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

Thursday, December 01, 2005

The Internet Is Broken

Continued from page 1

By David Talbot

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

Firewall Nation
When AOL updates its software, the new version bears a number: 7.0, 8.0, 9.0. The most recent version is called AOL 9.0 Security Edition. These days, improving the utility of the Internet is not so much about delivering the latest cool application; it's about survival.

In August, IBM released a study reporting that "virus-laden e-mails and criminal driven security attacks" leapt by 50 percent in the first half of 2005, with government and the financial-services, manufacturing, and health-care industries in the crosshairs. In July, the Pew Internet and American Life Project reported that 43 percent of U.S. Internet users -- 59 million adults -- reported having spyware or adware on their computers, thanks merely to visiting websites. (In many cases, they learned this from the sudden proliferation of error messages or freeze-ups.) Fully 91 percent had adopted some defensive behavior -- avoiding certain kinds of websites, say, or not downloading software. "Go to a neighborhood bar, and people are talking about firewalls. That was just not true three years ago," says Susannah Fox, associate director of the Pew project.

Then there is spam. One leading online security company, Symantec, says that between July 1 and December 31, 2004, spam surged 77 percent at companies that Symantec monitored. The raw numbers are staggering: weekly spam totals on average rose from 800 million to more than 1.2 billion messages, and 60 percent of all e-mail was spam, according to Symantec.

But perhaps most menacing of all are "botnets" -- collections of computers hijacked by hackers to do remote-control tasks like sending spam or attacking websites. This kind of wholesale hijacking -- made more potent by wide adoption of always-on broadband connections -- has spawned hard-core crime: digital extortion. Hackers are threatening destructive attacks against companies that don't meet their financial demands. According to a study by a Carnegie Mellon University researcher, 17 of 100 companies surveyed had been threatened with such attacks.

Simply put, the Internet has no inherent security architecture -- nothing to stop viruses or spam or anything else. Protections like firewalls and antispam software are add-ons, security patches in a digital arms race.

The President's Information Technology Advisory Committee, a group stocked with a who's who of infotech CEOs and academic researchers, says the situation is bad and getting worse. "Today, the threat clearly is growing," the council wrote in a report issued in early 2005. "Most indicators and studies of the frequency, impact, scope, and cost of cyber security incidents -- among both organizations and individuals -- point to continuously increasing levels and varieties of attacks."

And we haven't even seen a real act of cyberterror, the "digital Pearl Harbor" memorably predicted by former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke in 2000 (see "A Tangle of Wires"). Consider the nation's electrical grid: it relies on continuous network-based communications between power plants and grid managers to maintain a balance between production and demand. A well-placed attack could trigger a costly blackout that would cripple part of the country.

The conclusion of the advisory council's report could not have been starker: "The IT infrastructure is highly vulnerable to premeditated attacks with potentially catastrophic effects."

The system functions as well as it does only because of "the forbearance of the virus authors themselves," says Jonathan Zittrain, who cofounded the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School and holds the Chair in Internet Governance and Regulation at the University of Oxford. "With one or two additional lines of code...the viruses could wipe their hosts' hard drives clean or quietly insinuate false data into spreadsheets or documents. Take any of the top ten viruses and add a bit of poison to them, and most of the world wakes up on a Tuesday morning unable to surf the Net -- or finding much less there if it can."

In Part 2: Why patching up the Internet with layers of security software isn't working -- and what a safer new architecture might look like.

« Back 1 [2]
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 July/August 2008
The Business of Social Networks
The future of the Web is social. But can social-networking sites ever make money?
•  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