weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (11/13/88)
In article <1570@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu>, deke@valhalla (Dikran Kassabian) writes: >Consider some of the less obvious consequences of his actions. OK. >Scientists and researchers at a university like mine were unable to use >their computers and network links during the virus attack, and lost >valuable time. As always, some were up against deadlines and may well >be hindered now in their chances for getting results before a confer- >ence, or in getting a grant proposal out before deadlines. When I've taught courses that use computers, I told students that under almost all circumstances, computer downtime would not be an excuse for lateness. The one exception I've ever made involved granting everyone a week's extension. I've never worked assuming that the machines I use are 100% reliable. Do the scientists/researchers at your site do so-- even on critical stuff? If someone has a grant proposal riding on get- ting something done by a certain deadline, what happens if there's a major disk crash at your site? >The medical center/teaching hospital at my university is also network >connected. What if the network overload caused patient monitoring systems >there to be sluggish and inadequate? Would that be OK because Mr. Morris >"did not do it on purpose"? As it turns out, this was not a problem here, >but it's not out of the question... it could have happened somewhere. Are you saying that the patients at your university are in possible trouble on days when the ARPANET is slow? That if a machine crashes unexpectedly that patients have nothing to rely on but prayer? I find it frightening that hospitals exist which have perhaps decided to rely heavily on some computers working according to a perfect schedule. Don't you? Hospitals generally have a backup power supply. For a very good reason. >This is serious business! Yes this is *all* serious business. Computers used primarily for USENET or hack or what-not can be dead for awhile and merely inconvenience lots of people. But now you cite computers where users cannot afford to have computers to be down for long--do the sites that run them without having any contingency plans whatsoever? Such sites are irresponsible. I find it remarkable that in such a computer-literate group that we all supposedly represent, and thus all know that "the computer did it" is NOT an acceptable excuse, that anyone, let alone the apparent horders here, would quickly adopt "the worm did it". What is the difference between: I'm sorry, Mrs Brown, your husband died because of a computer power failure. and I'm sorry, Mrs Brown, your husband died because the Morris worm knocked out our computers. ? To Mrs Brown, I would expect none whatsoever. And you seem to be implying that the latter is to be blamed solely on RTM; I believe the hospital that would or should be held culpable in the first case is just as negligent in the latter, and should not be allowed to pass the responsibility buck. ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
hbo@sbphy.ucsb.edu (Howard B. Owen) (11/14/88)
In article <16915@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes... > ... I've never worked assuming that the machines I use >are 100% reliable. Do the scientists/researchers at your site do so-- >even on critical stuff? ... Scientists at my site know that computers and networks go up and down. Nevertheless, they tend to depend on both to get their work done. One group here does a lot of montecarlo type work. They use Cray time at SDSC. If the internet link is down, their work stops. Without supercomputers, and the high speed networks to connect them, a lot of physics research simply wouldn't happen. It doesn't matter that computers aren't 100% reliable; they are the only tool for the job. While I agree with the idea that tool reliability should be carefully considered when undertaking a job, I don't think failure to do so contributed greatly to the damage done by the recent unpleasantness. The blame for lost computer time and disrupted research lies not with unreasonable expectations on the part of users, but with the originator of the worm.
weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (11/14/88)
In article <978@hub.ucsb.edu>, hbo@sbphy (Howard B. Owen) writes: > Scientists at my site know that computers and networks go up and >down. Nevertheless, they tend to depend on both to get their work >done. One group here does a lot of montecarlo type work. They use Cray >time at SDSC. If the internet link is down, their work stops. So the work stops. Is this something that happens once every four years? No. So I don't understand why you bring this up. > Without >supercomputers, and the high speed networks to connect them, a lot of >physics research simply wouldn't happen. It doesn't matter that >computers aren't 100% reliable; they are the only tool for the job. Again, what's your point? > While I agree with the idea that tool reliability should be >carefully considered when undertaking a job, I don't think failure to >do so contributed greatly to the damage done by the recent >unpleasantness. The blame for lost computer time and disrupted research >lies not with unreasonable expectations on the part of users, but with >the originator of the worm. Again, what's your point? From the user's point of view, it's always one reason or another why the computers/networks are not available a certain XX% of the time. Every time they go down, do your users hunt around for "whom" to blame? ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
deke@socrates.ee.rochester.edu (Dikran Kassabian) (11/15/88)
In article <16915@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >In article <1570@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu>, deke@ee.rochester.edu writes: >>Scientists and researchers at a university like mine were unable to use >>their computers and network links during the virus attack, and lost >>valuable time. As always, some were up against deadlines and may well >>be hindered now in their chances for getting results before a confer- >>ence, or in getting a grant proposal out before deadlines. > >If someone has a grant proposal riding on get- >ting something done by a certain deadline, what happens if there's a >major disk crash at your site? We restore it onto a machine with a good disk and work goes on. The advantage of a nice, big, distributed computing environment. The fact that we have lots of computers and near perpetual, automated backups allows our users to be reasonably certain that at least some compute facilities will be available to them. But that has nothing to do with it. >>The medical center/teaching hospital at my university is also network >>connected. What if the network overload caused patient monitoring systems >>there to be sluggish and inadequate? Would that be OK because Mr. Morris >>"did not do it on purpose"? As it turns out, this was not a problem here, >>but it's not out of the question... it could have happened somewhere. > >I find it frightening >that hospitals exist which have perhaps decided to rely heavily on some >computers working according to a perfect schedule. Don't you? I would find it frightening if it were the case. It was not, as I pointed out... but you didn't pay attention. My point was, and is, this little gift from Mr. Morris Jr. cannot be considered completely benign unless it was known in advance that it could cause no real harm. He couldn't have known that. Neither could you, and neither could anyone else. >ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ^Deke Kassabian, deke@ee.rochester.edu or ur-valhalla!deke Univ of Rochester, Dept of EE, Rochester, NY 14627 (+1 716-275-3106)
weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (11/15/88)
In article <1585@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu>, deke@socrates (Dikran Kassabian) writes: >We restore it onto a machine with a good disk and work goes on. The >advantage of a nice, big, distributed computing environment. The fact >that we have lots of computers and near perpetual, automated backups >allows our users to be reasonably certain that at least some compute >facilities will be available to them. But that has nothing to do with >it. So let's choose a different example--I simply don't know your site's capa- bilities in case of hardware problems. Does it, for example, power down during major electrical storms? If a big snowstorm hits, and none of the sysadmins could make it, can you still function? I read in the paper about a researcher complaining that thanks to the big bad Morris worm, he was unable to carry out a critical transfer of files from one machine to another: his sysadmin was too busy that day because of the worm. My only reaction was what an incompetent bozo: is this re- searcher just as non-functioning when his sysadmin calls in sick? >>>The medical center/teaching hospital at my university is also network >>>connected. What if the network overload caused patient monitoring systems >>>there to be sluggish and inadequate? >>I find it frightening that hospitals exist which have perhaps decided >>to rely heavily on some computers working according to a perfect schedule. >I would find it frightening if it were the case. It was not, as I pointed >out... but you didn't pay attention. I assumed you brought it up because it was relevant. If it wasn't relevant, then what's the point? By the way, since you seem so intent to "prove" that what Morris did was "wrong" based on the particular consequences, may I conclude that a non- violent version of the worm would be OK in your eyes? If not, why not? ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (11/15/88)
In article <1585@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu>, deke@socrates (Dikran Kassabian) writes: >We restore it onto a machine with a good disk and work goes on. The >advantage of a nice, big, distributed computing environment. The fact >that we have lots of computers and near perpetual, automated backups >allows our users to be reasonably certain that at least some compute >facilities will be available to them. But that has nothing to do with >it. So let's choose a different example--I simply don't know your site's capa- bilities in case of hardware problems. Does it, for example, power down during major electrical storms? If a big snowstorm hits, and none of the sysadmins could make it, can you still function? I read in the paper about a researcher complaining that thanks to the big bad Morris worm, he was unable to carry out a critical transfer of files from one machine to another: his sysadmin was too busy that day because of the worm. My only reaction was what an incompetent bozo: is this re- searcher just as non-functioning when his sysadmin calls in sick? >>>The medical center/teaching hospital at my university is also network >>>connected. What if the network overload caused patient monitoring >>>systems there to be sluggish and inadequate? >>I find it frightening that hospitals exist which have perhaps decided >>to rely heavily on some computers working according to a perfect schedule. >I would find it frightening if it were the case. It was not, as I >pointed out... but you didn't pay attention. Don't be a stupid nit. Read what I wrote. YOU brought up an example, real or imaginary; I then discussed the example. I never said anything about your site beyond what you said. By the way, since you seem willing to conclude that what Morris did was "wrong" based on the consequences you enumerate, may I conclude that a non-violent version of the worm would be "right" in your eyes? If not, why not? ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bob Sloane) (11/15/88)
In article <16965@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: > ... > Again, what's your point? From the user's point of view, it's always > one reason or another why the computers/networks are not available a > certain XX% of the time. Every time they go down, do your users hunt > around for "whom" to blame? > > ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 Yes, at some sites they do. In our university environment I have heard users complain because we take the machine down once a week to perform file system backups. You have to remember that computer centers live and work in a political envrionment, as well as a technical one. I don't know about the systems you use, but here, every CPU cycle is precious, and there are several different users competing for it. If they think even ONE cycle is wasted they will bring it to our attention. +-------------------+-------------------------------------+------------------+ | Bob Sloane \Internet: SLOANE@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU/Anything I said is | | Computer Center \ BITNET: SLOANE@UKANVAX.BITNET / my opinion, not my | | University of Kansas\ AT&T: (913) 864-0444 / employer's. | +-----------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------+
deke@socrates.ee.rochester.edu (Dikran Kassabian) (11/15/88)
In article <17025@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> An Obnoxious Math Grad Student writes: >Don't be a stupid nit. Read what I wrote. YOU brought up an example, >real or imaginary; I then discussed the example. I never said anything >about your site beyond what you said. Name calling? Really now. I'll try not to be such a stupid nit, if you try not to be such a wiener. The point I wanted to make can be seen below and in at least 3 other postings. I brought up an illustrative example. You latched onto it and turned away from the topic. Why is it that I'm not surprised? >By the way, since you seem willing to conclude that what Morris did was >"wrong" based on the consequences you enumerate, may I conclude that a >non-violent version of the worm would be "right" in your eyes? If not, >why not? Because, my dear weemba, (for the fourth and hopefully final time), [[ HERE IS MY POINT, DOES IT LOOK FAMILIAR?? ]] the author cold not have known what was and was not "violent". For this reason your question is pointless. >ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 ^Deke Kassabian, deke@ee.rochester.edu or ur-valhalla!deke Univ of Rochester, Dept of EE, Rochester, NY 14627 (+1 716-275-3106)
rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz) (11/16/88)
In <17025@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu writes: >I read in the paper about a researcher complaining that thanks to the big >bad Morris worm, he was unable to carry out a critical transfer of files >from one machine to another: his sysadmin was too busy that day because >of the worm. My only reaction was what an incompetent bozo: is this re- >searcher just as non-functioning when his sysadmin calls in sick? You're suffering from what Alvin Toffler would call failure of imagination, or what others might call ignorance. ==A=R=P=A=N=E=T== | | [ gateway ] | | | | =C=O=R=P=O=R=A=T=E===E=N=E=T= =C=R=O=N=U=S===E=N=E=T= | | citron.bbn.com papaya.bbn.com Both citron and papaya are Cronus machines. When BBN shut down the gateway Thursday morning to avoid further contamination I was unable to do some work I wanted to do. There's another possibility: you just assumed that the researcher understood what was going on and the mass media reported the technical story correct. Or you just took the opportunity to express obnoxiousness at the slightest cause. You've made some good points, but they're getting drowned in the screed. You'd be more effective if you toned down both the tenor and the volume. /rich $alz -- Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.
sloane@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (Bob Sloane) (11/16/88)
In article <17088@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: > Of course, if anyone points out to any of these users what shitty pro- > grammers they are, and what a waste of CPU cycles their programs really > are--and yes, a lot of genuine nonsense goes on in the world of research > --well, hell, that's too bad. As you said: politics. > > [description of program optimization deleted] > > Now the above is an extreme, but it illustrates a very very common at- > titude among researchers when it comes to computers: "why think?". I > have seen it over and over and over again. CPU cycles are wasted with > abandon in the name of research. > > So I'm usually unimpressed with people who complain about lost CPU time > due to downtime. Not that knowing the truth would ever help when it comes > to harassed sysadmins dealing with annoyed/annoying users. > > ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 Actually, the programmers involved are not all that bad. If the programs were made 10 times as efficient, they would just run them on 10 times as much data, using the same amount of cpu. We have enough researchers here to use up ALL the cpu time available, no matter HOW much we have. The real problem is that the problems they are trying to solve have no real solutions, just approximations. Using more cpu would lead to a better approximation. I think they have a real complaint when services are interupted unnecessarily. The real question here is whether or not the worm was a "necessary" interuption. You seem to be saying that it was necessary, in that it might wake up system administrators to provide better security. I doubt that the researchers here would accept that position. +-------------------+-------------------------------------+------------------+ | Bob Sloane \Internet: SLOANE@KUHUB.CC.UKANS.EDU/Anything I said is | | Computer Center \ BITNET: SLOANE@UKANVAX.BITNET / my opinion, not my | | University of Kansas\ AT&T: (913) 864-0444 / employer's. | +-----------------------+-----------------------------+----------------------+
weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (11/16/88)
In article <1589@valhalla.ee.rochester.edu>, deke@socrates (Dikran Kassabian) writes: > >In article <17025@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> An Obnoxious Math Grad Student writes: >>Don't be a stupid nit. Read what I wrote. YOU brought up an example, >>real or imaginary; I then discussed the example. I never said anything >>about your site beyond what you said. > >Name calling? Really now. Yes. If you condescend towards me, then I shall return the favor. If you can't deal with it, then get lost. Simple, eh? >The point I wanted to make can be seen below and in at least 3 other postings. >I brought up an illustrative example. You latched onto it and turned away >from the topic. What do you mean, "the topic"? You *own* it or something? You gave exam- ples, and I told you why I didn't think much of them. This apparently an- noys you. To the point that you start in with asinine accusations that "I can't read" or what not. > Why is it that I'm not surprised? I don't know. Meanwhile, you are more than welcome to *DISCUSS* issues. For example: go back to my first reply, where I raised the Mrs Brown ques- tion. Tell me why you see a difference between the two deaths. The rea- son I posed this example to EXPLAIN WHAT I THINK ARE THE RELEVANT QUES- TIONS WE SHOULD BE PROBING, AND WHY I THINK WHAT I THINK IS RELEVANT IS INDEED RELEVANT. You, instead of responding to my example, simply got snotty. >>By the way, since you seem willing to conclude that what Morris did was >>"wrong" based on the consequences you enumerate, may I conclude that a >>non-violent version of the worm would be "right" in your eyes? If not, >>why not? >Because, my dear weemba, (for the fourth and hopefully final time), > [[ HERE IS MY POINT, DOES IT LOOK FAMILIAR?? ]] >the author could not have known what was and was not "violent". For this >reason your question is pointless. So you've raised this point. What of it? I really have no idea what you are getting at now. ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (11/16/88)
In article <1202@fig.bbn.com>, rsalz@bbn (Rich Salz) writes: >In <17025@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu writes: >>I read in the paper about a researcher complaining that thanks to the big >>bad Morris worm, he was unable to carry out a critical transfer of files >>from one machine to another: his sysadmin was too busy that day because >>of the worm. My only reaction was what an incompetent bozo: is this re- >>searcher just as non-functioning when his sysadmin calls in sick? >You're suffering from what Alvin Toffler would call failure of imagination, >or what others might call ignorance. And you're suffering from what I call arrogant condescension. For one thing, you're the one who's not imagining things. >[picture omitted] >Both citron and papaya are Cronus machines. When BBN shut down the >gateway Thursday morning to avoid further contamination I was unable to >do some work I wanted to do. So that's how it's set up at your site. Not all sites are configured the same way, nor reacted as cautiously as your site did. Try a little imagi- nation. >There's another possibility: you just assumed that the researcher >understood what was going on and the mass media reported the technical >story correct. That's right. In retrospect, I'm embarrassed to admit that I ever once believed a technical comment in a newspaper at face value. Nevertheless, I *do* know researchers who are essentially helpless if the right people are not around to do the little things for them, so the story did not and does not sound all that outlandish to me. > Or you just took the opportunity to express obnoxiousness >at the slightest cause. Or maybe I've seen and heard dozens/hundreds of horror stories about sci- entists who are complete computer illiterates who bludgeon their way through machines and programs at a very low efficiency, and so gotten very cynical over them as a result. More on this in a separate article. >You've made some good points, but they're getting drowned in the screed. >You'd be more effective if you toned down both the tenor and the volume. Ah, fuck off. You want to disagree with a point of mine, then go ahead and do so. What's the point of your being rude about it? Really, Rich, I expect better of *you*. ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "It is good to be Rich--the rabbi himself will speak at your funeral."
weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (11/16/88)
In article <1409@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, sloane@kuhub (Bob Sloane) writes: >> Again, what's your point? From the user's point of view, it's always >> one reason or another why the computers/networks are not available a >> certain XX% of the time. Every time they go down, do your users hunt >> around for "whom" to blame? >Yes, at some sites they do. In our university environment I have heard >users complain because we take the machine down once a week to perform >file system backups. You have to remember that computer centers live >and work in a political envrionment, as well as a technical one. I >don't know about the systems you use, but here, every CPU cycle is >precious, and there are several different users competing for it. If >they think even ONE cycle is wasted they will bring it to our attention. Of course, if anyone points out to any of these users what shitty pro- grammers they are, and what a waste of CPU cycles their programs really are--and yes, a lot of genuine nonsense goes on in the world of research --well, hell, that's too bad. As you said: politics. The record of computer inefficiency that I know of was a lattice gauge theory calculation that took 1000 hours of Cray time. These physicists know their physics, but when it comes to computers--just forget it. I heard about this from my officemate, who was asked to help figure out how to perhaps speed things up for the next level. (No way were they going to get 10000 hours. They were all geared up to designing and building a special purposed device, but they tried seeing if they could eke some more out with existing hardware.) He did all the usual. My friend noticed numerous symmetries in the problem, he noticed redundant DO loop recalculations, he noticed tricks with packing very small integer calculations. The result: the new version of the same calculation took one minute. He did not even need to use assembly and hand vectorization techniques. [Now this was something that deserved a Proxmire award.] Now the above is an extreme, but it illustrates a very very common at- titude among researchers when it comes to computers: "why think?". I have seen it over and over and over again. CPU cycles are wasted with abandon in the name of research. So I'm usually unimpressed with people who complain about lost CPU time due to downtime. Not that knowing the truth would ever help when it comes to harassed sysadmins dealing with annoyed/annoying users. ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (11/17/88)
In article <1429@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu>, sloane@kuhub (Bob Sloane) writes: > The real >question here is whether or not the worm was a "necessary" interuption. >You seem to be saying that it was necessary, in that it might wake up >system administrators to provide better security. I may *seem* to be saying that, but I'm not. I am saying that maybe sys- admins ought to be more security conscious all around. The Morris worm was already history--and I simply do not understand the point of any of us placing "blame" in this incident--other than the intellectual amuse- ment of playing at amateur lawyers. (As opposed to the non-amusement of playing amateur judge/jury/executioner.) If we as a collective whole DON'T learn from the worm, then I think we as a collective whole shall have earned any future disasters that befall us. > I doubt that the >researchers here would accept that position. And what did your researchers say when they learned their colleagues in another department were not shut down? "What do you mean, it's this bug in DEBUG mode that's been known about for years? Why wasn't it fixed?" Or did they simply get the bald message "Morris did it"? ucbvax!garnet!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
whh@pbhya.PacBell.COM (Wilson Heydt) (11/20/88)
In article <16915@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, weemba@garnet.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: > > When I've taught courses that use computers, I told students that under > almost all circumstances, computer downtime would not be an excuse for > lateness. The one exception I've ever made involved granting everyone > a week's extension. I've never worked assuming that the machines I use > are 100% reliable. Do the scientists/researchers at your site do so-- > even on critical stuff? If someone has a grant proposal riding on get- > ting something done by a certain deadline, what happens if there's a > major disk crash at your site? Where I work machines are known not to be 100% reliable--but we try to come as close as we can. The project I'm on has agreements with our operations group to provide for 98% up-time during scheduled hours. The last status report i got had warning on it because it was only 98.04%. Generally they do much better--many months it has been 100%. If the application isn't available I usually start getting calls within a few *minutes*--and the worm caused outages of hours to *days*. I don't have any direcet operations responsibility--but I'd be answering a lot of questions if anything near that severe happened. When there is a major disk-crash, backups of the data-sets are loaded to a work pack (descreasing the available work space, temporarily) and the application--or system, depending on which pack--is brought back up. This should not take more than 30 minutes. The application I work on is small--we have only about 150 users and I *personally* wrote about 70% of the code in it (there's no one else to blame!). You ought to see the care given to *important* systems! What we're trying to achieve is the reliability of our major customer system. (Hint--when was the last time your 'phone failed to work? Was it the handset or the system?) > Hospitals generally have a backup power supply. For a very good reason. The system I have at home has a UPS on it--I consider it cheap insurance. > But now you cite computers where users cannot afford to have > computers to be down for long--do the sites that run them without having > any contingency plans whatsoever? Such sites are irresponsible. We have contigency plans. Every company I've ever worked for has had disaster planning. I've been through two actual computer "disasters". One was a "flood" (on the 13th floor) and the other created an actual risk of explosion in the computer room. --Hal