Technology Review - Published By MIT
Log in to My.TechnologyReview.com | Register
Advertisement
[1] 2 Next »

Thursday, December 01, 2005

The Internet Is Broken

The Net's basic flaws cost firms billions, impede innovation, and threaten national security. It's time for a clean-slate approach, says MIT's David D. Clark.

By David Talbot

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

This article -- the cover story in Technology Review's December 2005/January 2006 print issue -- has been divided into three parts for presentation online. This is part 1; part 2 will appear on Tuesday, December 20, and part 3 on Wednesday, December 21.

In his office within the gleaming-stainless-steel and orange-brick jumble of MIT's Stata Center, Internet elder statesman and onetime chief protocol architect David D. Clark prints out an old PowerPoint talk. Dated July 1992, it ranges over technical issues like domain naming and scalability. But in one slide, Clark points to the Internet's dark side: its lack of built-in security.

In others, he observes that sometimes the worst disasters are caused not by sudden events but by slow, incremental processes -- and that humans are good at ignoring problems. "Things get worse slowly. People adjust," Clark noted in his presentation. "The problem is assigning the correct degree of fear to distant elephants."

[Click here to view graphic representations of David D. Clark's four goals for a new Internet architecture.]

Today, Clark believes the elephants are upon us. Yes, the Internet has wrought wonders: e-commerce has flourished, and e-mail has become a ubiquitous means of communication. Almost one billion people now use the Internet, and critical industries like banking increasingly rely on it.

At the same time, the Internet's shortcomings have resulted in plunging security and a decreased ability to accommodate new technologies. "We are at an inflection point, a revolution point," Clark now argues. And he delivers a strikingly pessimistic assessment of where the Internet will end up without dramatic intervention. "We might just be at the point where the utility of the Internet stalls -- and perhaps turns downward."

Indeed, for the average user, the Internet these days all too often resembles New York's Times Square in the 1980s. It was exciting and vibrant, but you made sure to keep your head down, lest you be offered drugs, robbed, or harangued by the insane. Times Square has been cleaned up, but the Internet keeps getting worse, both at the user's level, and -- in the view of Clark and others -- deep within its architecture.

Over the years, as Internet applications proliferated -- wireless devices, peer-to-peer file-sharing, telephony -- companies and network engineers came up with ingenious and expedient patches, plugs, and workarounds. The result is that the originally simple communications technology has become a complex and convoluted affair. For all of the Internet's wonders, it is also difficult to manage and more fragile with each passing day.

That's why Clark argues that it's time to rethink the Internet's basic architecture, to potentially start over with a fresh design -- and equally important, with a plausible strategy for proving the design's viability, so that it stands a chance of implementation. "It's not as if there is some killer technology at the protocol or network level that we somehow failed to include," says Clark. "We need to take all the technologies we already know and fit them together so that we get a different overall system. This is not about building a technology innovation that changes the world but about architecture -- pulling the pieces together in a different way to achieve high-level objectives."

Just such an approach is now gaining momentum, spurred on by the National Science Foundation. NSF managers are working to forge a five-to-seven-year plan estimated to cost $200 million to $300 million in research funding to develop clean-slate architectures that provide security, accommodate new technologies, and are easier to manage.

They also hope to develop an infrastructure that can be used to prove that the new system is really better than the current one. "If we succeed in what we are trying to do, this is bigger than anything we, as a research community, have done in computer science so far," says Guru Parulkar, an NSF program manager involved with the effort. "In terms of its mission and vision, it is a very big deal. But now we are just at the beginning. It has the potential to change the game. It could take it to the next level in realizing what the Internet could be that has not been possible because of the challenges and problems."

[1] 2 Next »
December/January 2005

Would you like to read more articles from the December/January 2005 issue?

This article is from the December/January 2005 Issue of Technology Review. To read other articles from this issue simply register for My.TechnologyReview.com. It's free.

Subscribe today and save up to 41% »

Comments

  • Broken Net
    Guest (Eileen McCluskey) on 12/19/2005 at 10:09 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Im curious to know if the new architecture could be slipped into place without interrupting e-activities -- an act akin to pulling the tablecloth out from under the food and dishes. Except, of course, for the additional trick of simultaneously sliding a fresh cloth underneath the setup without disturbing anything. Yikes?
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Hogwash
    Guest (artMonster) on 12/19/2005 at 11:43 AM
    Posts:
    1
    The internet is not broken, M.S. Windows is. The issue of unwanted email (spam) warrants some changes in the underlying structure, but the other problems are really OS problems, and Windows bears the brunt of responsiblity for this. Major structural changes to how the internet works would be unwise, and probably open up more control by either the government or Microsoft. Neither are desireable or beneficial for the end user. So who really benefits from this FUD about the internet being broken?  Not too difficult to figure out...
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Spam proliferation
      Guest (Bellinghamster) on 12/19/2005 at 4:52 PM
      Posts:
      1
      Despite my ISPs efforts to filter emailed spam, my inbasket is typically less than one-quarter legitimate message traffic.  But purging spam isnt my greatest inefficiency. The time I spend maintaining firewall, virus and malware software is the truly significant inefficiency.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • New protocols -- we dont use current ones!
        Guest (Matej) on 12/19/2005 at 9:11 PM
        Posts:
        1
        Hi,

        when this article was mentioned on &quotThe World&quot (WGBH) they mentioned that NSF is planning to release $300M for &quotdevelopment of new protocols which would make Internet safe&quot (and another $300M later for implementation). Why in the world we need another protocols when we are not using the current ones? My Linux here has support for IPv6, S/MIME, etc. etc. but no-one in the world uses them, because the problem with unsafe Internet is not in the technology, but in the organization and social problems (like how to make everybody identifiable over Internet, when US public doesnt want to be identified in the first place)?

        Matej
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Great sales pitch
          Guest (Mike) on 12/20/2005 at 1:30 AM
          Posts:
          1
          Isnt one of the best ways to get someone to spend money to instill fear?  Some people would argue thats how congress is duped into appropriating funds - How close is Cambridge to DC?  :-)

          If they want to spend $200M, send it my way and Ill demonstrate a cool solution to make it easier to deploy new web-based services, to any device, saving major corporations Billions in the process.  Cheers!
          Rate this comment: 12345
          • The Internet is in need of repair
            Guest (Owen N. Martinez) on 12/20/2005 at 5:47 AM
            Posts:
            1
            Like any system, the I. needs to be tuned-up or repaired as things get out of control.  Who is qualified to determine what to do, and who should control the system?  Preferably the same entity or two very close ones, that have the confidence of the majority the users. The US government need not apply. 
            Rate this comment: 12345
    • Slipery Slope
      Guest (Rider) on 01/11/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      This new internet will probably be used to decrease the amount of freedom on the internet and give more control to our government.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • hogwash
    Guest (Si) on 12/20/2005 at 4:31 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Im a day late on this and notice that artMonster has hit it perfectly.  Big brother wants control.  I would hate to think what the internet would be like if they redesigned it along the lines suggested.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Hogwash
      Guest (Fergus Doyle) on 12/20/2005 at 5:39 AM
      Posts:
      1
      I agree with the other two guys here the problems are down to MS software - specifically that MS cannot/will not keep up with changing circumstance, by releasing SW.  I have no spyware on my (Windows) system and no viruses.  eg use Firefox not Internet Explorer use Thunderbird not Outlook Express and most of your problems with Windows are solved.  Use Linux and you dont even have to worry this much.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Its the infrastructure that needs changing
        Guest (E Feustel) on 12/20/2005 at 6:30 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Its the routers and the protocols that need changing to permit secure higher speed operation including authentication of the traffic on the net -- no more fake IP addresses and if the packet says that X sent it, then X did actually send it. No more DNS hacking -- if you ask for Xs address, you get Xs address, not Ys.  And you get it with the minimum computation in a reliable manner even with pieces of the net going down.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Hogwash indeed.
          Guest (mrxsmb) on 12/28/2005 at 4:30 AM
          Posts:
          1
          Although hopefully grown ups dont need more alert than &quotpowerpoint presentation&quot and &quot$400 million dollars reseach funding&quot in close proximity to know that.
          The issues highlighted with MS [the debilitating Operating System, not the debilitating Physical Affliction] and its usability over functionality approach are all valid, but other OSs and applications have their own issues.
          Of course business could actually pony up the money to build their own networks and not use the internet, but then how would that save them money? I believe some already do, as do Governments and sensibly so.
          One bank in Australia has actually got with the program and realised they should issue their on-line banking customers with a swipe and pin security system the same as on an ATM, at each and every house. How much of the &quotproblems&quot discussed would be solved by this simple change in attitude?
          Rate this comment: 12345
          • OS problem/spam
            Guest (coet) on 02/04/2006 at 12:00 AM
            Posts:
            1
            I've lived online through the Mac OS for eleven years. I can count on my fingers and toes the number of spam emails I've encountered. In last four years I've been employed at an organization captive to Windows OS and my experience with spam through email overloading my employer's system and is forwarded from my employers' email system to my personal account convinces me that Artmonster is correct...and the fear and loathing genereated by viruses, worms and bots are simply not part of my experience in a decade of aggressive broadband internet use. I find it hard to believe that it is simply because there aren't enough Mac OS users to make it worthwhile
            Rate this comment: 12345
            • Is the OS the problem?
              Guest (George) on 05/05/2006 at 12:00 AM
              Posts:
              1
              I would like to add to this discussion that no matter what the OS is, attackers concentrate efforts on the most popular.
              I would say the question behind the security issue is what is required in terms of software and what is required in terms of network protocols to really achieve security.
              Rate this comment: 12345
        • The end device should provide the security
          Guest (CEC) on 01/07/2006 at 10:43 AM
          Posts:
          1
          The more complexity/code you add to the routers and other infrastructure, the more you will hamper its primary function: communication.

          The only thing to be gained by making the infrastructure more complex is a slower internet and more vulnerabilities in routers and other infrastructure devices.

          The end point should be designed for the level of security it requires.  I have no problem with network prevention of obvious malicious traffic (ie. worms), but I dont want the government owning this surveillance.  I certainly dont want the internet to change only for the benefit of commercial interests and governments wishing to stamp out political dissent - that is belittling to the purpose of the internet.
          Rate this comment: 12345
      • Use linux not Windows
        Guest (liufly) on 04/22/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        I agree that it is unnecessary to develope a new structure.Use Linux not Windows.You can avoid most of the problems.
        Rate this comment: 12345
  • future of the internet
    Guest (p) on 12/20/2005 at 8:31 AM
    Posts:
    1
    The network (as opposed to the endpoints) doesnt need major new security features.

    I admit largeer TCP ISNs would be good, and SMTP should have a way to reject mail per-user after the mail server has read all of it.

    Apart from that what you need is security in execution environmensts (where some of those EEs are OSs and some are browsers etc.).

    This is one of several similar approaches - its no longer adequate to let a program do anything it chooses.  The programs cant be rusted while handling suspect data.  This is a different threat model from most computer security work historically.

    http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=U&ampstart=5&ampq=http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb/papers/subos.pdf&ampe=42

    Extensions to existing OS s/w are effective at providing this kind of security.
    http://whitepapers.zdnet.co.uk/0,39025945,60150583p-39000584q,00.htm
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Hogwash Support
      Guest (Dr Hacker) on 12/20/2005 at 10:35 AM
      Posts:
      1
      artMonster is right on. The royalists from MaBell refuse to give up their 100+ year monopoly. I say give it up and become Americans instead of British-like thugs. We dont want another 1776, but it looks like we may need one!
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Designers did it
    Guest (Sundararajan Srinivasan) on 12/28/2005 at 5:47 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Some of the internet bugs we have now has nothing to do with the OS. It was the way in which it was designed. For instance, SMTP does not provide authentication by default. I can pose myself as bill.gates@microsoft.com with an SMTP server, w/o any problem. This is because the SMTP does not mind the &quotfrom&quot address. The solution can be the usage of digital signature.
    Internet and all the related protocols could have been designed more secure. But it would not have got the same popularity, as it is now. That is why, we are now paying security experts to build layers of security.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • The Internet is not about MS Windows
      Guest (rmarino) on 12/30/2005 at 9:53 PM
      Posts:
      1
      Swithching operating systems will not prevent spammers from clogging up the network nor will it prevent hackers from taking advantage of architectural problems.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Spoofing is good example of the problem
      Guest (The P-man) on 01/08/2006 at 8:36 PM
      Posts:
      1
      A big cost to business that is most difficult to prevent yourself (unlike security) is your address being spoofed to send spam. This is nothing to do with Windows and there is little you can do about it. Spoofing has its legitimate uses but could do with tightening up. The problem is the way it is presented. If all email clients made it clear that a from address and a return address are different you wouldnt have a term like spoofing and thered be way less confusion. Its a difficult balance to keep things simple as well but a lot of it can be made less harmful through education and being more open.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Email spoofing/spam is a solved problem
        Guest (sorpigal) on 03/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
        Posts:
        1
        Internet Mail 2000 solves this nicely. See http://cr.yp.to/im2000.html for details. The trouble is getting people to actually *use* it.

        IM2k uses a 'pull' method of distribution which is inherently more reliable and safer. Go read up on it and make the switch.
        Rate this comment: 12345
  • It ain't broke.  These guys are just bored...
    Guest (Nart) on 01/11/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    The internet today is the same thing it was decades ago.  An open platform for doing what we want to do with it.  Problems only arise when you do not use it safely.  Just like walking down a dark alley, you will eventually get into trouble.  There is plenty of light on the internet, but plenty of dark spaces too.  Use good judgement, keep you head about you, and surf/use correctly and legally and you won't see 90% of the problems that are around.  Individual problems can be resolved by the use, like SPF for e-mail (why hasn't that taken off yet?) and stop using peer-to-peer for things you should not be doing.  The i-net is just fine as it is.  Any control would mean the end of the world as we know it, and that would not be good.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Obscurity is not a good defence for business
      Guest (J Tyrrell) on 02/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      You're right of course that for individuals the internet is a relatively safe place if used carefully. But you do rather sidestep all the issues of "botnets" for all the companies and growing businesses who really can't keep their visibility low and you haven't really tackled the growing spam issue or spoofing. I agree it is partly users who need to be educated into being more careful but that doesn't change the fact they shouldn't have to tread carefully in the first place.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • It does need to be fixed
    Guest (webfrog) on 01/11/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    I am amazed at the narrow mindedness of the posts here. In my opinion the Internet is in a sense broken and it does need to be revamped.
    It was never built with security in mind because it was initally a private network between a select set of sites. It was designed to facilitate the easy movement of information between dis-similar systems, oh and by the way the government was already involved in the initial version which later expanded into the internet. It was called ARPANET and was devised by the U.S. DOD in the 60's
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • no one will trust a NEW US sponsored internet
    Guest (David  Schurman in Berlin) on 01/13/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    ...given the current imperial US regime's prediliction for spying, and general level of dishonesty, NO ONE will move to a "new internet" sponsored or created in / by the US.  It will be like Microsoft products, full of as many holes as a Swiss Cheeze...and all the trapdoors leading to NSA, etc.!

    And the arrogance that "perhaps some other labs than in US might take part"... WAKE UP... you don't grasp the damage done to the US reputation by GWB and Co.
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Internet unmasked
    Guest (Rahul) on 01/15/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1

    The article comes none too soon.

    However, what about the users who cannot get off it? Suffer till help is on the way? What is the estimated damage?
    Rate this comment: 12345
  • Community Nets
    Guest (Laszlo) on 01/20/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
    What we need is community based nets which are backboned together by Internet2 for security
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • The market price
      Guest (Schmick) on 02/09/2006 at 12:00 AM
      Posts:
      1
      How much to connect to Internet2?
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • KISS (Keep It Stupidly Simple)
    Guest (Abraham Y. Chen) on 02/26/2006 at 12:00 AM
    Posts:
    1
       If the promoters of Internet really want to "replace" the PSTN (Public Switched Telephone Network), they should realize that the latter is a transmission system that follows a strict rule:

      Whtat goes into one side (Edge) comes out on the other side (Edge), no more, no less & no distortion, except perhaps some time delays due  to natural physics.

       Expecting Internet to take care of the security issues induced by poor caliber of late computer Operating Systems is going the wrong way from this basic rule.

       A recent IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) proposed activity, PWE3 (Pseudo Wire Emulation Edge to Edge) based on TDMoIP (Time Division Multiplex over IP) technology might be a good sanity check point.
    Rate this comment: 12345
Advertisement

Current Issue

Technology Review May/June 2008
An Electrifying Startup
A new lithium-ion battery from A123 Systems could help electric cars and hybrids come to dominate the roads.
•  Subscribe
Save 41%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News

Magazine Services

Career Resources

MIT Technology Insider

Stories and breaking news from inside MIT about the latest research, innovations, and startups--in a convenient monthly e-newsletter. Subscribe today
Advertisement

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology