Turnbull China Bikeride/Turnbull China Bikeride - Disc 1.iso/ARGONET/PD/TEXT/COMPUTER/GAO-RPT.TXT

Text File | 1996-11-22 | 107KB | 2,317 lines

   **************************************************************
   *   This is the first GAO report to be made available over   *
   *   the Internet.  GAO wants to know how many people         *
   *   acquire the report this way.  If you are reading this,   *
   *   please send mail to me <[e-mail]> and I'll keep    *
   *   count for them.  Your name will not be saved or used.    *
   **************************************************************

United States General Accounting Office

GAO                         Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
                            Telecommunications and Finance,
                            Committee on Energy and Commerce
                            House of Representatives

June 1989                   COMPUTER SECURITY

                            Virus Highlights Need
                            for improved Internet
                            Management

GAO/IMTEC-89-57


                             Contents

                                                            Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                              2

CHAPTER
   1                     INTRODUCTION                         10
                            Internet Evolves From             10
                              an Experimental Network
                            Rapid Growth of the Internet      12
                            Management in a Decentralized     12
                              Environment
                            Future of the Internet            14
                            Internet Virus Spread Over        15
                              Networks to Vulnerable
                              Computers
                            Objectives, Scope, and            17
                              Methodology

   2                     VIRUS FOCUSES ATTENTION ON           19
                           INTERNET VULNERABILITIES
                            Impact of Virus                   19
                            Vulnerabilities Highlighted       20
                              by Virus
                            Actions Taken in Response         26
                              to Virus
                            Conclusions                       28
                            Recommendation                    30

  3                      FACTORS HINDERING PROSECUTION        32
                           OF COMPUTER VIRUS CASES
                            No Statute Specifically           32
                              Directed at Viruses
                            Technical Nature of Virus-        34
                              Type Incidents May Hinder
                              Prosecution
                            Proposed Legislation on           35
                              Computer Viruses and
                              Related Offenses
                            Conclusions                       36

APPENDIXES
APPENDIX   I                History of Computer Viruses       37
APPENDIX  II                Research Aimed at Improving       43
                              Computer and Open Network
                              Security
APPENDIX III                Major Contributors to This Report 49



                          Abbreviations

CERT                     Computer Emergency Response Team
DARPA                    Defense Advanced Research Projects
                           Agency
FCCSET                   Federal Coordinating Council on
                           Science, Engineering and
                           Technology
FRICC                    Federal Research Internet
                           Coordinating Committee
GAO                      General Accounting Office
HHS                      Department of Health and
                           Human Services
IMTEC                    Information Management and
                           Technology Division
MIT                      Massachusetts Institute
                           of Technology
NASA                     National Aeronautics and Space
                           Administration
NCSC                     National Computer Security Center
NIST                     National Institute of Standards
                           and Technology
NSF                      National Science Foundation
OSTP                     Office of Science and Technology
                           Policy
PC                       personal computer




EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

PURPOSE

In November 1988, a computer program caused
thousands of computers on the Internet--a
multi-network system connecting over 60,000
computers nationwide and overseas--to shut down.
This program, commonly referred to as a computer
virus or worm, entered computers and
continuously recopied itself, consuming
resources and hampering network operations.

Concerned about Internet security and the virus
incident, the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Telecommunications and Finance, House Committee
on Energy and Commerce, asked GAO to

-- provide an overview of the virus incident,

-- examine issues relating to Internet security
   and vulnerabilities, and

-- describe the factors affecting the
   prosecution of computer virus incidents.

BACKGROUND

The Internet, the main computer network used by
the U.S. research community, comprises over 500
autonomous unclassified national, regional, and
local networks.  Two of the largest networks are
sponsored by the National Science Foundation and
the Department of Defense.  In addition, three
other agencies operate research networks on the
Internet.  Over the past 20 years, the Internet
has come to play an integral role in the
research community, providing a means to send
electronic mail, transfer files, and access data
bases and supercomputers.

There is no lead agency or organization
responsible for Internet-wide management.
Responsibility for computer security rests
largely with the host sites that own and operate
the computers, while each network is managed by
the network's sponsor, such as a federal
agency, university, or regional consortium.

Plans are for the Internet to evolve into a
faster, more accessible, larger capacity network
system called the National Research Network.
The initiative to upgrade the Internet--
described as a "super highway" for the research
community--stems from a report by the Office of
Science and Technology Policy.  This Office,
headed by the President's Science Advisor, has a
broad legislative mandate to coordinate and
develop federal science policy.

In recent years, the public has become
increasingly aware of computer virus-type
programs that can multiply and spread among
computers.  The Internet virus differed from
earlier viruses (which primarily attacked
personal computers) in that it was the first to
use networks to spread, on its own, to
vulnerable computer systems.

There is no federal statute that specifically
addresses virus-type incidents.  Forty-eight
states have enacted laws dealing with computer
crime.
_____________________________________________________________________
RESULTS IN BRIEF

Within hours after it appeared, the Internet
virus had reportedly infected up to 6,000
computers, clogging systems and disrupting most
of the nation's major research centers.  After 2
days, the virus was eradicated at most sites,
largely through the efforts of university
computer experts.  After the virus incident,
multiple intrusions (not involving viruses) at
several Internet sites added to concerns about
security.

These incidents highlighted such vulnerabilities
as (1) the lack of an Internet focal point for
addressing security issues, (2) security
weaknesses at some sites, and (3) problems in
developing, distributing, and installing
software fixes (i.e., repairs to software
flaws).

While various agencies and groups have taken
actions to enhance security, GAO believes that
many of the vulnerabilities highlighted by the
virus and subsequent intrusions require actions
transcending those of individual agencies or
groups.  For this reason, GAO believes a
security focal point should be established to
fill a void in Internet's management structure.

Several factors may hinder successful
prosecution of virus-type incidents.  For
example, since there is no federal statute that
specifically makes such conduct a crime, other
laws must be applied.  In addition, the
technical nature of such cases may make it
difficult to proceed to trial.






PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Internet Virus
Incident

The onset of the virus was extremely swift.
Within an hour after it appeared, the virus was
reported at many sites, and by early morning,
November 3, thousands of computers were infected
at such sites as the Department of Energy's
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's
Ames Research Center, the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Purdue University, and
the University of Maryland.

The virus spread over networks largely by
exploiting (1) two holes (flaws) in systems
software used by many computers on the networks
and (2) weaknesses in host site security
policies, such as lax password management.

The primary effects of the virus were lost
computer processing and staff time.  However,
while apparently no permanent damage was done, a
few changes to the virus program could have
resulted in widespread damage and compromise of
sensitive or private information.

Vulnerabilities
Highlighted

The lack of an Internet security focal point
created difficulties in responding to the
virus.  For example, problems were reported
in communicating information about the virus
to sites, coordinating emergency response
activities, and distributing fixes to
eradicate the virus.

The virus also exploited security weaknesses
at some sites.  For example, the incident
showed that some sites paid insufficient
attention to security issues, such as proper
password usage, and lacked system management
expertise for dealing with technical issues.

In addition, problems were highlighted in
developing, distributing, and installing
software fixes for known flaws.  For
example, vendors are not always timely in
repairing software holes that may create
security vulnerabilities.  Further, even
when fixes are available, sites may not
install them, through either neglect or lack
of expertise.  In the subsequent intrusions,
intruders entered several computer systems by
exploiting a known software hole.  In one
case, the vendor had not supplied the fix for
the hole, and in the other, the fix was
supplied but not installed.

Since the virus incident, agencies and groups
have taken actions, such as creating computer
emergency response centers and issuing ethics
statements to heighten users' moral
awareness.  These actions are an important
part of the overall effort needed to upgrade
Internet security.  However, GAO believes
that a focal point is needed to provide the
oversight, coordination, and policy-making
capabilities necessary to adequately address
Internet's security vulnerabilities.  Since
no one organization is responsible for
Internet-wide management and the Office of
Science and Technology Policy has taken a
leadership role in initiating plans for a
National Research Network, GAO believes that
the Office would be the most appropriate body
to coordinate the establishment of a security
focal point.











Prosecution
Problems

To prosecute computer virus-type incidents on
the federal level, such laws as the Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. 1030) or
the Wire Fraud Act (18 U.S.C. 1343) may be used.
However, the 1986 act, the law most closely
related to computer virus-type cases, is
relatively new, untried with respect to virus-
type offenses, and contains terms that are not
defined.  Also, the evidence in such cases tends
to be highly technical, requiring prosecutors to
devote much time and resources preparing for
them.
_____________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATIONS

To help ensure the necessary improvements to
Internet-wide security are achieved, GAO
recommends that the President's Science Advisor,
Office of Science and Technology Policy,
coordinate the establishment of an interagency
group, including representatives from the
agencies that fund research networks on the
Internet, to serve as the Internet security
focal point.  This group should

-- provide Internet-wide security policy,
   direction, and coordination;

-- support ongoing efforts to enhance Internet
   security;

-- obtain input and feedback from Internet
   users, software vendors, technical advisory
   groups, and federal agencies regarding
   security issues; and

-- become an integral part of whatever structure
   emerges to manage the National Research
   Network.




AGENCY COMMENTS

As requested, GAO did not obtain official agency
comments on this report.  However, the views of
officials from the Defense Department, National
Science Foundation, and the Office of Science
and Technology Policy were obtained and
incorporated in the report where appropriate.


                           CHAPTER 1

                          INTRODUCTION

     On Wednesday, November 2, 1988, a virus** appeared on the
Internet, the main computer network system used by U.S.
researchers.  The virus reportedly infected up to 6,000
computers, consuming resources and hampering network operations.
The Internet, an unclassified multi-network system connecting
over 500 networks and over 60,000 computers nationwide and
overseas, has come to play an integral role within the research
community.  A user on any one of the thousands of computers
attached to any Internet network can reach any other user and has
potential access to such resources as supercomputers and data
bases.  This chapter presents an overview of the Internet--how it
evolved, how it is used and managed, and what plans there are for
its further development--as well as a description of the events
surrounding the Internet virus.

  ** Although there is no standard definition, technical
     accounts sometimnes use the term "worm" rather than
     "virus" to refer to the self-propagating program
     introduced on November 2.  The differences between
     the two are subtle, the essential one being that
     worms propagate on their own while viruses, narrowly
     interpreted, require human involvement (usually
     unwitting) to propagate.  However, their effects can
     be identical.  We have chosen to use the term virus
     in deference to popular use.

INTERNET EVOLVES FROM AN EXPERIMENTAL NETWORK

     The Internet began as an experimental, prototype network
called Arpanet, established in 1969 by the Department of
Defense's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).
Through Arpanet, DARPA sought to demonstrate the possibilities of
computer networking based on packet-switching technology.**
Subsequently, DARPA sponsored several other packet-switching
networks.  In the 1970s, recognizing the need to link these
networks, DARPA supported the development of a set of procedures
and rules for addressing and routing messages across separate
networks.  These procedures and rules, called the "Internet
protocols," provided a universal language allowing information to
be routed across multiple interconnected networks.

  ** Packet switching is a technique for achieving economical
     and effective communication among computers on a
     network.  It provides a way to break a message into
     small units, or packets, for independent transmission
     among host computers on a network, so that a single
     communicatin channel can be shared by many users.  Once
     the packets reach their final destination, they are
     reassembled into the complete message.

     From its inception, Arpanet served as a dual-purpose
network, providing a testbed for state-of-the-art computer
network research as well as network services for the research
community.  In the 1980s, the number of networks attached to
Arpanet grew as technological advances facilitated network
connections.  By 1983 Arpanet had become so heavily used that
Defense split off operational military traffic onto a separate
system called Milnet, funded and managed by the Defense
Communications Agency.  Both Arpanet and Milnet are unclassified
networks.  Classified military and government systems are
isolated and physically separated from these networks.

     Building on existing Internet technology, the National
Science Foundation (NSF), responsible for nurturing U.S. science
infrastructure, fostered the proliferation of additional
networks.  In 1985, NSF made the Internet protocols the standard
for its six supercomputing centers and, in 1986, funded a
backbone network--NSFnet--linking the six centers.**  NSF also
supported a number of regional and local area campus networks
whose network connections were facilitated through NSF funding.***
As of September 1988, there were about 290 campus networks
connected to NSFnet through about 13 regional networks.  Many of
these networks also connect to Arpanet.

  ** A backbone network is a network to which smaller
     networks are attached.  Arpanet and Milnet are also
     backbone networks.

 *** Regional networks include partial-statewide networks
     (e.g., Bay Area Regional Research Network in northern
     California), statewide networks (e.g., New York State
     Educational Research Network), and multi-state networks
     (e.g., Southern Universities Research Association
     Network).

     Other federal agencies fund research networks.  The
Department of Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA), and the Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) operate networks on the Internet that support
their missions.

     This loosely organized web of interconnected networks--
including Arpanet, Milnet, NSFnet, and the scores of local and
regional networks that use the Internet protocols--make up the
Internet.  The Internet supports a vast, multi-disciplinary
community of researchers, including not only computer scientists
but physicists, electrical engineers, mathematicians, medical
researchers, chemists, and astronomers.

     Researchers use the Internet for a variety of functions;
electronic mail, which provides a way of sending person-to-person
messages almost instantaneously, is the most frequent use.  Using
electronic mail, researchers separated by thousands of miles can
collaborate on projects, sharing results and comments daily.
Other uses of the Internet include file transfer and remote
access to computer data banks and supercomputers.  Access to
supercomputers has had a dramatic impact on scientific endeavors;
experiments that took years to complete on an ordinary computer
can take weeks on a supercomputer.  Currently, use of the
Internet is generally free-of-charge to individuals engaged in
government-sponsored research.

RAPID GROWTH OF THE INTERNET

     The Internet's transition from a prototype network to a
large-scale multi-network has been rapid, far exceeding
expectations.  In the past 5 years, its growth has been
particularly dramatic.  For example:

     -- In late 1983, the Internet comprised just over 50
        networks; by the end of 1988, the number had grown to
        over 500.

     -- In 1982, about 200 host computers were listed in a
        network data base; by early 1987, there were about
        20,000, and by early 1989 the number exceeded 60,000.**

  ** Host computers, which include supercomputers, mainframes,
     and minicomputers, are the machines,attached to the
     networks, that run application programs.

     -- An October 1988 NSF network publication estimated that
        there were over half a million Internet users.**

  ** "NSF Network News", No. 5, NSF Network Service Center,
     Oct, 1988.

     Funding for Internet operations comes from the five agencies
(DARPA, NSF, Energy, NASA, and HHS) involved in operating
research networks and from universities, states, and private
companies involved in operating and participating in local and
regional networks.  A 1987 Office of Science and Technology
Policy (OSTP) report estimated federal funding to be
approximately $50 million.  A national information technology
consortium official estimated that university investments in
local and regional networks are in the hundreds of millions of
dollars; state investments are estimated in the millions and
rapidly growing.**

  ** Industry also invests in local and regional networks;
     however, the amount of that investment could not be
     determined.

MANAGEMENT IN A DECENTRALIZED ENVIRONMENT

     Management of the Internet is decentralized, residing
primarily at the host site and individual network levels.  Early
in the Internet's development, responsibility for managing and
securing host computers was given to the end-users--the host
sites, such as college campuses and federal agencies, that owned
and operated them.  It was believed that the host sites were in
the best position to manage and determine a level of security
appropriate for their systems.  Further, DARPA's (Arpanet's
developer and the major federal agency involved in the Internet
in its early years) primary function was in fostering research in
state-of-the-art technology rather than operating and managing
proven technology.

     At each host site, there may be many host computers.**  These
computers are controlled by systems managers who may perform a
variety of security-related functions, including

     -- establishing access controls to computers through
        passwords or other means;

     -- configuration management, enabling them to control the
        versions of the software being used and how changes to
        that software are made;

     -- software maintenance to ensure that software holes
        (flaws) are repaired; and

     -- security checks to detect and protect against
        unauthorized use of computers.

  ** For example, at the University of California, Berkeley,
     there are over 2,000 host computers.

Operational Management at the Network Level

     Each of the Internet's more than 500 networks maintains
operational control over its own network, be it a backbone
network (such as NSFnet), a regional network, or a local area
network.  Distributed responsibility allows for use of different
technologies as well as different types of administration.  Each
network is autonomous and has its own operations center that
monitors and maintains its portion of the Internet.  In addition,
some of the larger networks maintain information centers that
provide information on network use and resources.

No Internet-wide Management

     No one agency or organization is responsible for overall
management of the Internet.  According to a DARPA official,
decentralization provided the needed flexibility for the
Internet's continuing growth and evolution.  Within the Internet,
networks operated by government agencies serve as backbones to
connect autonomous regional and local (campus) networks.  Agency
backbone networks were established with agency missions in mind,
and their structures and modes of operation generally reflect
individual agency philosophies.

     In the fall of 1987, representatives of the five federal
agencies--DARPA, NSF, Energy, NASA, HHS--that operate Internet
research networks joined forces to form the Federal Research
Internet Coordinating Committee (FRICC).  The objectives of this
informal group include coordinating network research and
development, facilitating resource sharing, reducing operating
costs, and consolidating requirements for international
connections of the participating agencies.  Currently, FRICC is
involved in developing plans to upgrade the Internet and improve
services.

FUTURE OF THE INTERNET

     The Internet, long characterized by growth and change, is
evolving into an enhanced, upgraded system to be called the
National Research Network.  Plans are for the enhanced network
system to serve as a superhighway that would run faster, reach
farther, and be more accessible than any other computer network
system in the world.

     The National Research Network will include a number of high-
speed networks, including NSFnet, Defense Research Internet, and
other research networks funded by NASA, Energy, and HHS.**  The
networks will use a shared, cross-country, high-capacity link
called the Research Interagency Backbone.

  ** Within the next few years, Arapnet will be replaced as
     an all-purpose network by NSFnet.  A Defense Research
     Internet will be created for experimental work in
     computer networking.

     The initiative for an upgraded network stemmed from two
high-level studies prepared by the Office of Science and
Technology Policy and an ad hoc committee of the National
Research Council.**  OSTP has a broad mandate to coordinate and
develop federal science policy.  Within OSTP, the Congress
established the Federal Coordinating Council on Science,
Engineering and Technology (FCCSET) to initiate interagency
consideration of broad national issues and coordinate government
programs.

  ** "A Research and Development Strategy for High Performance
     Computing", Office of Science and Technology Policy
     (Washington, D.C., Nov. 1987), and "Toward a National
     Research Network", National Network Review Committee,
     National Academy Press (Washington, D.C., 1988).

     Both studies noted the critical importance of a modern,
high-speed research network in providing for research and
technology development.  They concluded that current network
technology did not adequately support scientific collaboration
and that U.S. networks, commercial and government-sponsored, were
not coordinated, had insufficient capacity, and did not assure
privacy.  The studies recommended that a national research
network be established to improve network capabilities.  The
Chairman of the FCCSET Subcommittee on Networking has asked FRICC
to develop a coordinated, multi-agency implementation plan for
the National Research Network.

     FRICC has taken some initial steps toward upgrading the
Internet.  FRICC's NSF representative has agreed to take the lead
in organizing the National Research Network, coordinating multi-
agency efforts and the development of long-term management plans.
In early 1989, NSF sent out a request for proposals to provide
and manage the Research Interagency Backbone.

INTERNET VIRUS SPREAD OVER
NETWORKS TO VULNERABLE COMPUTERS

     The Internet virus, which entered computers and continuously
recopied itself, was not the first virus-type program to infect
computers.  However, it differed from earlier viruses in several
key respects.  First, previous viruses were almost always limited
to personal computers (PCs), whereas the Internet virus infected
larger systems, such as minicomputers, workstations, and
mainframes.  In addition, the Internet virus was the first to
spread over a network automatically (i.e., without requiring
other programs or user intervention to transmit it).

     The networks themselves (i.e., the communications hardware
and software that connect the computer systems) were not infected
by the virus; rather, they served as a roadway enabling the virus
to spread rapidly to vulnerable computers.  In transit, the virus
was indistinguishable from legitimate traffic and, thus, could
not be detected until it infected a computer.  The principal
symptoms of the virus were degradation of system response and
loss of data storage space on file systems.

How the Virus Spread

     The Internet virus spread largely by exploiting security
holes in systems software based on the Berkeley Software
Distribution UNIX system and by taking advantage of
vulnerabilities in host site security policies.**  UNIX is the
most commonly used operating system on the Internet--a University
of California, Berkeley, researcher estimated that about three-
quarters of the computers attached to the Internet use some
version of UNIX.  Machines infected were VAX and Sun-3 computer
systems.***

  ** UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T Laboratories.
     Berkeley distributes its own versin of UNIX, and a
     number of other systems manufacturers have selected
     the Berkeley UNIX version as the basis for their own
     operating systems.  The virus did not attack the
     operating system's "kernel" that manages the system;
     rather, it exploited flaws in peripheral service or
     utility programs.

 *** VAX and Sun-3 computers are built by Digital Equipment
     Corporation and Sun Microsystems, Inc., respectively.

     The virus propagated by using four methods of attack:**

  ** See appendix I for a more detailed account of the
     security flaws the virus exploited.

     Sendmail:  A utility program that handles the complex tasks
of routing and delivering computer mail.  The virus exploited a
"debug" feature of sendmail that allowed a remote operator to
send executable programs.  After issuing the debug command, the
virus gave orders to copy itself.

     Fingerd:  A utility program that allows users to obtain
public information about other users, such as a user's full name
or telephone extension.  A hole in the program allowed the virus
to propagate to distant machines.

     Passwords:  The virus tried different methods to guess user
passwords.  Once the virus gained access through a correct
password, it could masquerade as a legitimate user and exercise
that user's privileges to gain access to other machines.

     Trusted hosts:  Trusted host features provide users
convenient access to each other's resources.  This is not a
software hole; it is a convenience sometimes used on local
networks where users frequently use services provided by many
different computers.  By using these features, the virus spread
quickly within local networks once one computer had been
penetrated.

Chronology of the Virus

     The onset of the virus was extremely swift.  The first
reports of the virus came from several sites at 9 p.m., Eastern
Standard Time, on Wednesday, November 2.  An hour later, the
virus was reported at multiple Internet sites, and by early
morning, November 3, the virus had infected thousands of computer
systems.

     Most of the nation's major research centers were affected,
including Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; NASA's
Ames Research Center; the University of California, Berkeley; the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT); Carnegie Mellon
University; Cornell University; Purdue University; and many
others.  The virus also affected sites on Milnet and several
overseas sites.  As noted earlier, the Internet is an open,
unclassified network; the virus did not affect classified
government or operational military systems.

     Once the virus was detected, many sites disconnected their
computers from the Internet, leaving only one or two computers
running to communicate with other sites and to permit study of
virus activity.  By Thursday, November 3, the sendmail and
fingerd holes had been identified, and by late that night, the
Computer Systems Research Group at the University of California,
Berkeley, had posted patches on network bulletin boards to mend
the holes.**
     By Friday evening, the virus had been eliminated at most
sites.  At a November 8 virus post-mortem conference, hosted by
the National Security Agency's National Computer Security Center
(NCSC), attendees concluded that the virus had been analyzed and
eradicated by computer science experts located primarily at
university research institutions, with U.S. government personnel
playing a small role.

  ** A patch is a modification made to an object program.
     Patches to the sendmail hole had been posted on
     Thursday morning.

OBJECTIVES, SCOPE, AND METHODOLOGY

     In response to an October 14, 1988, request of the Chairman,
Subcommittee on Telecommunications and Finance, House Committee
on Energy and Commerce, and subsequent agreements with his
office, the objectives of our review were to

     -- describe the virus incident,

     -- examine issues relating to Internet security and
        vulnerabilities, and

     -- discuss factors affecting the prosecution of computer
        virus incidents.

In addition, we sought to identify federal research directed
specifically at viruses and to provide an overview of research
that may improve security on open networks, such as the Internet.


     To understand the nature, structure, and management of the
Internet and to determine events surrounding the Internet virus
and related security issues, we reviewed:

     -- Reports, analyses, and briefings prepared by NCSC, DARPA,
        the Defense Communications Agency, NSF, NASA, and the
        Department of Energy.

     -- Academic analyses prepared by individuals associated with
        MIT, Purdue University, and the University of Utah.

     -- Accounts of the virus and its aftermath in scientific
        publications, industry journals, and newspapers.

     We discussed the virus incident, implications of an open
network environment, security issues, the need for increased
centralized management, and the National Research Network with

     -- Officials from the agencies listed above as well as from
        the National Institute of Standards and Technology
        (NIST), OSTP, FCCSET, FRICC, the Office of Management and
        Budget, and the General Services Administration.

     -- Officials representing systems software vendors,
        including the Computer Systems Research Group of the
        University of California, Berkeley; Sun Microsystems,
        Inc.; and Digital Equipment Corporation.

     -- Network users representing federal and academic sites,
        including Harvard University, MIT, NASA's Ames Research
        Center, Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
        and the University of California, Berkeley.

     -- Officials from private sector security companies in the
        Washington, D.C., area and California and from SRI,
        International, which operates the Defense-funded Network
        Information Center.

     To obtain a perspective on factors affecting the prosecution
of computer virus offenses, we discussed the relevant laws with
officials of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of
Justice, and Secret Service.  We also discussed these issues with
representatives of the Colorado Association of Computer Crime
Investigators and the University of Colorado's Computer Law
Center.

     We discussed research aimed at improving computer and open
network security with officials from government agencies and
systems software vendors cited above; with members of the
Internet Activities Board, a technical group concerned with
Internet standards; and with officials from Bolt, Beranek, and
Newman, Inc., which maintains Arpanet's Network Operations
Center.  We did not develop a complete inventory of current
research nor did we evaluate its potential effectiveness.

     Our work was performed in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.  We performed our work primarily
between November 1988 and March 1989 in Washington, D.C., and at
research institutions and vendor locations in Massachusetts and
California.  We discussed the contents of a draft of this report
with DARPA, NSF, and OSTP officials, and their comments have been
incorporated where appropriate.  However, as requested, we did
not obtain official agency comments.


                          CHAPTER 2

       VIRUS FOCUSES ATTENTION ON INTERNET VULNERABILITIES

     Although the virus spread swiftly over the networks to
vulnerable computers, it apparently caused no permanent damage.
However, the virus highlighted vulnerabilities relating to (1)
the lack of a focal point for responding to Internet-wide
security problems, (2) host site security weaknesses, and (3)
problems in developing, distributing, and installing software
fixes.  A number of agencies and organizations have taken actions
since the virus to address identified problems.  However, we
believe that these actions alone will not provide the focus
needed to adequately address the Internet's security
vulnerabilities.

IMPACT OF VIRUS

     The virus caused no lasting damage; its primary impact was
lost processing time on infected computers and lost staff time in
putting the computers back on line.  The virus did not destroy or
alter files, intercept private mail, reveal data or passwords, or
corrupt data bases.

     No official estimates have been made of how many computers
the virus infected, in part because no one organization is
responsible for obtaining such information.  According to press
accounts, about 6,000 computers were infected.  This estimate was
reportedly based on an MIT estimate that 10 percent of its
machines had been infected, a figure then extrapolated to
estimate the total number of infected machines.  However, not all
sites have the same proportion of vulnerable machines as MIT.  A
Harvard University researcher who queried users over the Internet
contends that a more accurate estimate would be between 1,000 and
3,000 computers infected.

     Similar problems exist in trying to estimate virus-related
dollar loss.  The total number of infected machines is unknown,
and the amount of staff time expended on virus-related problems
probably differed at each site.  The Harvard University
researcher mentioned earlier estimated dollar losses to be
between $100,000 and $10 million.

     Estimated losses from individual sites are generally not
available.  However, NASA's Ames Research Center and Energy's
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, two major government
sites, estimated their dollar losses at $72,500 and $100,000,
respectively.  These losses were attributed primarily to lost
staff time.

     Although the virus is described as benign because apparently
no permanent damage was done, a few changes to the virus program
could have resulted in widespread damage and compromise,
according to computer experts.  For example, these experts said
that with a slightly enhanced program, the virus could have
erased files on infected computers or remained undetected for
weeks, surreptitiously changing information on computer files.

VULNERABILITIES HIGHLIGHTED BY VIRUS

     In the aftermath of the virus, questions have been raised
about how the virus spread, how it was contained, and what steps,
if any, are needed to increase Internet security.  These
questions have been the subject of a number of post-virus
meetings and reports prepared by government agencies and
university researchers.**

  ** Major meetings included (1) a November 8 NCSC-hosted
     meeting to review the virus attack and its aftermath,
     attended by over 75 researchers and administrators from
     government and academia and (2) a December 2 meeting
     of UNIX vendors and users, hosted by NCSC, NIST, and
     a users group.

     Based on these assessments, we believe that the virus
incident revealed several vulnerabilities that made it easier for
the virus to spread and more difficult for the virus to be
eradicated.  These vulnerabilities also came into play in later
intrusions (not involving a virus) onto several Internet sites in
November and December.  The vulnerabilities--lack of a focal
point for addressing Internet-wide security problems; security
weaknesses at some host sites; and problems in developing,
distributing, and installing systems software fixes--are
discussed below.

Lack of a Focal Point to Address
Internet-wide Security Problems

     During the virus attack, the lack of an Internet security
focal point made it difficult to coordinate emergency response
activities, communicate information about the virus to vulnerable
sites, and distribute fixes to eradicate it.

     A Defense Communications Agency account of the virus cited a
series of problems stemming from the lack of a central,
coordinating mechanism.  For example:

     -- Although the virus was detected at various sites, users
        did not know to whom or how to report the virus, thus
        hindering virus containment and repair.

     -- There were no plans or procedures for such an emergency
        situation.  People used ad hoc methods to communicate,
        including telephone or facsimile.  In many instances,
        sites disconnected from the Internet.  While effective in
        the short run, this action also impeded communications
        about fixes.

     -- It was unclear who was responsible for protecting
        networks from viruses, resulting in confusion among user,
        network, and vendor groups.

     The confusion surrounding the virus incident was echoed by
many Internet users.  For example:

     -- A Purdue University researcher concluded that user
        response to the virus was ad hoc and resulted in
        duplicated effort and failure to promptly disseminate
        information to sites that needed it.**

     -- At Energy's Los Alamos National Laboratory, researchers
        reported that they received conflicting information on
        fixes.  Because they did not have a UNIX expert on site,
        they had difficulty determining which fix was reliable.

     -- At Harvard University, researchers expressed frustration
        at the lack of coordination with other sites experiencing
        the same problems.

  ** Eugene H. Spafford, "The Internet Worm Program: An
     Analysis", Department of Computer Sciences, Purdue
     University, Nov. 1988.

     In a report resulting from NCSC's post-mortem meeting,
network sponsors, managers, and users from major sites--including
Defense's Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Energy's Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, DARPA, Harvard, MIT, and the
University of California, Berkeley--called for improved
communications capabilities and a centralized coordination center
to report problems to and provide solutions for Internet users.

Host Security Weaknesses
Facilitated Spread of Virus

     Key to the Internet's decentralized structure is that each
host site is responsible for establishing security measures
adequate to meet its needs.  Host computers are frequently
administered by systems managers, typically site personnel
engaged in their own research, who often serve as systems
managers on a part-time basis.

     According to virus incident reports as well as network
users, weaknesses at host sites included (1) inadequate attention
to security, such as poor password management, and (2) systems
managers who are technically weak.


     Inadequate Attention to Security

     Discussions of computer security frequently cite the trade-
offs between increased security and the sacrifices, in terms of
convenience, system function, flexibility, and performance, often
associated with security measures.  In deciding whether to
establish additional security measures, systems managers must
often be willing to make sacrifices in these areas.  According to
Internet users from academia, government, and the private sector,
systems managers at research sites often are not very concerned
with security.

     One example of a trade-off between security and convenience
involves trusted host features on UNIX that allow users to
maintain a file of trusted computers that are granted access to
the user's computer without a password.  The trusted host
features make access to other computers easier; however, they
also create potential security vulnerabilities because they
expand the number of ways to access computers.

     The virus took advantage of the trusted host features to
propagate among accounts on trusted machines.  Some sites
discourage use of the trusted host features; however, other sites
use them because of their convenience.  One Internet user
observed that users do not like to be inconvenienced by typing in
their password when accessing a trusted computer, nor do they
want to remember different passwords for each computer with which
they communicate.

    Another example involving inadequate attention to security is
in password management.  According to an NSF official, a major
vulnerability exploited by the virus was lax password security.
The official stated that too few sites observe basic procedures
that reduce the risk of successful password guessing, such as
prohibiting passwords that appear in dictionaries or other simple
word lists and periodically changing passwords.

     The relative ease with which passwords can be guessed was
discussed in an analysis of the Internet virus done by a
University of Utah researcher.**  He cited a previous study
demonstrating that out of over 100 password files, up to 30
percent were guessed using just the account name and a couple of
variations.

  ** Donn Seeley, "A Tour of the Worm", Department of Computer
     Science, University of Utah, Nov. 1988.  Unpublished report.

     Careful control over passwords often inconveniences users to
some degree.  For example, an article in Computers and Security,
an international journal for computer security professionals,
notes that computer-generated passwords tend to be more secure
than user-selected passwords because computer-generated passwords
are not chosen by an obvious method easily guessed by an
intruder.  However, computer-generated passwords are generally
more difficult to remember.**

  ** Belden Menkus, "Understanding the Use of Passwords",
     Computers and Security, Vol. 7, No. 2, April 1988.

     Systems Managers Who Are Technically Weak

     A number of Internet users, as well as NCSC and Defense
Communications Agency virus reports, stated that the technical
abilities of systems managers vary widely, with many managers
poorly equipped to deal with security issues, such as the
Internet virus.  For example, according to the NCSC report, many
systems managers lacked the technical expertise to understand
that a virus attacked their systems and had difficulty
administering fixes.  The report recommended that standards be
established and a training program begun to upgrade systems
manager expertise.

Problems in Developing, Distributing,
and Installing Software Fixes

     Systems software is generally very complex.  A major problem
programmers face in software design is the difficulty in
anticipating all conditions that occur during program execution
and understanding precisely the implications of even small
changes.  Thus, systems software often contains flaws that may
create security problems, and software changes often introduce
new problems.

     Internet users and software vendors frequently cited
problems relating to inadequacies in developing, distributing,
and installing corrections to identified software holes.  Holes
that are not expeditiously repaired may create security
vulnerabilities.  The Internet virus incident and two later
Internet intrusions highlighted problems in getting vendors to
develop and distribute fixes and in having host sites install the
fixes.

     Problems With Vendors

     A number of network users representing major Internet sites
said that vendors should be more responsive in supplying patches
to identified software holes.  For example, more than 1 month
after the virus, several vendors reportedly had not supplied
patches to fix the sendmail and fingerd holes.

     Most vendors, when notified of a hole, send users a patch to
repair the hole or wait until their next software revision, at
which time the hole (as well as any other identified flaws) will
be corrected.  However, since a revision may take up to 6 to 9
months to release, the latter approach may leave systems
vulnerable to security compromise for long periods.  According to
Internet users, critical security patches should be provided as
quickly as possible and should not be delayed until the next
release of the software.**

  ** According to a Defense official, this problem is
     compounded by the fact that sites not subscribing to
     software maintenance/support may not receive any new
     releases.

     Officials of one major vendor pointed out the problems they
faced in distributing patches expeditiously.  According to these
officials:

     -- Their company sells computers with three or four
        different architectures, each with several versions of
        the UNIX operating system.  When a fix is needed, they
        have to distribute about 12 different patches, making it
        difficult to develop and release patches quickly.

     -- Patches have to be carefully screened so that new holes
        will not be inadvertently incorporated.  The officials
        noted that the quality assurance this screening provides
        is an important part of their business because their
        reputation depends on the quality of their software.

     -- Vendors have a hard time keeping track of customers who
        do not have service maintenance contracts.  In addition,
        some systems are sold through contractors and the vendors
        may not know the contractors' customer bases.

     -- Disseminating a patch to thousands of users can cost a
        company millions of dollars.

The vendor officials said they considered these factors in
determining how to implement a patch.

     Berkeley's Computer Systems Research Group, which
distributes its version of UNIX, has a software policy that
differs from that of many other vendors.  Berkeley generally
provides source code along with the UNIX object code it sells to
users.**  However, Berkeley's policy is unusual--most vendors
treat source code as proprietary and it is typically not provided
to users.  With source code, an experienced systems manager may
be able to fix holes without waiting for the vendor to supply a
patch or a system revision.

  ** Source code is the program written by the programmer.
     It is translated (by a compiler, interpreter, or
     assembler program) into object code for execution by
     the computer.

     Berkeley routinely transmits fixes to UNIX users and vendors
through networks and bulletin boards.  While this may result in
timely fixes, it can also create security vulnerabilities.  In
particular, when a fix is widely disseminated, information about
a vulnerability is also made apparent.  Thus, there is a race
between intruders seeking to exploit a hole and systems managers
working to apply the fix.

     This dilemma was highlighted in multiple intrusions, which
occurred in November and December 1988, at several Internet
sites, including Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Mitre
Corporation.  In these instances, intruders exploited
vulnerabilities in a UNIX utility program, called FTPD, that
transfers files between Internet sites.**

  ** As discussed, the Internet virus exploited vulnerabilities
     in two other UNIX utility programs, sendmail and fingerd.

     Berkeley had sent out patches for the FTPD hole in October
1988.  However, other UNIX vendors had not released patches for
the hole.  Mitre officials reported that their systems managers
applied the Berkeley patch on many of their computers, but not on
the computer penetrated by the intruders.  Lawrence Livermore
officials reported that they applied patches to computers that
use Berkeley UNIX.  However, the vendor for its other computers
had not supplied a patch before the intrusion.  Lawrence
Livermore did not have source code for the other vendor's
machines, so they had to wait for the vendor's patch.

     According to a Defense official, the intruders most likely
tried to gain access to many machines until they found those
machines to which patches had not been applied.  Once the
intruders penetrated the FTPD hole, they installed "trap doors"
by adding new accounts and modifying systems routines, which
allowed them continued access after the FTPD holes were closed.
Officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and from sites
involved in the intrusions said that the intruders have been
identified and the case is under investigation.  Reportedly,
aside from the trap doors, no files were altered, and no
classified systems were affected.

     Problems in Installing Software Fixes

     Even when a vendor distributes fixes, there is no assurance
that sites will install them.  Internet users and managers at
several major university research and government sites cited the
following reasons as to why fixes were not expeditiously
installed:

     -- Systems managers vary in their ability and motivation to
        manage their systems well.

     -- System managers often serve on a part-time basis, and
        time spent on systems management takes away time from
        research.
     -- System revisions may contain errors, so some systems
        managers are reluctant to install the revisions.

     -- System revisions may be expensive if the system is not on
        a maintenance contract.

     -- Some sites do not know who their system managers are and,
        thus, have problems ensuring that fixes get distributed
        and installed.

     As discussed earlier, problems and confusion resulted when
sites had to respond to the Internet virus.  Although Berkeley
posted a fix to both the sendmail and fingerd holes within 2 days
after the onset of the virus and Sun Microsystems reportedly
published a fix within 5 days, almost a month after the virus a
number of sites reportedly still had not reconnected their host
computers to the Internet.

ACTIONS TAKEN IN RESPONSE TO VIRUS

     In response to the Internet virus, DARPA, NIST, NCSC,** and
a number of other agencies and organizations have taken actions
to enhance Internet security.  These actions include developing
computer security response centers, coordinating meetings,
preparing publications to provide additional guidance, and
publishing statements of ethics.***

  ** NIST is responsible for developing standards and guidelines
     for the security of unclassified federal computer systems.
     It performs these responsibilities with the National
     Security Agency's technical advice and assistance. The
     Natioonal Security Agency (of which NCSC is a part) is
     responsible for the security of classified informatin in
     the defense and national security areas, including that
     stored and processed on computers.

 *** In addition, agencies are engaged in ongoing research
     aimed at improving network and computer security.  An
     overview of these activities is presented in appendix II.

Computer Security Response
Centers Established

     In the wake of the virus, many Internet users, site
managers, and agency officials have voiced concerns about
problems in responding to and preventing emergency situations,
such as the Internet virus.  To address these concerns, some
agencies are developing computer security response centers to
establish emergency and preventative measures.

     The first center, the Computer Emergency Response Team
(CERT), was established by DARPA in mid-November 1988.  CERT's
mandate is broad--it is intended to support all of the Internet's
research users.  DARPA views CERT as a prototype effort for
similar organizations in other computer communities.  Also, CERT
is seen as an evolving organization whose role, activities, and
procedures will be defined as it gains experience responding to
Internet security problems.

     According to DARPA, CERT's three main functions are to
provide
     -- mechanisms for coordinating community response in
        emergency situations, such as virus attacks or rumors of
        attacks;

     -- a coordination point for dealing with information about
        vulnerabilities and fixes; and

     -- a focal point for discussion of proactive security
        measures, coordination, and security awareness among
        Internet users.

CERT has no authority, although it can make recommendations.
CERT officials recognize the need to establish credibility and
support within the Internet community so that its recommendations
will be acted upon.

     CERT's nucleus is a five-person coordination center located
at the Software Engineering Institute at Carnegie Mellon
University in Pennsylvania.**  CERT has enlisted the help of over
100 computer specialists who are on call when problems arise in
their areas of expertise.  In addition, CERT is developing
working relationships with government organizations, including
NCSC, NIST, Energy, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
with vendor and user groups.  CERT expects to rely on DARPA
funding until its value is recognized by the Internet community
and alternate funding mechanisms are established--probably within
3 to 5 years.

  ** The objective of the institute, which is a Federally
     Funded Research and Development Center, is to accelerate
     the movement of software technology into defense systems.

     The Department of Energy began setting up a center at
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in February 1989.  This
center is to focus on proactive preventive security and on
providing rapid response to computer emergencies within the
agency.  The center plans to develop a data base of computer
security problems and fixes, provide training, and coordinate the
development of fixes.  In addition, the center is considering
developing software to assist in network mapping and to assure
proper system configuration.

Meetings Held and Guidance Issued

     NIST is coordinating interagency meetings to (1) draw on
agency experience and develop a model for agencies to use in
setting up response/coordination centers and (2) educate others
on the model that is developed.  NIST has also set up a computer
system that may be used as a data base for computer problems and
fixes and as an alternate means of communication in case the
Internet's electronic mail system becomes incapacitated.  In
addition, NIST is planning to issue guidance this summer that
will discuss threats inherent to computers and how such threats
can be reduced.

     NCSC plans to distribute three security-related reports
discussing (1) viruses and software techniques for detecting
them, (2) the role of trusted technology in combating virus-
related programs, and (3) security measures for systems managers.
NCSC is also providing an unclassified system to serve as an
alternate means of communications in case the Internet's
electronic mail system is not working.

Ethics Statements Released

     The Internet Activities Board, a technical group comprising
government, industry, and university communications and network
experts, issued a statement of ethics for Internet users in
February 1989.  Many Internet users believe there is a need to
strengthen the ethical awareness of computer users.  They believe
that a sense of heightened moral responsibility is an important
adjunct to any technical and management actions taken to improve
Internet security.

     The Board endorsed the view of an NSF panel that
characterized any activity as unethical and unacceptable that
purposely

     -- seeks to gain unauthorized access to Internet resources;

     -- disrupts the intended use of the Internet; or

     -- wastes resources, destroys the integrity of computer-
        based information, or compromises users' privacy.

     The Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility and
various network groups have also issued ethics statements
encouraging (1) enforcement of strong ethical practices, (2) the
teaching of ethics to computer science students, and (3)
individual accountability.

CONCLUSIONS

     In the 20 years in which it evolved from a prototype DARPA
network, the Internet has come to play an integral role in the
research and development community.  Through the Internet,
researchers have been able to collaborate with colleagues, have
access to advanced computing capabilities, and communicate in new
ways.  In providing these services, the Internet has gone beyond
DARPA's original goal of proving the feasibility of computer
networking and has served as a model for subsequent public data
networks.

     Since there is no lead agency or organization responsible
for Internet-wide policy-making, direction, and oversight,
management on the Internet has been decentralized.  We believe
this is because, at least in part, Internet developments were
driven more by technological considerations than by management
concerns and because decentralized authority provided the
flexibility needed to accommodate growth and change on an
evolving network.  However, we believe that the Internet has
developed to the point where a central focus is necessary to help
address Internet security concerns.  These concerns will take on
an even greater importance as the Internet evolves into the
National Research Network, which will be faster, more accessible,
and have more international connections than the Internet.

     The Internet virus and other intrusions highlighted certain
vulnerabilities, including

     -- lack of a focal point in addressing Internet-wide
        security issues, contributing to problems in coordination
        and communications during security emergencies;

     -- security weaknesses at some host sites; and

     -- problems in developing, distributing, and installing
        systems software fixes.

     Since the virus, various steps have been taken to address
concerns stemming from the incident, from creating computer
security response centers to issuing ethics statements to raise
the moral awareness of Internet users.

     We support these actions and believe they are an important
part of the overall effort required to upgrade Internet security.
Host sites may need to take additional actions to heighten
security awareness among users and to improve identified host
level weaknesses, such as lax password management.

     However, many of the vulnerabilities highlighted by the
virus require actions beyond those of individual agencies or host
sites.  For this reason, we believe that a security focal point
should be established to fill a void in the Internet's management
structure and provide the focused oversight, policy-making, and
coordination necessary at this point in the Internet's
development.

     For example, we believe that concerns regarding the need for
a policy on fixes for software holes would be better addressed by
a security focal point representing the interests of half a
million Internet users than by the ad hoc actions of host sites
or networks.  Similarly, a security focal point would better
ensure that the emergency response teams being developed by
different Internet entities are coordinated and that duplication
is lessened.

     There are no currently available technical security fixes
that will resolve all of the Internet's security vulnerabilities
while maintaining the functionality and accessibility that
researchers believe are essential to scientific progress.
Similarly, there is no one management action that will address
all of the Internet's security problems.  However, we believe
concerted action on many fronts can enhance Internet security and
provide a basis for security planning on the National Research
Network.

     FRICC, an informal group made up of representatives of the
five agencies that operate Internet research networks, is
attempting to coordinate network research and development,
facilitate resource sharing, and reduce operating costs.
However, no one agency or organization has responsibility for
Internet-wide management and security.  The Office of Science and
Technology Policy, through its Federal Coordinating Council on
Science, Engineering and Technology, has, under its mandate to
develop and coordinate federal science policy, taken a leadership
role in coordinating development of an interagency implementation
plan for the National Research Network.  Therefore, we believe
that the Office, through FCCSET, would be the appropriate body to
coordinate the establishment of a security focal point.

RECOMMENDATION

     We recommend that the President's Science Advisor, Office of
Science and Technology Policy, through FCCSET, coordinate the
establishment of an interagency group to serve as an Internet
security focal point.  This group should include representatives
from the federal agencies that fund Internet research networks.

     As part of its agenda, we recommend that this group:

     -- Provide Internet-wide policy, direction, and coordination
        in security-related areas to help ensure that the
        vulnerabilities highlighted by the recent incidents are
        effectively addressed.

     -- Support efforts already underway to enhance Internet
        security and, where necessary, assist these efforts to
        ensure their success.

     -- Develop mechanisms for obtaining the involvement of
        Internet users; systems software vendors; industry and
        technical groups, such as the Internet Advisory Board;
        and NIST and National Security Agency, the government
        agencies with responsibilities for federal computer
        security.

     -- Become an integral part of the structure that emerges to
        manage the National Research Network.


                            CHAPTER 3

                  FACTORS HINDERING PROSECUTION
                     OF COMPUTER VIRUS CASES

     The Internet incident is a recent example of the growing
number of instances in which computers, or their information or
programs, have been the target of sabotage or attack.  As of
March 23, 1989, there have been no indictments in the Internet
virus case.  Because it is an open matter, Justice officials
would not provide any specific information about the case.

     There are some factors that may hinder prosecution of
computer virus-type incidents.  For example:

     -- There is no federal statute that specifically makes such
        conduct a crime, so other federal laws must be applied to
        computer virus-type cases.

     -- The technical nature of computer virus-type cases may
        hinder prosecution.

As yet, there have been no federal prosecutions of computer
virus-type incidents.

NO STATUTE SPECIFICALLY
DIRECTED AT VIRUSES

     No federal law is specifically directed at computer virus-
type incidents.  Thus, the ability to prosecute such cases
depends on whether conduct associated with a particular incident,
such as unauthorized access or destruction of records, falls
within an existing statute.

     The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (18 U.S.C. 1030) is
the act most closely directed at computer crimes.  The most
relevant provisions in the act relating to virus-type incidents
make it a crime for individuals to

     -- intentionally,** without authorization, access a federal
        computer, or a federally used computer if such access
        affects the government's operation of the computer;

  ** The term "intentionally" means that the outcome was an
     objective of the conduct.

     -- knowingly,** and with intent to defraud, access a federal
        interest computer*** or exceed authorized access, where
        such access furthers the intent to defraud and obtains
        anything of value, unless the object of the fraud and the
        thing of value consists only of the use of the computer;
        or

  ** The term "knowingly" means that the actor was aware
     that the result was practically certain to follow
     from the conduct.

 *** The act defines federal interest computers as ones
     exclusively used by the government or a financial
     institution, or if not exclusively so used, used by
     government or a financial institution and the conduct
     constituting the offense affects the financial
     institution's or the government's operation of the
     computer, or a computer that is one of two or more
     used in committing the offense, not all of which
     are in the same state (18 U.S.C. 1030(e)(2)).

     -- intentionally, without authorization, access and by such
        conduct alter, damage, or destroy information in any
        federal interest computer or prevent the authorized use
        of such computer or information and thereby (A) cause
        losses aggregating $1,000 or more to one or more others
        during any one year or (B) modify or impair, or
        potentially modify or impair, the medical examination,
        diagnosis, treatment or care of one or more individuals.

     The act defines some relevant terms, but not others.  For
instance, the act defines "exceeds authorized access" as access
to a computer with authorization and use of such access to obtain
or alter information in the computer that the accessor is not
entitled to obtain or alter (18 U.S.C. 1030(e)(6)).  However, the
act does not define "access," "information," or "prevents the
authorized use."

     Because some of the terminology has not been defined, it is
not clear whether all virus-type cases would fit within the act's
scope.  For instance, it is unclear whether the introduction of a
virus into a system by electronic mail, a nominally authorized
means of entry, would constitute unauthorized access as
contemplated by the statute.  Nor is it clear that a virus that
merely slowed a system's response time would prevent its
authorized use.

     There are also obstacles in applying other federal laws to
virus-type incidents.  For example, it is possible to view the
creation and use of counterfeit passwords (used, for example, in
the Internet incident) as a violation of the Credit Card Fraud
Act of 1984 (18 U.S.C. 1029).  This statute prohibits the
production or use of counterfeit or unauthorized access devices
with the intent to defraud.  However, the act's legislative
history** suggests that it is intended to address financial and
credit abuses, and it is not certain that its prohibitions could
be extended to nonfinancial incidents.

  ** See House Report 894, 98th Congress, 2d Session;
     Senate Report 368, 98th Congress, 2d Session.

     Another law that has been suggested for use in prosecuting
virus-type incidents is the Wire Fraud Act (18 U.S.C. 1343).
This act prohibits the introduction into interstate or foreign
commerce of radio, wire, or television communications intended to
further a fraudulent scheme.  However, applying this statute to
virus-type incidents may be complicated by the absence of
traditional fraud elements, such as the effort to obtain
something of value.

     In addition to federal laws, computer crimes may be
prosecuted under state laws.  Forty-eight states have adopted
legislation dealing with computer crimes, and the other two are
currently considering such legislation.**  State laws vary widely
in terms of coverage and penalties.  For instance, some state
laws:

     -- Include provisions that specifically define information
        stored in computers as property.  This definition
        facilitates prosecution under traditional statutes
        governing property crimes.

     -- Authorize victims to sue for violations of the statutes.

     -- Provide for forfeiting (that is, permanently taking away)
        the violator's computer property used in the crime as
        part of the penalty.  Federal statutes do not provide for
        such a remedy or penalty.

  ** Statistics were not readily available regarding the
     extent to which state laws have been used for prosecuting
     computer virus-type cases.

TECHNICAL NATURE OF VIRUS-TYPE
INCIDENTS MAY HINDER PROSECUTION

     The technical nature of computer virus-type incidents may
hinder prosecution.  Even when a violation can be clearly
established, the evidence is likely to be arcane and technical,
and prosecutors may not have the background and training needed
to deal with it proficiently.  Moreover, even if prosecutors are
prepared to deal with the evidence, it is not likely that the
court and jury would be similarly capable of assessing complex
computer-related evidence.  Consequently, prosecutors would need
to devote additional resources and effort in preparing to
communicate the substance of the case.  This difficulty was
described by the court in a 1985 software copyright case
involving similar types of evidence:

     "This fact-rich case has presented difficult issues for
     resolution, particularly since the intellectual
     property at issue is computer programming, a form not
     readily comprehended by the uninitiated.  The challenge
     to counsel to make comprehensible for the court the
     esoterica of bytes and modules is daunting."**

  ** Q-CO Industries, Inc. v. Hoffman, 625 F.Supp. 608,
     610 (1985).

     Another potential problem in prosecuting virus-type
incidents is that pretrial discovery may be burdensome and raise
problems regarding access to sensitive computer records or
security systems.**  For example, in a recent Texas case
involving a virus-type incident,*** the defense moved for access
to the victim company's backup tapes containing confidential
records.  The issue was ultimately resolved by giving the
defendant access to the data over one weekend, with physical
control of the tapes remaining in the company's hands.  However,
it is possible that similar requests for access to computer files
or even security systems could deter prosecution in future
incidents.

  ** The term "discovery" refers to pretrial legal procedures
     that can be used by one party to obtain facts and
     information from the other party in order to assist in
     preparation for trial.

 *** Texas v. Burleson, unreported.  Our discussion is
     derived from an unpublished case summary prepared by the
     Office of the Criminal District Attorney, Tarrant
     County, Texas.

PROPOSED LEGISLATION ON COMPUTER
VIRUSES AND RELATED OFFENSES

     Two bills have been introduced in the Congress dealing with
computer viruses and related conduct.  These bills contain
language addressing computer-virus type incidents.  In addition,
they provide for a private right of action authorizing the
injured party to sue for a violation.  Neither of the bills
includes a forfeiture penalty.

     The proposed Computer Virus Eradication Act of 1989 (H.R.
55) adds a new provision to the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of
1986 prohibiting the introduction of commands or information into
a computer program knowing that they may cause loss, expense, or
risk to the health or welfare of the computer's users or to
persons who rely on information contained in the computer
program.  The bill also prohibits individuals from knowingly
transferring a program containing such instructions in
circumstances where the recipient is unaware of the program or
its effects.  The bill provides for criminal penalties and fines
and authorizes victims to sue for a violation of the statute.

     The second bill, the Computer Protection Act of l989
(H.R. 287), prohibits the knowing and willful sabotage of the
proper operation of a computer hardware system or associated
software that results in loss of data, impaired computer
operation, or tangible loss or harm to the computer's owner.
This bill also provides for criminal penalties and fines and
authorizes the victim to sue for a violation of the statute.

     In addition to these bills, which have been referred to the
Judiciary Committee, Department of Justice officials said they
are considering draft legislation to better address virus-type
incidents.

CONCLUSIONS

     Federal laws are not specifically directed at virus-type
incidents.  The law most relevant to such incidents is untested
with respect to virus-type offenses and contains terms that are
not defined.  To date, no federal computer virus-type cases have
been tried.  In addition, the technical nature of computer virus-
type incidents may hinder the prosecution of computer virus-type
cases.  Legislation directed at computer virus-type incidents
could eliminate the uncertainty regarding the applicability of
current laws.


APPENDIX I

                   HISTORY OF COMPUTER VIRUSES

     Computer viruses and worms are generally described as
programs that can infect, replicate, and spread among computer
systems.**  The effects of viruses and worms have ranged from an
unexpected message flashed on a computer's screen to destruction
of valuable data and program files.  Although computer viruses
are a relatively recent threat, there are many varieties or
strains that may infect computer systems.

  ** Viruses are closely related to computer worms--they
     both spread and reproduce and their effects can be
     identical.  The primary distinction between the two
     is that a worm is self-replicating and self-propagating,
     while a virus requires (usually unwitting) human
     assistance to propagate.  Virus propagation can occur
     by sharing diskettes, forwarding mail messages, or
     other means.

VULNERABILITIES IN PC DESIGN AND
USE HAVE BEEN EXPLOITED BY VIRUSES

     Historically, most viruses have attacked personal computers
rather than other systems, such as minicomputers, workstations,
and mainframes.  A Defense official said that the principal
reason for this is that the first generation of PCs, due to their
hardware and systems software design, are intrinsically
vulnerable.  For example:

     --   Early generation PCs do not have the same hardware and
          software capabilities for managing system resources
          that workstations and larger scale systems do.  PCs
          were originally intended to serve only one user, and
          limitations on user privileges were not incorporated
          into PCs' accessing schemes.

     --   Most PCs do not differentiate among users and,
          therefore, every person who operates a PC has access to
          all resources.
     --   With PCs, the programs that enable the computer to
          operate are unprotected; they are stored on the same
          hard disk as the operator's files and there are few
          limitations on accessing program files.

In addition, PCs are often used in offices, where access is not
monitored or recorded.  Diskettes are shared among computer
users, and networking is becoming common practice in
organizations that use PCs.  These operating conditions enable
virus-type programs to spread among computers with relative ease.

     According to Defense agency officials, creating a PC virus
requires only moderate programming skills and access to a PC.
These and other basic security weaknesses often make PC virus
prevention, detection, and eradication difficult.

HOW VIRUSES SPREAD

     Viruses are often spread among PCs by sharing infected
computer diskettes, down-loading infected programs from
electronic bulletin boards, or using infected software packages.
For example, viruses may spread when an infected diskette is
loaded into a computer.  The virus may copy itself from the
infected diskette onto the PC's hard disk.  When other diskettes
are inserted into the infected machine, they also become
infected.  These newly infected diskettes can then infect other
computers that they come in contact with.  This cycle continues
until the virus is detected and eliminated.  In the PC community,
computers can be reinfected many times by the same virus and,
even after viral attacks, may be left just as vulnerable as
before.  Therefore, virus attacks in the PC community may last
for months or years.  Recently, networks have also been used to
transmit viruses among personal computers.

     Viruses and other similar programs can be designed to
trigger a wide variety of actions.  For example, they can destroy
files and hinder or stop computer operations.  Viruses may also
be designed to remain dormant until certain conditions occur.
When the designated condition is met, the virus activates to
achieve its intended purpose.  For example, some viruses have
been reported to trigger an action on a specified day, such as
Friday the 13th, or after being recopied a certain number of
times.  Such threats can be difficult to address because they can
create a false sense of security and hinder detection and
recovery by infecting backup files.  Viruses can also have less
severe consequences.  For example, they may create a message on
the computer monitor, creating a nuisance and interrupting
activities but not causing any damage.

EXAMPLES OF VIRUSES

     Viruses are tailored to attack specific systems and spread
in different ways.  Following are examples of well known PC
viruses:

     --   The 1986 "Pakistani Brain" virus was reportedly
          implanted in software packages as a warning or threat
          to those who recopy software.  It infected IBM PCs and
          compatibles and copied itself onto diskettes that were
          inserted into infected systems.  The virus contained
          the message "Welcome to the dungeon.  Beware of this
          VIRUS.  Contact us for vaccination."  The message also
          included an address and phone number of the two
          brothers in Pakistan who originally distributed the
          software.

     --   The "Scores" virus of 1987 attacked Macintosh PCs.
          This virus infected utility programs and then
          transferred copies of itself onto program files located
          on diskettes inserted into the infected machines.  The
          Scores virus caused system slowdown and printing
          problems.

     --   The "Lehigh" virus, discovered in 1987 at Lehigh
          University, attacked IBM PCs and compatibles.  It
          infected PC operating systems and copied itself onto
          diskettes inserted into the machines.  It was
          programmed to infect four disks and then to destroy the
          computer's file system.  It reportedly infected several
          hundred computers, many of which lost all the data on
          their disks.

     The "Christmas Tree" virus of 1987 attacked IBM mainframes
through an international network.  It used electronic mail
services to send copies of itself to network users.  It displayed
a holiday message on the receiver's screen and then mailed itself
to others.  The virus spread like an electronic chain letter
through many kinds of communication links, including satellites
and ocean cables, reportedly infecting computers in over 130
countries.  This virus caused both denial of services and system
shutdowns.

     While there are many different kinds of computer viruses,
there are also a number of commercial programs that can discover
specific viruses through such methods as comparing storage
requirements of an uninfected file with the actual storage space
being occupied at any time by the file.  Software packages used
to discover specific viruses already present in computers include
"Disk Watcher," "Protec," and "Condom."**  However, according to
Defense officials, because computer viruses are not recognizable
based solely on their behavior or appearance, their detection
cannot be completely assured.  Currently, NCSC is evaluating such
packages.  In addition, officials said that because of the
intrinsic vulnerabilities of most PCs, viruses can be written to
circumvent most PC software security features.

  ** There are other software packages aimed at preventing
     initial viral infections.

THE INTERNET VIRUS

     The Internet incident, in which a virus-type program
attacked computers through computer networks, demonstrates the
potential extent and swiftness of propagation of self-replicating
programs over networks.  The Internet virus was the first to use
several security weaknesses to propagate autonomously over a
network.  It was designed to attack Sun-3 and VAX computer
systems that used system software based on Berkeley Software
Distribution UNIX.  It incorporated four primary attack methods
to access thousands of computers connected by network
communication lines.  Two attack methods relied on implementation
errors in network utility programs, a third method gained system
access by guessing passwords, and the last method exploited local
network security assumptions to propagate within the local
networks.  Because of the independent and flexible nature of its
attack strategy, the Internet virus was able to affect many
systems within a short period.**

  ** PCs were not infected because they are not host
     computers on the Internet.

Infection Through Software Holes

     The Internet depends on network utility programs, including
remote login, file transfer, message handling, and user status
reporting, to support communication between users.  However,
software security holes in two utility programs, sendmail and
fingerd, enabled the Internet virus to propagate over the
networks.**

  ** The Internet virus exploited implementation errors on
     two utility programs that enable users to use network
     services.  It did not attack or affect the computers'
     operating systems -- the programs that control the
     computer's operation and access to resources.

     Sendmail is a utility program that implements the Internet's
electronic mail services by interacting with remote sites
according to a standard mail protocol.  The Internet virus used a
weakness in sendmail involving a feature called "debug."  This
optional debug feature was designed into the original software as
a convenience to programmers who tested network operations.
According to Defense officials, the debug feature is not
necessary for standard operations and should have been turned off
in normal program distribution.  However, through an apparent
oversight, it was left activated on some releases.  In those
cases, the virus could exploit the debug command to send
components of itself to remote hosts.  It reproduced itself
repeatedly as the computer received the virus components and
constructed and executed the code.

     Fingerd is a utility program that is intended to help remote
users by providing public information about other network users.
For example, fingerd can be used to determine which users are
logged on to a specific computer.  The program collects
information from and delivers information to network users.

     The virus exploited a security flaw in fingerd's procedure
to collect information from remote network locations.  In this
instance, the virus sent more characters than fingerd had space
to hold, thus overflowing the memory space allocated for storage
of input parameters.  Once outside this storage space, the virus
overwrote the original program with portions of the virus code
and was able to assume control of fingerd.  Masquerading as
fingerd and using fingerd's privileges, the virus could access,
alter, or destroy any file that fingerd could.  However, the
virus was not destructive.  It simply reproduced itself without
damaging programs or data.

Passwords

     The Internet virus also accessed systems by guessing user
passwords.  Many of the Internet's host computers store passwords
(in encrypted form) and users' names in public files, a situation
the virus exploited.  The Internet virus encrypted potential
passwords and compared them to the encrypted password stored in
the computer's files.  If they matched, the virus was able to
gain access, posing as a legitimate user.  It tried various
passwords, including

     -- the user's first or last name,

     -- the last name spelled backwards, and

     -- the user's name appended to itself.

In addition, the virus contained a list of 432 potential
passwords that it also encrypted and compared to the password
file.  Examples of such passwords include algebra, beethoven,
tiger, unicorn, and wizard.  The program also used words from the
on-line dictionaries of the infected computers on the networks.
Finally, access was attempted without using a password.

Trusted Host Features

     Local area network managers can offer trusted host
privileges to specific users on designated computers.  These
features are useful if a user wants to access his or her account
frequently from another location.  However, once the Internet
virus infected computers on local area networks it was able to
spread to other computers by exploiting these privileges.  It
used the feature to identify computers that had additional
accounts accessible through known names and passwords.  By using
trusted host privileges, the virus was able to infect more
Internet computers.

     The virus also used trusted host privileges to identify
which machines on the local networks could be accessed from other
machines.  The program was thus able to access many computers
connected by the local networks.  A Defense official compared the
access policy on many of the Internet's local networks to
security in an office building.  For instance, in some buildings,
visitors must pass through a security check at the entrance.
Once inside, not every door in the building is locked because it
is presumed that occupants have already passed the initial
security test when they entered the building.  The Internet virus
took advantage of the local area network's assumption that it was
a legitimate process and spread to other machines within the
local network.

Internet Virus Recovery

     The Internet virus was eradicated from most host computers
within 48 hours after it appeared, primarily through the efforts
of computer experts at university research institutions.  Patches
were disseminated to sites to close the sendmail hole and fingerd
holes.  Once these holes were closed, the Internet virus could
not reinfect the same computers providing the virus was not still
present in trusted host computers.**

  ** According to a Defense official, many sites temporarily
     discontinued use of trusted host features until they
     were assured that the virus had been eradicated.


APPENDIX II

                   RESEARCH AIMED AT IMPROVING
               COMPUTER AND OPEN NETWORK SECURITY

     Although DARPA, NIST, and NCSC sponsor or conduct
considerable computer security-related research, none of these
agencies are doing research specifically aimed at computer
viruses.**  According to NCSC officials, NCSC analysis of virus-
type programs has been comparatively limited, with knowledge
about such programs largely confined to simple examples drawn
primarily from experiences with PC attacks and only recently
extended toward large host and network examples.  These agencies
are, however, engaged in research that is aimed at enhancing
computer and network security and that is, to varying degrees,
applicable to open network environments, such as the Internet.

  ** NCSC is, however, evaluating commercial antiviral PC
     software packages.  According to an NCSC official, the
     evaluation results will be distributed internally in
     spring 1989.

COMPUTER SECURITY CONCERNS INCLUDE RESTRICTING
DATA ACCESS AND ENSURING DATA INTEGRITY

     Computer and computer network security includes

     --   restricting data access to prevent disclosure of
          classified or sensitive information to unauthorized
          users and

     --   ensuring data integrity to protect data from
          unauthorized or accidental change or destruction.

     A number of Internet users said that the government--
particularly the Defense Department--has traditionally been more
concerned about restricting data access than ensuring data
integrity.  For example, NCSC developed the "orange" and "red"
books to describe computer systems that provide different degrees
of access control.**

  ** NCSC's "Trusted Computer System Evaluation Criteria",
     commonly referred to as the "orange book," describes
     criteria for evaluating computer security.  These
     criteria describe the technical characteristics of a
     secure stand-alone compute system.  The "Trusted Network
     Evaluatin Criteria," referred to as the "red book,"
     describes criteria for evaluating network security.

     Current systems that meet stringent security requirements do
so through physical isolation and providing access only to
authorized individuals.  To meet such requirements, sacrifices
must be made in system function, performance, and cost, which are
often unacceptable in an open network environment.

OVERVIEW OF SOME RESEARCH AND
PROJECTS THAT MAY IMPROVE SECURITY

     The challenge in security research is to develop ways to
increase security while minimizing the dollar, convenience, and
performance costs associated with such security measures.
Internet users, network sponsors, and vendors cited the following
examples of research and methods that may improve computer and
network security.  These include (1) cryptographic methods and
technology to permit users to send messages that can be
understood (decrypted) only by the intended recipient, (2)
improving controls on routing messages over the Internet, and (3)
improving operating system quality to decrease program flaws and
other security vulnerabilities.

Cryptographic Methods

     Cryptography--the science of coding information to restrict
its use to authorized users--can help ensure data integrity and
confidentiality.  NIST has designated one cryptographic approach,
the Data Encryption Standard, as a Federal Information Processing
Standard.  This method involves a symmetric algorithm, which
means the same "key" is used to both code and decipher data.**
Research and development have produced advances in using
cryptographic methods in such areas as public-key encryption,
Kerberos authentication system, and portable access devices.

  ** An algorithm is the set of rules that describes the
     encryption process.

     Public-key Encryption

     Unlike symmetric key systems, public-key encryption systems
use two different keys for encrypting and decrypting data.  Each
user has a secret key and a public one.  A sender uses the
recipient's public key to send a message, and the recipient uses
a private key to decode it.  Since only the recipient holds the
secret key, the message can be communicated confidentially.  If
the message is intercepted, or routed incorrectly, it cannot be
decrypted and read.  In addition, the message can carry
additional information that assures the recipient of the sender's
identity.

     One method of implementing a public-key encryption system is
based on a mathematical algorithm, developed by R. Rivest, A.
Shamir, and L. Adleman at MIT, called the RSA algorithm.  This
algorithm is based on the mathematical difficulty of deriving
prime factors.**  Given an integer of more than 100 digits in
length, it is very difficult to calculate its prime factors.

  ** A prime number can be divided only by itself and the
     number 1, without leaving a remainder.

     Recently, the Internet Activities Board proposed standards
based on a combination of the RSA algorithm and NIST's Data
Encryption Standard.  The proposed standards describe a hybrid
cryptographic system intended to enhance the privacy of
electronic messages exchanged on the Internet and to authenticate
the sender's identity.  The hybrid system uses symmetric
cryptography to encrypt the message and public-key cryptography
to transmit the key.

     Each Internet user who uses the RSA algorithm will also
receive an electronic certificate, electronically signed by a
trusted authority.  A computer security expert compared the
certificate to a driver's license issued by the Department of
Motor Vehicles.  In the latter case, the Motor Vehicles
Department is the trusted authority providing assurance to
whomever checks the license.  An Internet Activities Board
official stated that this service should be available in late
1989.

     Kerberos Authentication System

     "Kerberos"** is a cryptographic-based challenged response
system used at MIT to authenticate users and host computers.
According to an MIT researcher, the system is intended to allow
any two machines on a network to conduct secure and trusted
communications, even when the network is known to be penetrated
by intruders and neither machine has any intrinsic reason to
trust the other.  This system maintains passwords in a single
secure host called a key-server.  Because passwords are only
present inside this key-server, the system is less vulnerable
than if passwords were passed over the network.  Individual
machines make use of the key-server to authenticate users and
host computers.  Other groups, such as Berkeley's Computer
Systems Research Group and Sun Microsystems, are also considering
implementing this system to strengthen security.

  ** Also Cerberos -- in Greek mythology, the name of the
     three-headed dog who guarded the entrance to the
     underworld.

     Portable Access Control Devices

     One small credit-sized device--called a "smart card"--uses
cryptographic technology to control access to computers and
computer networks.  A smart card contains one or more integrated
circuit chips, constituting a microprocessor, memory, and
input/output interface.  The card manages, stores, receives, and
transmits information.

     Each smart card has its own personal identifier known only
to the user and its own stored and encrypted password.  When the
user inserts the smart card into the reader/writer device, the
terminal displays a message that identifies the smart card's
owner.  The user then enters the personal identifier.  Once the
identifier is authenticated, the host computer allows the user
access.  The smart card contains information that identifies what
level of access the user is allowed.  The smart card also
maintains its own user audit trail.

     According to a NIST official, smart cards are not currently
in widespread use.  This official stated, however, that a major
credit card company is currently testing smart cards.  In
addition, the Belgian banking industry is testing smart card
technology for use in electronic funds transfers, and NIST is
testing smart card technology for the U.S. Department of the
Treasury.  Potential applications of smart card technology for
the Treasury Department include authenticating disbursement
requests from other federal agencies.

     According to researchers, other portable access control
devices are currently available.  For example, one device--also a
small-sized card--periodically displays changing encrypted values
based on the time of day.  A user enters the value displayed by
the card to gain access to the host computer.  Each card contains
a unique encryption key.  Because the host computer knows the
time of day and can decipher the value displayed on the card, the
host computer can authenticate a user.

     Another small authentication device is available that
contains a display screen and a small keyboard.  When a user
requests access to a host computer system, the host computer
sends an encrypted challenge to the remote terminal.  The user
enters the challenge in the portable device and obtains an
encrypted response to send to the host computer.  If the user's
response is correct, the host computer allows the user access.
The advantage of these devices over smart cards is that no
reader/writer device is required.

Improved Controls in Message Routing

     Messages exchanged on the Internet travel through a series
of networks connected by electronic switching units or
"gateways."  Messages are transmitted piecemeal in separate data
groupings or "packets."  Each packet contains address
information, which a gateway reads to route the packet to its
destination.  Gateways also decide which paths to use.  For
example, a gateway can decide which path can route the data
packet to its destination most quickly.

     The message-switching technology incorporated on the
Internet is very sophisticated.  Although Internet uses advanced
technology, Internet users have limited control over message
routing.  Data may travel through several different networks on
the way to their ultimate destination.  However, a user cannot
easily indicate his routing preferences to the Internet.  For
example, he cannot practically specify that his packets not be
routed over a particular network, nor can a network sponsor
practically specify that only packets of certain Internet users
be allowed to traverse that network.

     Research into a method called policy-based routing is
currently underway that would allow Internet users the option of
selecting their own communications paths by specifying certain
parameters.  Network sponsors could enforce their own individual
network policies, perhaps by restricting their network resources
to a certain class of users.  Policy-based routing gives network
users and owners some control over the particular routes data may
take.  For example, data packets that belong to the Defense
Department could be routed using its network resources.

     According to researchers, some of the technology needed for
policy-based routing is not very complicated.  Technology exists
that can sort traffic into categories and route it through
selected networks.  However, labeling individual data packets
with the necessary policy-based routing information is difficult.
In particular, it is difficult to determine what information
should be included on labels.

Improvements in Operating System Quality

     Other researchers are attempting to improve operating system
quality by decreasing program flaws and other security
vulnerabilities.  For example, DARPA is sponsoring formal methods
projects for the development of high quality assurance software
systems.  These techniques will be applied to operating systems.


     The formal methods techniques involve using mathematically
precise specifications statements for critical program
properties, such as safety and security.  Using these
specifications, it may be possible to ensure, by using a chain of
mathematical proofs, that a program will operate as intended, and
not in any other way.  According to a DARPA official, unlike past
approaches, current efforts focus on achieving assurance of
quality during the design stage rather than attempting to apply
techniques to already existing systems.  The official noted that
although the formal methods project is in the relatively early
stages of research, the techniques are already being applied on a
small scale in applications where very high levels of assurance
are required.  The official said that there is significant
progress in Europe in this area, particularly in the United
Kingdom.


APPENDIX III

                MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT


INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND TECHNOLOGY DIVISION, WASHINGTON, D.C

Jack L. Brock, Jr., Director of Government Information and
     Financial Management, [phone]
Glen Trochelman, Assistant Director
Jerilynn B. Hoy, Evaluator-in-Charge
Mary T. Brewer, Evaluator
Beverly A. Peterson, Evaluator
Gwendolyn Dittmer, Evaluator

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL, WASHINGTON, D.C.

John Carter, Attorney/Advisor

BOSTON REGIONAL OFFICE

Jeffrey Appel, Site Senior
Debra Braskett, Evaluator

SAN FRANCISCO REGIONAL OFFICE

Don Porteous, Evaluator


(510351)