5-May-87 17:28:58-PDT,9450;000000000000 Mail-From: NEUMANN created at 5-May-87 17:27:49 Date: Tue 5 May 87 17:27:49-PDT From: Peter G. Neumann Subject: RISKS DIGEST 4.80 To: risks-list@CSL.SRI.COM RISKS-LIST: RISKS-FORUM Digest Tuesday, 5 May 1987 Volume 4 : Issue 80 FORUM ON RISKS TO THE PUBLIC IN COMPUTER SYSTEMS ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy, Peter G. Neumann, moderator Contents: Computer Risks at the Department of Transportation (PGN) Computerized advertising network used to fence hot circuits (PGN) EPROMS and "Wimpy" Energy Physics (Patrick Powell) Re: Wheels up (Richard M. Geiger, Jerry Hollombe> Liability for software "unless you buy our method" (John Gilmore) The RISKS Forum is moderated. Contributions should be relevant, sound, in good taste, objective, coherent, concise, nonrepetitious. Diversity is welcome. (Contributions to RISKS@CSL.SRI.COM, Requests to RISKS-Request@CSL.SRI.COM) (Back issues Vol i Issue j available in CSL.SRI.COM:RISKS-i.j. MAXj: Summary Contents Vol 1: RISKS-1.46; Vol 2: RISKS-2.57; Vol 3: RISKS-3.92.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri 1 May 87 17:02:08-PDT From: Peter G. Neumann Subject: Computer Risks at the Department of Transportation To: RISKS@CSL.SRI.COM In an editorial on page A.14 of the San Francisco Examiner and Chronicle on 26 April 1987 were some comments on air passenger complaints having doubled in March 1987 compared with March 1986. ``But the airlines weren't the only ones falling short in service. The Department of Transportation ... usually issues its complaint report monthly, but the one for March was the first since December. The delay was blamed on computer malfunction. Could it be that the Transportation Department has the same computer system as the airlines?'' [Hey, I'm just quoting. No responses please on whether the last sentence was facetious or whether the editorial writer is stupid. PGN] The SF Chronicle on the following day had an article noting that air traffic controller errors at Chicago's O'Hare Airport increased 65% from 1985 to 1986, and nearly led to major disasters on several occasions. [From a newly released congressional report.] The SF Chronicle on 28 April quoted National Transportation Safety Board Chairman Jim Burnett, that a forced reduction in the number of flights is a necessary short term step to offset the recent rise in air traffic controller errors and near-collisions. FAA chief Donald Engen defended the system as safe and said that Burnett does not understand it. ``I don't believe we should adopt a policy of restricting air commerce in this country", he said. ------------------------------ Date: Tue 5 May 87 09:54:34-PDT From: Peter G. Neumann Subject: Computerized advertising network used to fence hot circuits To: RISKS@CSL.SRI.COM Richard Gaudet and William Gorgizian are accused of taking $250,000 worth of integrated circuits from a San Jose electronics company, setting up a phony parts-supply company, advertising through a nationwide computerized network, and distributing around the country (via UPS -- see next message). Along with $200,000 in computers and burglary tools, authorities also confiscated a book entitled "The Perfect Crime and How to Commit It". ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 3 May 87 19:52:14 CDT From: papowell@umn-cs.arpa (Patrick Powell) To: risks@csl.sri.com Subject: EPROMS and "Wimpy" Energy Physics You better believe that there is a problem shipping things via airfreight. First, let me give you a glimpse into semiconductors, especially the (old) EPROM technology. (If you know this stuff, and disagree with my explanation, quit quibbling: you know what I mean). The way that an EPROM stores information is by "trapping" a bunch of charges in an "insulated" region; you can do the same thing by statically charging up some material, and not letting the charge drain off. This trapped charge can be used to modify the characteristics of a transistor: if the charge is not there, the transistor will turn on (off?) when asked to; otherwise it looks like a dead duck, and will not turn on or off. Let the "good" transistors represent a 1, the bad (trapped charge) a 0. VOILA! Programmable Memory... just find a way to get the charge there. Well, that can be done by placing a fairly high voltage across the transistor, which causes a strong electric field, which will BLAST those little charges into place. Hopefully. Sometimes you have to do this several times, i.e.- you have a programming cycle. Well, all this depends on the charges staying there. Do you know what happens when a charged particle rips through a solid? It leaves a little chain of ionized atoms in its path; luckily this only lasts a short time. Zap! there is a conducting path, and away some of those little devils race, hither and yon. And you lost some charge. Do this often enough, and PRESTO. No more stored information. Now at 20 Km up there (60,000 feet: 12 miles), you would be amazed at the numbers of highly energetic particles. Of course they will get "absorbed" by the atmosphere, but that is a Loooong ways down. One of the reasons why military equipment is "Radiation Hardened". By the way, it isn't just High Energy Particles. One of the interesting things is that UltraViolet light puts out enough OOMPH (highly technical physics term) to cause the charges to start leaking, and is how you can erase a EPROM. Well, ordinary light will also effect semiconductors, in a similar manner. In fact, enough light, and a "nonconducting" transistor will start conducting. Luckily all those transistors are hidden away inside little opaque packages, except for (are you ready?) EPROMS! which need a clear window so they can be erased. So here we are, with a new system, on public display. The program was in EPROM, and was on a board. "Lets open the cabinet, and show people a running system!" This led to the main board, with it's EPROM, being exposed to the public gaze. And to their cameras. Flash Cameras. With BIG Pulse Zenon Bulbs. 10 Microsecond flash, 4 times light of sun blah blah. Flash! Flash! ...Parity Error! EPROM Parity Fault! Reset and Restart.... From the comments I heard, this just about drove a couple of people nuts. By the way, if you want to see if this works, try getting one of those "singing cards" with the IC on it. Some of them have been potted in CLEAR jel, and you can actually see the chip. Get the thing singing away, and then shine a light on it. A strobe light works best, and you can actually hear the effect. Patrick ("Hardware? If it was easy to build we'd call it Software!") Powell ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 May 87 20:19:59 PDT From: prls!mips!rmg@Sun.COM (Richard M. Geiger) To: RISKS@CSL.SRI.COM Subject: Re: Wheels up (RISKS 4.79) I once saw a Cessna light plane with a prop which had severely curled-back blades. We asked the F.B.O. (employee of the rental company which owned it) what had happened. We were told that the plane was equipped with (overly-sensistive!) automatic landing gear retraction. It had hit a bump while taxiing, and bounced; the mechanism decided that the plane had taken off, and raised the gear. Didn't do the engine much good. Rich Geiger {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!decwrl!mips!rmg MIPS Computer Systems, 930 E. Arques, Sunnyvale, CA 94086 (408) 720-1700 x308 [Day Job] (408) 739-7911 [home] ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 5 May 87 13:21:18 PDT From: The Polymath To: RISKS@csl.sri.com Subject: re: Wheels up As a pilot and aircraft mechanic I can tell you this is not a realistic simulation. All aircraft with retractable gear have a safety switch (often called a "squat switch") that senses when any weight is on the landing gear and interrupts power to the retraction mechanism in that condition. Barring electrical/mechanical failure the gear will not retract while sitting on the ground. A common but unsafe practice is to flip the gear control to "up" while taxiing and allow the gear to automatically retract as the plane lifts off. The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe, hollombe@TTI.COM) Citicorp(+)TTI 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. (213) 450-9111, x2483 Santa Monica, CA 90405 {csun|philabs|psivax|trwrb}!ttidca!hollombe ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 4 May 87 01:22:46 PDT From: hoptoad.UUCP!gnu@cgl.ucsf.edu (John Gilmore) Subject: Liability for software "unless you buy our method" To: risks@sri-csl.arpa #define slime people /* For the squeamish */ Oho! The slime who are in business to tell you how to take risks ("pay us money to assume them") and have coerced the government(s) into making it illegal to do otherwise, are now joined by the slime who are in business to tell you how to build software ("pay us money to use our formal design software") and are now attempting to get government guns to enforce their methods too. [Somewhat overstated, but certainly a risk! PGN] ------------------------------ End of RISKS-FORUM Digest ************************ -------