American Airlines DC-10
crashed at Chicago, killing 275. ...

In the case of the 767 fire-extinguishing system, Boeing changed the size of
the hose connections so lines to the front and rear were different.  The
change would help prevent future mistaken connections. ... Designers also
suggested the lines be separated so there is no chance of a repeat
misconnection. ... "

( I know it isn't a computer-related incident, but I was impressed by
several lessons:

1. Mistakes can be made during assembly; it is not valid
to assume that the product that is delivered is the one that was designed.

2.  Systems that are used infrequently are hiding places for latent errors.

2.  It is important to have in place a responsive error reporting and 
correcting system. ) 

- Jon Jacky, University of Washington


Re: Creating alternatives to whistleblowing [RISKS-6.65]

John Gilmore <hoptoad.UUCP!gnu@cgl.ucsf.edu>
Wed, 27 Apr 88 00:08:46 PDT
The week I left Sun Microsystems (years ago), I was the featured
speaker at the regular weekly software meeting.  I offerred some
suggestions to 'dissidents' who were having trouble with management.
(Of course, since my efforts to be a dissident and remain at Sun had
failed, perhaps nobody took them seriously.)  If enough RISKS folks
care, I will transcribe the relevant parts of the tape.

For me the ethical issues were around things like:

 * If I see a problem, should I let it continue even though it's not
   in my 'area of responsibility'?

 * Should I let newly hired folks (typically managers) move the company
   in directions where I think it's wrong for it to go?

 * How much time should I spend kowtowing to management structures versus
   going straight to the people who know what's up and how to fix it?

 * What should I do when I end up with a manager who is actively trying
   to fire me?

Note that the net itself forms a communications medium for whistleblowers;
many people report problems they're having with a company's equipment
to the net, when they can't get satisfaction from the company in private
discussions.  Sun's fixes to the TFTP security hole, and to install
subnetting, were both done in response to publicity on the net.


Re: textual tampering

John Gilmore <hoptoad.UUCP!gnu@cgl.ucsf.edu>
Wed, 27 Apr 88 00:29:06 PDT
> In our copy of RISKS DIGEST 6.60, occurrences of "ments" have been replaced
> with "<newline>

DoD (and the rest of us) protecting ourselves against viruses

John Gilmore <hoptoad.UUCP!gnu@cgl.ucsf.edu>
Wed, 27 Apr 88 01:31:30 PDT
The first thing anybody who wants protection against viruses should do is to
stop buying computers that don't have, or don't use, memory protection.  There
is NO protection in a system where main memory, the operating system, and I/O
devices and drivers are all open to subversion by any random user program.

Of course any machine containing an 8088 or 8086 is wide open.  Any 68000,
68010, or 68020 without an MMU, ditto.  This cuts out all the existing micros
except high end ones running Unix.

Note that even if you install an MMU into a Mac-2, the MacOS will not
use it; you have to run A/UX [Unix] to get memory protection.

Note that OS/2 is not a protected environment, since it runs MSDOS programs in
"real mode", even on an 80386.  Real mode basically means full access to the
bare metal.  It is also easy to circumvent system security in protected mode;
protected mode virus programs can get permission to do I/O instructions by
claiming to need high speed access to a graphics board or other special
hardware.  At this point the system is wide open again; they could write some
data out to a disk drive and then instruct the disk drive to read it back into
any location in physical memory -- say, over the interrupt vectors or the
global memory protection table.

It may be possible to run a castrated version of OS/2 that does not permit I/O
instructions and does not run MSDOS programs, but then why would you bother
running it?  It's just another incompatible, proprietary OS.  Unix already runs
well protected on the same hardware, there are plenty more applications for
Unix than OS/2, and Unix provides the same programming and user environment
from the 8088 all the way up to Amdahls and Crays.

This is not to say that operating systems that provide memory protection are
secure; it's just saying that if you want security, memory protection is step
#1, without which everything else is useless.


Re: Computer Viral Center for Disease Control? (RISKS 6.70)

Prentiss Riddle <ut-sally!im4u!woton!riddle@uunet.uu.net>
27 Apr 88 15:47:11 GMT
A computer virus CDC is not a bad idea.  If it is ever implemented,
let's hope that it is part of the private nonprofit sector, or at least
in some relatively open part of the government well removed from the
security agencies -- otherwise the center will be subject to the real
or imagined RISK that it is a front for computer "germ warfare"
research.  (Visions of another DES scandal readily come to mind.)

-- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.")
-- Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of my employer.
-- riddle%woton.uucp@cs.utexas.edu  {ihnp4,uunet}!ut-sally!im4u!woton!riddle


Re:Fault tolerant systems...

<"hugh_davies.WGC1RX"@Xerox.COM>
27 Apr 88 01:25:31 PDT (Wednesday)
I have read this story in several places in the UK computer press.  Regrettably
I have long since trashed the source material, but I'm fairly sure about it..

Tandem make a fault tolerant computer system which is very popular with
financial institutions. It has a lot of redundant hardware, so that failure of
one subsystem doesn't bring down the whole machine. One of the favourite
'tricks' whilst demonstrating this feature is to get a bystander to point at a
(random) board in the machine and then pull it out, proclaiming 'Look, it's
till up!!!'.

Unfortunately, DP managers at customer sites were doing this to impress their
friends (colleagues, bosses?). So the story goes, the machine was then dialling
Tandem (by itself) to report the 'failure' resulting in a deluge of spurious
fault reports at Tandems HQ. The story continues that Tandem have now put in a
timer to stop the machine dialling until the DP man has had a chance to plug
the board back in.

eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA asked about strange benchmarking type stories. When we
first got our (well, perhaps I'd better not say) supermini, we were plagued
with problems where random chunks of files would have their contents swapped,
so you'd end up with things like 'ekil sgniht htiw pu dne d'uoy' - only
hundreds (sometimes thousands) of bytes. The hardware men blamed the software
and the software men blamed the hardware (as usual). After about 6 weeks of
fixing files, we finally discovered we were running microcode for a machine
without an FPP, and ours had an FPP. As soon as we corrected that, the problem
went away.  We never did discover what floating point arithmetic had to do with
swapping bytes in files....

Hugh Davies, Rank Xerox, England.


Avoiding fault tolerance of broken floating point unit

Andrew Klossner <andrew%frip.gwd.tek.com@RELAY.CS.NET>
Tue, 26 Apr 88 16:25:01 PDT
  "There was also provision for the PROM to contain a list of attached
  equipment; the boot ROM could then check to make sure that it had found
  everything that was supposed to be there.  Unfortunately HP decided that the
  custom PROMs added too much to manufacturing cost."

The engineers of the Tektronix 6130 workstation devised yet another
solution to this problem.  After the diagnostics (boot ROM and friends)
finish looking over the system, they compare the list of attached
equipment with the previous list, stored on disk.  If they don't match,
a message is printed and system boot won't procede until the operator
keys an acknowledgement, at which point the disk list is updated.

The bad points are: you have to use other methods to be sure that
everything works the first time you boot (when there is not yet an
equipment list on disk); and, if the configuration changes (either
because you unplugged something or because a component failed), the
system won't reboot itself back to fully operational state after a
power failure.

  -=- Andrew Klossner   (decvax!tektronix!tekecs!andrew)       [UUCP]
                        (andrew%tekecs.tek.com@relay.cs.net)   [ARPA]

Please report problems with the web pages to the maintainer

Top