|
|
Index |
|
|
|
|
|
Study Guide
Overview of the Robert Morris Case
The Internet Worm
-
Exploited weaknesses that network administrators should have already been
aware of.
-
The lessons
of the worm.
-
There are those that suggest thanking Morris for his actions provided a
serious wake up call to system administrators around the country.
-
Worm exploited previously known bugs.
-
Worm discovered serveral new security issues, like password files being
kept in public directories, networks with diverse computers have a lesser
chance of incapacitance, etc.
-
RFC 1135-
search on '2.'
-
Another group argues that the worm was deliberately released to blatantly
point out security defects to a community that was aware of the problems,
but were complacent about fixing them.
-
Media stated that the author of the worm did the computer community a favor
by exposing the security flaws...
-
Cornell
Commision's Findings.
-
Although such security flaws may not be known to the public at large, their
existence is accepted by those who make use of UNIX. It is no act of genious
or heroism to exploit such weaknesses.
-
The biggest
hole was the debug option, which has been well-known for about
15 years.
Was harm intended?
-
Crisis
and Aftermath.
-
Program contained no code to explicitly damage the system it ran on.
-
Program had no mechanism to halt the spread of the worm.
-
It does not seem that the worm was started by accident or not intended
to propagate widely.
Should Robert Morris be treated lightly since he did not intend physical
damage?
-
Cornell
publishes its findings.
-
Morris made only minimal efforts to halt the worm once it propagated.
-
Sentiment among the computer science community appears to favor strong
disciplinary meacures for perpetrators of acts of this kind.
-
Such disciplinary measures, however, should not be so stern as to damage
permanently the perpetrator's career.
Should Morris be punished at all?
-
Crisis
and Aftermath.
-
Author should be rewarded and the vendors and operators of the affected
machines should be the ones punished.
What ethical and goverment laws did he break?
-
Computer
Fraud and Abuse Act.
-
knowingly accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized
access.
-
causes loss to one or more others of a value aggregatin $1,000 or more.
-
Cornell's
policies.
-
Policy for the "Use of the Research Computing Facility" prohibits "use
of its computer facilities for browsing through private computer files,
decrypting encrypted material, or obtaining unauthorized user privleges."
All three aspects of this policy were violated by Morris.
-
RFC 1135-
search on '3.2'
NSF issued an ethical network use statement. DNCRI DAP defines unethical
any activity which purposefully or through negligence:
-
disrupts the intended use of the networks
-
wastes resources through such actions (people, bandwidth or computer)
-
destroys the integrity of computer-based information
-
compromises the privacy of users
-
consumes unplanned resources for control and eradication
-
NY computer
laws and the Internet Worm.
-
N.Y. law states that unauthorized use of a computer is a class A misdemeanor.
-
Computer trespass is a class E felony.
-
The worm was released and designed to gain access to material (host lists)
for propagation of the worm.
Should the source code for the worm be made available so that others can
study it to protect against it?
-
RFC 1135-
search on '3.4'
-
An effective way to correct known security flaws is to publish descriptions
of the flaws so that they can be corrected. We threrefore view the effort
to conceal technical descriptions of the recent virus as short-sighted.
-
Cornell
comments on this:
-
Many members of the UNIX community are ambivalent about reporting security
flaws in UNIX out of concern that knowledge of such flaws could be exploited
before the flaws are fixed in all affected versions of UNIX.
|
|
|
|