Technology Infrastructure for Electronic Commerce

Olga Gelbart

rosa@seas.gwu.eduTHE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

based on Prof. Lance Hoffman’s Lecture on Network Infrastructure for Electronic Commerce

Snapshots of the Electronic Commerce World

Yesterday - EDI Today - getting our toes wet, what this course is

about Tomorrow - Metadata, machine understandable

information on the Web.– Catalog information– Intellectual property information– Endorsement Information– Privacy information– see www.w3c.org/pics and www.w3c.org/p3p

How Did We Get Here?

Before the Internet

– History of Commerce and Money

– Elements of payment systems The Start of the Internet

– Predecessor Networks

– Timeline of Significant Events The Internet Today

– What is the Internet?

– How Does the Internet Work?

– Differences from Original Net

– Differences from Traditional World Out There The Internet in the Future

What is the Internet? On October 24, 1995, the FNC unanimously passed a resolution defining

the term Internet. This definition was developed in consultation with members of the internet and intellectual property rights communities. RESOLUTION: The Federal Networking Council (FNC) agrees that the following language reflects our definition of the term "Internet". "Internet" refers to the global information system that -- (i) is logically linked together by a globally unique address space based on the Internet Protocol (IP) or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons; (ii) is able to support communications using the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) suite or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons, and/or other IP-compatible protocols; and (iii) provides, uses or makes accessible, either publicly or privately, high level services layered on the communications and related infrastructure described herein.

http://www.fnc.gov/Internet_res.html

The Internet - connections

•Computers in the backbone connected by a (T3) data connection (45 megabits/second)

•ISP hosts and other powerful computers connectusing (T1,Broadband) lines

•Leased lines (some businesses)•Modem dial-up connections •Cable modems•ADSL - Asymmetric Digital Subscriber Line

Internet features Originally ARPAnet

– MIT, MITRE, SRI, BBN– Distributed communications even with many

failure points– Dissimilar computers exchange info easily– Route around nonfunctioning parts– 4 sites: SRI, UCLA, UCSB, Univ of Utah

Hafner and Lyon, Where Wizards Stay Up Late, Simon & Schuster 1996

Kahn’s Internet PrinciplesR. Kahn, Communications Principles for Operating Systems. Internal BBN

memorandum, Jan. 1972.

Each network must stand on its own and no internal changes could be required to connect it to the Internet

If a transmission failed, try again Simple black boxes (later called

“gateways” and “routers” would connect the networks

No global control at operations level

The Internet - development1962 Licklider, J.C.R., Galactic Network memosLicklider - MIT to ARPAARPANET and successors: open architecture networking1970s: universities and other DoD contractors connect packets rather than circuits (note many of the names in the articles were graduate students then)1975: 100 sites and e-mail is changing how people collaborateLate 1970s: New Packet Switching Protocol:

Transfer Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP)1980: MILNET takes over military traffic1980s: NSFNet links together NSF researcgers, Internet protocols incorporated into (BSD) Unix, a widespread operating systemLate 1980s: NSFNet absorbs original ARPANET (for a US university to get NSF funding for an Internet connection, that connection had to be made available to all qualified users on campus, regardless of discipline1995: Commercial backbones replace NSFNet backboneUsenetBITNETCommercial Networks: AOL, Compuserve, etc.

Federal Decisions that Shaped the Internet

Agencies shared cost of common infrastructure, e.g., trans-oceanic circuits

CSNET/NSF (Farber) and ARPA (Kahn) shared infrastructure without metering

Acceptable Use Policy - no commercialization. Privately funded augmentation for commercial uses (PSI, UUNET, etc.), thought about as early as 1988 KSG conferences sponsored by NSF

NSF defunded NSF backbone in 1995, redistributing funds to regional networks to buy from now-numerous, private, long-haul networks

NSFNet $200M from 1986-1995

The Internet - Four AspectsLeiner, et al., “A Brief History of the Internet”,

http://info.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.html Technological Evolution

– Packet Switching– Scale, Performance, Functionality

Operations and management of a global and complex infrastructure

Social Aspect - Internauts Commercialization

Internet Development Timeline

From “A Brief History of the Internet” by B. Leiner, et al.,http://info.isoc.org/internet/history/brief.html

Excerpts from Hobbes’ Internet Timelineby Robert H. Zakonhttp://www.info.isoc.org/guest/zakon/Internet/History/HIT.html

1957 Sputnik; US forms ARPA 1962 P Baran, Rand, “On Distributed Communications Networks”, packet switched networks 1967 Larry Roberts first design paper on ARPAnet 1969 ARPANet commissioned. First RFC. 1970 ALOHANet (radio) connected to ARPANet in 1972 1971 Ray Tomlinson E-mail, BBN 1972 Telnet specification (RFC 318) 1973 File transfer specification (RFC 454) 1977 Mail specification (RFC 733) 1979 USENet newsgroups. First MUD. 1981 CSNet 1982 DoD standardizes on TCP/IP 1983 Name server developed at University of Wisconsin; users no longer need to remember exact path to other systems 1983 Berkeley releases 4.2BSD including TCP/IP 1984 DNS introduced. Now over 1,000 hosts 1984 Moderated newsgroups on USENET 1988 Internet worm affects 6,000 of the 60,000 Internet hosts 1990 EFF founded by Mitch Kapor 1991 WWW released by CERN (Tim Berners-Lee, developer) 1991 PGP released by Phil Zimmerman 1992 ISOC chartered 1992 “Surfing the Internet” coined by Jean Armour Polly 1993 US White House goes online 1993 Internet Talk Radio 1994 Can now order pizza from Pizza Hut online 1994 First Virtual bank open for business 1995 RealAudio 1995 Netscape third largest ever NASDAQ IPO share value 1995 Registration of domain names no longer free 1996 Communications Decency Act passed, challenged in US 1997 CDA overturned by Supreme Court

Growth of the InternetFrom Hobbes’ Internet Timeline at http://info.isoc.org. ...

How Internet Manages Change?

RFC process W3C process Now a proliferation of stakeholders Debates over control of name space Profits to be made and lost Commercial vs. Other interests

Trends in Internet Applications

Internet TV (Web TV + VIATV Videophone)

Voice over IP (VoIP) Internet telephone Internet dashboard (Alpine GPS,

Windows CE in cars) Wireless (WAP)

Needed in Electronic Commerce

Authentication Privacy Message Integrity Non-repudiation

Adapted from Gail Grant

Authentication

Proving identity– Passports– Driver’s licenses– Credit Cards– Doctors’ diplomas

Gail Grant

Privacy

Locks Doors Perimeter security Castles

Gail Grant

MYTH

REALITY

Gail Grant

Message Integrity

Wax seals Tylenol seals Custom seals US Mail

Gail Grant

Non-Repudiation

Handshake Notary Public Signatures Contacts

Electronic cash policy issues

anonymity– can lead to “perfect” crime

traceability (accountability) security (no electronic muggings)

Certification Authority Functions Accept applications for certificates

Verify the identity of the person or organization applying for the certificate

Issue certificates

Revoke/Expire certificates

Provide status information about the certificates that it has issued

But what do the certificates mean?

Adapted from Gail Grant

Gail Grant

Who Will Be CA’s? Specialty firms (VeriSign) Government agencies Corporations (for employees) Telecommunication companies Banks Internet Service Providers Value-Added Networks (VAN’s) Whom to trust?

– Hierarchy vs web of trust

July 1997

Who Sells CA Products and Services?

Atalla Corporation

BBN Corporation

CertCo

Cylink Corporation

Entrust Technologies Inc.

GTE Corporation

IBM

Netscape Communications

VeriSign

Xcert Software Inc.

Gail Grant

Legal Issues

Legislation Responsibilities Liability International Usage Certification Practice Statements

Business Issues for CAs

Business Models Risks Costs In-House vs Out-Sourcing Operational Considerations Liability

Some Problems

Untrusted computer systems Not all persons are trustable Law not clear Policy not clear Sovereignty challenged:

– Cryptography policy• Anonymity• Confidentiality

Untrusted Computer Systems (then)Malware Example: The Internet Worm

Shut down 6,000 machines, Nov 1988

– Tried three techniques in parallel to spread

• Guess passwords

• Exploit a bug in the finger program

• Use a trapdoor in the sendmail program

– Effects

• serious degradation in performance of affected machines

• affected machines had to be shut down or disconnected from the internet

– Criminal justice • Perpetrator convicted January 1990 under 1986

Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; sentenced to3 years probation, $10,000 fine, and 400 hours of community service

25300

Web-Based Computer Systems SURPRISE DISCLOSURES OF PERSONAL

INFORMATION, AND PROGRAM LAUNCHES Cookies JAVA (Applet security issues) Microsoft

– Word macro viruses– ACTIVE-X

• QUICKEN surprise bank transfer

– Web-based viruses Browser vulnerabilities (recent Netscape 4.x -- have

to disable Java!) A final surprise: monitoring tools (e.g.,

SATAN) also used by the enemy

Who are “trustworthy” persons?

With “everyone” connected by networks, how do you know who to trust?

Trusted Third Parties Certifying Authorities Digital Signatures

– Strong, Trustable Encryption Distributed Architecture: Smart Cards

LAW OF THE NET

Whose Law? Internet is not a monarchy, democracy, republic, or dictatorship; rules and formalities are nonexistent

Jurisdiction, treaties, harmonization of definitions– CDA Example, Tennessee

Enforcement

– Elected officials and their designees?

– Internet Service Providers?

– Vigilantes?

• Anti-spam page: http://www.dgl.com/docs/antispam.html

– Agents Launched by Any of the Above?

• Cancelbots

– Netiquette?

Sovereignty Case study: Cryptography Policy

Government stalling, an impediment to

progress, or cautious reasoning to avoid chaos?– Constitutional issues

- Law Enforcement- National Security

– Privacy issues– Export policies– Jurisdictional "turf" issues

18071

Issues in Cryptography PolicyPrivacy Issues

When should government have right tomonitor telecommunications?

What safeguards prevent abuse ofinformation obtained with taps?

Can a free society toleratehidden data with no accountability?

Encryption device

(adapted from White House briefing)Clipper Chip Solution (Clipper I)

Clipper Chip

Law Enforcement Agency

Court

Key Escrow Holders

WARRANT

1

2

* provides successor for DES* provides law enforcement solution

Commerce Dept., NISTTreasury Dept., Automated Systems Div

THE FOUR HORSEMEN OF THE APOCALYPSE

(CYPHERPUNKS VERSION)

nuclear terrorists child pornographers money launderers drug dealers

APPLICATION OF BLIND SIGNATURE TO A REAL CRIMEAPPLICATION OF BLIND SIGNATURE TO A REAL CRIMEB. von Solms and D. Naccache, B. von Solms and D. Naccache, Computers and Security 11Computers and Security 11, 6 (1992), 6 (1992)reprinted in Hoffman, L. (Ed.), reprinted in Hoffman, L. (Ed.), Building in Big BrotherBuilding in Big Brother,,Springer-Verlag, 1995Springer-Verlag, 1995

WHAT IF UNBREAKABLE ENCRYPTION LEADS TO THIS?

How many times per year is acceptable?

19111

NAS/NRC CRYPTO POLICY REPORT HIGHLIGHTS

Commercial use: Should promote widespreadcommercial use of technologies that canprevent unauthorized access to electronic info

Exportation: Should allow export of DES toprovide an acceptable level of security

Escrow: Premature (Key recovery = current proposal)

Classified material: The debate on cryptopolicy should be open and does not requireknowledge of classified material

Total preliminary report at http://www.nap.edu/nap/online/titleindex.html#c Cryptography's Role in Securing the Information Society, 1996,National Academy Press, 2101 Constitution Ave. NW, Box 285, Washington DC 20055, (800) 624-6242

1989219892

CURRENT ENCRYPTION LEGISLATION

Highlights: Full Text at http://www.cdt.org/crypto/

SAFE (HR 695)

Reps. Goodlatte (R-VA), Eshoo (D-CA) Pro-CODE (S 377)

– Sen. Leahy (D-VT), Burns (R-CO), Wyden (D-OR)

– Audio and photo transcript and lots of information

from 3/19/97 hearing at

www.democracy.net/archive/03191997 Commonalities between SAFE and Pro-CODE

– Prohibit government from imposing mandatory key escrow

– No export license required for public domain or

– generally available encryption software (Draft Clinton administration legislation [no warrant])

19870

Building a Home Page to Sell Something Just Building a Home Page Now Making It Sell Something What to Sell?