U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

78–382 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 106–1092

INTERNET SECURITY

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 8, 2000

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

(

(II)

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

CONRAD BURNS, Montana 

SLADE GORTON, Washington 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri 

BILL FRIST, Tennessee 

SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

RICHARD H. BRYAN, Nevada 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

MAX CLELAND, Georgia 

MARK BUSE, Policy Director 

MARTHA P. ALLBRIGHT, General Counsel 

KEVIN D. KAYES, Democratic Staff Director 

MOSES BOYD, Democratic General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS

CONRAD BURNS, Montana, Chairman 

TED STEVENS, Alaska 

SLADE GORTON, Washington 

TRENT LOTT, Mississippi 

JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan 

BILL FRIST, Tennessee 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, South Carolina 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

JOHN B. BREAUX, Louisiana 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

RON WYDEN, Oregon 

MAX CLELAND, Georgia 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held March 8, 2000 ................................................................................... 1

Statement of Senator Abraham .............................................................................. 56

Statement of Senator Bryan ................................................................................... 5

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5

Statement of Senator Burns ................................................................................... 1

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 2

Statement of Senator Hollings ............................................................................... 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4

Statement of Senator Wyden .................................................................................. 37

WITNESSES

Fuhrman, Michael, Manager, Security Consulting, Cisco Systems ..................... 45

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48

Holder, Jr., Eric, Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice .......... 5

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7

Misener, Paul, Vice President, Global Public Policy, Amazon.com ..................... 42

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44

Reddy, Raj, Ph.D, Herbert A. Simon Professor of Computer Science and 

Robotics, Carnegie Mellon University ................................................................ 49

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52

Reinsch, William, Under Secretary of Commerce, Bureau of Export Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce .............................................................. 13

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16

Vatis, Michael A., Deputy Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 

National Infrastructure Protection Programs .................................................... 19

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23

APPENDIX

Cleland, Max, U.S. Senator from Georgia, prepared statement .......................... 63

(1)

INTERNET SECURITY 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 8, 2000

U.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON COMMUNICATIONS, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m. in room 

SR–253, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Conrad Burns, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA 

Senator BURNS. The Subcommittee on Communications of the 

Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee will come to 

order. First, I would like to welcome everyone to today’s hearing, 

which is the first of a series of hearings that this Subcommittee 

will hold on the critical issues of Internet security and privacy facing our Nation. 

Today’s hearing will focus on the unprecedented and apparently 

coordinated recent series of hacker attacks which caused some of 

the most popular Web sites on the Internet to go dark. The list of 

sites that were brought down include such Internet mainstays as 

Amazon.com, eBay, my Auction Barn was shut down, no telling 

how much money it cost me—— [Laughter.] 

Senator BURNS. —cnn.com and e-Trade and Yahoo. 

These attacks are technically called ‘‘distributed denial of service 

attacks,’’ which in plain English is like a telephone system getting 

overwhelmed by more calls than it can handle. It appears the hackers planned their attacks months in advance, going so far as to set 

up software on many servers all over the Internet that was capable 

of automatically flooding targeted Web sites at a certain predetermined time. 

I suppose it is no surprise that these malicious programs are 

called ‘‘daemons,’’ spelled d-a-e-m-o-n-s. The hackers involved in 

these attacks have yet to be caught, despite the coordinated efforts 

of our Nation’s top law enforcement agencies. 

While no consumer data was stolen, real damage was done, especially to Internet user’s confidence about the security systems that 

they are using. The fear of future attacks was enough to cause a 

massive sell-off in technology stocks in early February, when the 

attacks took place, and the nature of these attacks is particularly 

alarming, as they were specifically designed to disrupt electronic 

commerce. 

2

The growth of electronic commerce and the Internet has been 

generally astounding. The number of small businesses on the Web 

is doubling every year, and currently over 2 million small businesses in the United States have Web sites. In my home State of 

Montana, companies such as Vanns.com and Streaming Solutions 

are showing that all their great work and great ideas are coming 

to fruition. E-commerce potential of the Internet still has tremendous up-side, while household spending online last year doubled. It 

is still only about 1 percent of the total retail dollars. 

The growth in the Internet is a double-edged sword, however. 

Unfortunately we now live in a world where there are malicious 

criminals who can bring large parts of our Nation’s critical information infrastructure to a grinding halt. Given the seriousness of 

these attacks, we must act not only quickly but effectively. We 

must think it out and work in the best way. In other words, we 

cannot out-force our enemies. We must out-think them and be 

smarter than they are. 

We need to do everything possible to foster better coordination 

between Government and industry in protecting Internet security, 

make sure that our national security and our law enforcement 

agencies have the resources to do their job, and to bring our Nation’s criminal code up to date with the recent development of the 

Internet. Clearly, the current level of coordination between Government agencies and the private sector needs to be as seamless and 

effective as possible. 

A core component of achieving this cooperation is the continuing 

development of the FBI’s National Infrastructure Protection Center, which was set up 2 years ago to deal with the range of potential attacks on the Internet. I strongly supported the creation of 

that center, and I will continue to support its full funding. In fact, 

I want to make it even stronger. 

I am concerned, however, that the center is authorized for 133 

employees. We are only up to about 100 now, 40 of whom are 

detailees from other agencies, but I also understand the FBI is still 

short of its goal of hiring 250 field agents to fight cybercrime. 

While I realize that hiring top-level technical experts to work in 

Government is difficult, given the lure of Silicon Valley, these positions need to be filled as quickly as possible, and that is what I 

have always argued in the past, and I want to make a comment 

on that this morning. 

Instead of putting a lid on technology we need to fully fund and 

fully support our law enforcement agencies so they are abreast of 

or half a step ahead and working with industry in the technology 

so they can get their job done, so we need a lot of work, and I am 

going to put the rest of my statement in here, because I do want 

to hear from witnesses this morning. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Burns follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. CONRAD BURNS, U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA

I would like to welcome everyone to today’s hearing, which is the first in a series 

of hearings this Subcommittee will be holding on the critical issues of Internet security and privacy facing our nation. Today’s hearing will focus on the unprecedented 

and apparently coordinated recent series of hacker attacks which caused some of the 

most popular websites on the Internet to go dark. The list of sites that were brought 

3

down included such Internet mainstays as Amazon.com, eBay, cnn.com, e-Trade and 

Yahoo. 

These attacks are technically called ‘‘distributed denial of service attacks’’ which 

in plain English is like a telephone system getting overwhelmed by more calls than 

it can handle. It appears the hackers planned their attacks months in advance, 

going so far as to set up software on many servers all over the Internet that was 

capable of automatically flooding targeted websites at certain predetermined times. 

I suppose it’s no surprise that these malicious programs are called ‘‘daemons.’’ The 

hackers involved in theses attacks have yet to be caught, despite the coordinated 

efforts of our nation’s top law enforcement agencies. 

While no consumer data was stolen, real damage was done-especially to Internet 

users’ confidence about the security of the systems they are using. The fear of future 

attacks was great enough to cause a massive selloff in technology stocks in early 

February when the attacks took place. The nature of these attacks is particularly 

alarming, as they were specifically designed to disrupt electronic commerce. 

The growth of electronic commerce and the Internet in general has been astounding. The number of small businesses on the Web is doubling every year, and currently over 2 million small businesses in the United States have websites. In my 

home state of Montana, companies such as Vanns.com and Streaming Solutions are 

showing that all it takes is a great idea and hard work to reach global markets 

through the Internet. The e-commerce potential of the Internet still has tremendous 

upside—while household spending online doubled last year, it still amounted to less 

than 1 percent of total retail dollars. 

The growth and reach of the Internet is a double-edged sword, however. Unfortunately, we now live in a world where malicious criminals can bring large parts of 

the nation’s critical information infrastructure to a grinding halt. 

Given the seriousness of these attacks, we must act quickly and effectively. We 

need to do everything possible to foster better coordination between Government 

and industry in protecting Internet security, make sure our national security and 

law enforcement agencies have the resources to do their jobs and bring our nation’s 

criminal code up-to-date with the recent development of the Internet. 

Clearly, the current level of coordination between Government agencies and the 

private sector needs to be as seamless and effective as possibe. A core component 

in achieving this cooperation is the continuing development of the FBI’s National 

Infrastructure Protection Center, which was setup two years ago to deal with a 

range of potential attacks on the Internet. I strongly supported the creation of the 

Center and continue to support its full funding. 

However, I am concerned that while the Center is authorized for 133 employees, 

its staff is still at only 100, 40 of whom are detailees from other agencies. I also 

understand the FBI is still short of its goal of hiring 250 field agents to fight 

cybercrime. While I realize that hiring top-level technical experts to work in the 

Government is difficult given the lure of Silicon Valley, these positions need to be 

filled as quickly as possible. 

I want to touch on the issue of criminal penalties on hackers. In the recent past, 

many if not most ‘‘hacker’’ attacks were the product of intellectual curiosity rather 

than malicious intent to cause damage. Now, however, the vast majority of hacker 

attacks are done through simply downloading pre-existing programs from hacker 

sites on the web and using them to accomplish destructive aims. Rather than stemming from misdirected teenage rebellion, current attacks are often engaged in by 

adults who want to inflict the most damage possible. We need to severely punish 

these criminals-and they are criminals. The destruction of data belonging to innocent individuals is no less a crime than property destruction of the more traditional 

type. In fact, it can in many cases be far worse. 

We are fortunate to have some of the foremost Government and industry experts 

in the field of Internet security with us today. I look forward to the testimony of 

the witnesses in addressing these matters of critical importance to the continued development of e-commerce and the Internet. Thank you.

Senator BURNS. We are joined this morning by Senator Hollings. 

Thank you for coming. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS,

U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA 

Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I heard you correctly, you said we are going to have to be smarter than they are. 

If we wait on Government to be smarter, that is quite a charge. 

4

Senator BURNS.We are not asking for the impossible. 

Senator HOLLINGS. That is near it. We are back—history repeats 

itself. You have got to think of David Sarnoff on the Wannamaker 

Building and the sinking of the LUSITANIA. He picked it up. The 

country went wild over wireless, and by the mid-twenties everybody was jamming. Everybody in the so-called free market of communications came crying to Government, please regulate us. Now 

history repeats itself. They come crying to Government, please give 

us security, please give us privacy, because they cannot do it themselves. They say it takes two to tango. You cannot have privacy 

without security. 

So the Justice Department has been working diligently and I 

might add, Mr. Chairman, the Justice Department has grown quite 

a bit in recent years. Slightly over 10 years ago the budget in the 

Justice Department was $4 billion. It is now $23 billion. Everybody 

says cut spending, cut spending, cut spending, but the Senators 

ought to know we have been increasing it like gangbusters, and 

giving the Justice Department everything they say they can possibly use, and they have been doing an outstanding job. 

In essence, the National Institute of Standards and Technology 

is really onto the technology, and I am delighted to hear from the 

witnesses, and I would ask the remainder of my statement be included. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Hollings follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ERNEST F. HOLLINGS, U.S. SENATOR FROM SOUTH CAROLINA

Senator Burns, thank you for holding this hearing today. It is the first hearing 

in a series that the Committee intends to hold on the subject of electronic privacy. 

Internet security and hacking are not generally discussed in the context of privacy, but I think that this is an important first topic for consideration. No matter 

what we decide on the right policy to protect consumers on the Internet is, no policy 

can work without a secure infrastructure. A company can have the strongest privacy 

policy in the world, but that policy is irrelevant if the company has not adequately 

protected its systems from illegitimate users. 

A month ago at this time, Mr. Misener’s company, among others, was under attack. That attack highlighted problems which have plagued the users of the Internet 

for some time. Having been brought under the media spotlight the question now is: 

How can we be sure that the companies we are doing business with on the Internet 

are secure? Additionally, what do businesses owe their consumers when they are 

victims of computer break in? 

In order to make consumer information safe from hackers, it will be necessary to 

raise the security standards of Internet-based businesses as a whole. As we try to 

craft public policy in this area, we need to examine three constructive roles for Government: (1) fostering constructive partnerships which enhance private sector security; (2) pushing the technological envelope on information infrastructure protection; 

and (3) being a role model through the implementation of best security practices. 

In other words, the Government must be prepared to form a partnership with industry to share information on new attacks and how to stop them. Our research 

agencies must invest in solving problems which will bolster the security of the whole 

Internet rather than its parts. Finally, the Government needs to do a better job of 

protecting its own information. Right now, our departments and agencies are far 

from a shining example of what Internet security can be. We need to have in place 

the right policies, hardware, software, and trained personnel to secure Government 

computer systems. I hope that our witnesses will address these areas in their testimony today. 

Already, various agencies of the U.S. Department of Commerce are doing important computer security work. Undersecretary Reinsch oversees the Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office (CIAO) which is coordinating partnerships with the private sector to examine attack prevention. The National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) is a leader in computer security research and, through the 1987 

5

Computer Security Act, sets standards for securing unclassified Government computer systems. The FY 2001 budget request for information security would enhance 

these capabilities at Department of Commerce and in other agencies of Government. 

Again, I look forward to hearing the testimony of today’s witnesses on how we 

can improve Internet security in this nation and what the role of the Government 

should be in achieving that goal.

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Senator Hollings. Senator Bryan. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD H. BRYAN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVADA 

Senator BRYAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for convening this important and timely hearing this morning. As Vice 

Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, we are very much aware 

of the importance, in terms of our national security concerns, of 

computer hacking. All of us have been mindful of the recent successful attacks against some of the most significant Web sites in 

the country, and so I will be looking forward to hearing the testimony of our distinguished witnesses this morning. I would ask 

unanimous consent that the rest of my statement be made a part 

of the record. 

Senator BURNS. Without objection, it sure will. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Bryan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD H. BRYAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEVEDA

As our society continues to become more reliant on the Internet to conduct our 

daily affairs, the issue of Internet security becomes increasingly important for both 

the public and private sector. As Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, I am 

very familiar with the national security concerns confronting our intelligence community on a daily basis that result from computer hacking. And as public agencies 

at all levels of Government continue to do more and more of their business online, 

Internet security becomes a paramount issue for Government officials. I look forward to hearing from our Government witnesses today, especially Deputy Attorney 

General Holder, on what additional law enforcement tools and other measures are 

needed to protect the integrity of the Federal Government’s computer systems. 

The recent denial of service attacks against a handful of the top U.S. web sites 

was a good illustration of the vulnerabilities faced by the private sector. Perhaps 

even more alarming, however, are the privacy concerns associated with security 

breaches for companies that gather large amounts of personally identifiable information about consumers over the Internet. The issues related to online privacy and 

Internet security are clearly interrelated, and I look forward to hearing our witnesses comment on what role the Federal Government should play in these areas.

Senator BURNS. Our first panel this morning is Mr. Eric Holder, 

Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, Mr. William 

Reinsch, Under Secretary of Commerce for Bureau of Export Administration, Department of Commerce, and Michael Vatis, Deputy 

Assistant Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation here in Washington, D.C. 

Gentlemen, we welcome you to the table this morning. We look 

forward to your testimony, and the dialog that we may present this 

morning on this subject, and I will just start as they are listed.

Mr. Holder, thank you for coming this morning. We look forward 

to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC HOLDER, JR., DEPUTY ATTORNEY 

GENERAL, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. HOLDER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings, Senator Bryan, other members of the Subcommittee. I want to thank 

6

you for the opportunity to testify on cybercrime, including the recent Internet denial of service attacks. The Department appreciates 

the support we have received from Congress in providing significant resources and tools we need to keep pace with the ever-changing kind of cybercrime. We look forward to continuing our cooperation with Congress to ensure that law enforcement, in cooperation 

with the private sector—and that is very key, in cooperation with 

the private sector, play an appropriate role in protecting American 

citizens and businesses against cyber attacks while also safeguarding the privacy rights we hold dear in our country. 

I would be happy to address your questions on the recent attacks 

to the extent that I can without compromising our investigation. At 

this point, I would simply say we are taking the attacks very seriously, and that we will do everything in our power to identify those 

who are responsible and to bring them to justice. 

We are making, I think, progress in the investigation, and in addition to the malicious disruption of the legitimate commerce, socalled disruption attacks, they also involve the unlawful intrusion 

into a number of computers. Thus, the number of victims in these 

types of cases can be substantial, and the loss and cost to respond 

to those attacks can run into the tens of millions of dollars or more. 

Computer crime investigators in a number of FBI field offices 

and investigators from other agencies are investigating these attacks. The agents are also working closely with our network of specially trained computer crime prosecutors who are available 24 

hours a day, 7 days a week to provide legal advice and to obtain 

whatever court orders are necessary. We are also obtaining information from victim companies and security experts who, like many 

in the Internet community, condemn these recent attacks. 

Now, while the Internet is providing wonderful benefits that are 

transforming our society and countless beneficial ways, from providing new high-wage jobs to our economy, to improving health 

care, and in countless other ways, these wonderful technologies 

also provide new opportunities for criminals. 

Online crime is rapidly increasing. We are seeing more pure computer crime, that is, crimes where the computer is used as a weapon to attack other computers, as we saw in the distributed denial 

of service attacks I just spoke about, and in the spread of malicious 

codes like viruses. These crimes not only affect our financial wellbeing and our privacy, they also threaten our Nation’s critical infrastructure. 

We are also seeing a migration of traditional crimes, including 

threats, child pornography, fraud, gambling, and extortion from the 

physical to the online world. When these crimes are carried out online, perpetrators often find that they can reach more victims 

quickly and quite easily, turning what were once local scams into 

crimes that cross interstate and even international borders. 

Now, while the Internet has tremendous benefits to our society, 

including greater freedom of expression and economic growth, we 

must also recognize that investigators and prosecutors at all levels, 

international, Federal, State, and local, are encountering unique 

challenges, and these include technical challenges that hinder law 

enforcement’s ability to find and to prosecute criminals operating 

online, legal challenges resulting from laws, and legal tools needed 

7

to investigate cybercrime lagging behind technological, structural, 

and social changes. 

And third, we face resource challenges that limit our ability to 

focus adequate investigative, prosecutorial, and technical resources 

on cybercrime. Now, in this regard, the Department is seeking an 

additional $37 million in fiscal year 2001 to bolster our cybercrime 

program, including additional resources for the FBI, specially 

trained cyber prosecutors and assistants to State and local law enforcement agencies, but we recognize that Government will not be 

able to solve all of these problems. 

In fact, we believe that the private sector should take the lead 

in protecting private computer networks through more vigilant security efforts, information-sharing and, where appropriate, cooperation with Government agencies. The private sector can and should 

take the lead when improving security practices, and the development of a more secure Internet infrastructure. 

Now, despite the technical, legal, and resource challenges we 

face, the Department has made, we believe, strides in our fight 

against cybercrime. We have and we will continue to develop extensive investigatory and prosecutorial programs to counter 

cybercrime. We have established the FBI’s National Infrastructure 

Protection Center, NIPC as we call it, and specialized squads located in 16 field offices. From the prosecutorial side, we have 

trained attorneys both at headquarters and in the field who are experts in legal technological and practical challenges involved in investigating and prosecuting cybercrime. 

As a result of these programs, the number of cases and prosecutions by the Department is growing at a tremendous rate. For example, in 1998, U.S. Attorneys Offices filed 85 computer crime 

cases against 116 defendants, and this represents a 29-percent increase in the number of cases filed and a 51-percent increase in the 

number of defendants compared to the previous year. From the 

same period of time a total of 62 cases against 72 defendants were 

terminated, with 78 percent of those defendants being convicted. 

On behalf of the Department, I again want to thank Congress for 

the support it has given to our efforts to combat cybercrime. Advancements in technology indicate that our efforts are really only 

just beginning. We look forward to working with Congress and the 

private sector to ensure that we have a robust and effective longterm plan for combatting cybercrime, protecting our Nation’s infrastructure, safeguarding privacy, and ensuring the Internet reaches 

its full potential for expanding communications, facilitating commerce, and bringing countless other benefits to our society. 

I look forward to responding to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Holder follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIC HOLDER, JR., DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings, and other Members of the Subcommittee, I want 

to thank you for this opportunity to testify on the recent Internet ‘‘denial of service’’

attacks and the Federal response to these incidents, with a particular focus on the 

challenges facing the Department of Justice in its fight against cybercrime. At a 

time where new technologies abound and our society becomes increasingly reliant 

on computer networks and thus vulnerable to cybercrime, we look forward to working with Congress to ensure that law enforcement, in cooperation with the private 

8

sector, can play an appropriate and critical role in protecting the well-being of 

Americans while also respecting fundamental notions of individual privacy that we 

hold dear in this country.

Comments on the Recent Attacks

I would be happy to address your questions on the recent attacks, to the extent 

I can do so without compromising our investigation. At this point, I would simply 

say that we are taking the attacks very seriously and that we will do everything 

in our power to identify those responsible and bring them to justice. In addition to 

the malicious disruption of legitimate commerce, so-called ‘‘denial of service’’ attacks 

involve the unlawful intrusion into an unknown number of computers, which are in 

turn used to launch attacks on the eventual target computer, in this case the computers of Yahoo, eBay, and others. Thus, the number of victims in these types of 

cases can be substantial, and the collective loss and cost to respond to these attacks 

can run into the tens of millions of dollars—or more.

Overview of Investigative Efforts and Coordination

Computer crime investigators in a number of FBI field offices and investigators 

from other agencies are investigating these attacks. They are coordinating information with the National Infrastructure Protection Center (NIPC) of the FBI. The 

agents are also working closely with our network of specially trained computer 

crime prosecutors who are available 24 hours a day/7 days a week to provide legal 

advice and obtain whatever court orders are necessary. Attorneys from the Criminal 

Division’s Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section (CCIPS) are coordinating with the Assistant United States Attorneys in the field. We are also obtaining information from victim companies and security experts, who, like many in the 

Internet community, condemn these recent attacks. We are also working closely 

with our counterparts in other nations. I am proud of the efforts being made in this 

case, including the assistance we are receiving from a number of Federal agencies.

The Emergence of Cybercrime

It is worth remembering that just ten years ago, the Internet was largely unknown and unavailable to the average person. There was no e-commerce, no eBay, 

no Amazon.com. At that time, the Internet was a collection of military, academic, 

and research networks serving a small community of trusted users. That world is 

history. The far-reaching, ever-expanding, and ever more rapid advances in computer and software technology over the last ten years have combined with the explosive growth of the Internet to change the world forever. For the most part, the 

Internet and other technologies are providing wonderful benefits to our society— from providing new, high-wage jobs to our economy, to expanding educational opportunities, improving health care, and allowing family and friends to keep in touch 

in ways that were simply impossible a decade ago. 

Unfortunately, these wonderful technologies also provide new opportunities for 

criminals. Online crime is rapidly increasing. We are seeing more ‘‘pure’’ computer 

crimes, that is, crimes where the computer is used as a weapon to attack other computers, as we saw in the distributed denial of service attacks I just spoke about, 

and in the spread of malicious code, like viruses. Our vulnerability to this type of 

crime is astonishingly high—it was only this past December that a defendant admitted, when he pled guilty in Federal and state court to creating and releasing the 

Melissa virus, that he caused over 80 million dollars in damage. These crimes also 

include computer intrusions designed to obtain information of the most sensitive 

sort—such as credit cards, companies’ trade secrets, or individuals’ private information. 

These crimes not only affect our financial well-being and our privacy; they also 

threaten our nation’s critical infrastructure. Our banking system, the stock market, 

the electricity and water supply, telecommunications networks, and critical Government services, such as emergency and national defense services, all rely on computer networks. For a real-world terrorist to blow up a dam, he would need tons 

of explosives, a delivery system, and a surreptitious means of evading armed security guards. For a cyberterrorist, the same devastating result could be achieved by 

hacking into the control network and commanding the computer to open the floodgates. 

We are also seeing a migration of ‘‘traditional’’ crimes—including threats, child 

pornography, fraud, gambling, and extortion—from the physical to the online world. 

When these crimes are carried out online, perpetrators often find that the can reach 

more victims quickly and quite easily, turning what were once ‘‘local’’ scams into 

crimes that cross interstate and international borders. Computers and computer 

networks provide a cheap and powerful means of communications, and criminals 

9

take advantage of this just like everyone else. In addition, sophisticated criminals 

can readily use the easy anonymity that the Internet provides to hide their crimes.

Challenges of Cybercrime

The Internet and computers have brought tremendous benefits to our society, including greater freedom of expression and economic growth. But we must also recognize that as a result of our society’s increasing reliance on technology, investigators 

and prosecutors at all levels—international, Federal, state, and local—are encountering unique challenges. These challenges generally can be divided into three categories:

(1) Technical challenges that hinder law enforcement’s ability to find and prosecute criminals operating online; 

(2) Legal challenges resulting from laws and legal tools needed to investigate 

cybercrime lagging behind technological, structural, and social changes; and 

(3) Resource challenges to ensure we have satisfied critical investigative and 

prosecutorial needs at all levels of Government.

Before I discuss each of these challenges, let me say that we recognize that we 

in Government will not be able to solve all of these problems. In fact, we believe 

strongly that the private sector should take the lead in protecting private computer 

networks, through more vigilant security efforts, information sharing, and, where appropriate, cooperation with Government agencies. The private sector has the resources, the technical ability, and the trained personnel to ensure that, as technology continues to develop and change rapidly, the Internet is a safer place for all 

of us. The private sector can and should take the lead on improving security practices and the development of a more secure Internet infrastructure. 

However, even assuming that private sector, and the broader Internet community 

as a whole, take steps to provide a safe, secure, and vibrant Internet, there will be 

instances where the practices and safeguards fail. Criminals rob banks even though 

banks use numerous security measures. In such cases, law enforcement must be 

prepared and equipped to investigate and prosecute cybercriminals in order to stop 

their criminal activity, to punish them, and to deter others who might follow the 

same path. This is the reason that it is so important that we work together to address the challenges I am about to discuss.

Technical Challenges

When a hacker disrupts air traffic control at a local airport, when a child pornographer sends computer files, when a cyberstalker sends a threatening e-mail to a 

public school or a local church, or when credit card numbers are stolen from a company engaged in e-commerce, investigators must locate the source of the communication. Everything on the Internet is communications, from an e-mail to an electronic heist. Finding an electronic criminal means that law enforcement must determine who is responsible for sending anelectronic threat or initiating an electronic 

robbery. To accomplish this, law enforcement must in nearly every case trace the 

‘‘electronic trail’’ leading from the victim back to the perpetrator. 

Tracking a criminal online is not necessarily an impossible task, as demonstrated 

last year when Federal and state law enforcement agencies were able to track down 

the creator of the Melissa virus and the individual who created a false Bloomburg 

News Service website in order to drive up the stock price of PairGain, a telecommunications company in California. In both cases, technology enabled us to find 

the individuals who were engaging in criminal activity. 

Unfortunately, despite our successes in the Melissa and PairGain cases, we still 

face significant challenges as online criminals become more sophisticated, often 

wearing the equivalent of Internet electronic gloves to hide their fingerprints and 

their identity. 

It doesn’t take a master hacker to disappear on a network. Ironically, while the 

public is justifiably worried about protecting the legitimate electronic privacy of individuals who use networks, a criminal using tools and other information easily 

available over the Internet can operate in almost perfect anonymity. By weaving his 

or her communications through a series of anonymous remailers; by creating a few 

forged e-mail headers with powerful, point-and-click tools readily downloadable from 

many hacker web sites; or by using a ‘‘free-trial’’ account or two, a hacker, online 

pornographer, or web-based fraud artist can often effectively hide the trail of his or 

her communications. 

As we consider the challenge created by anonymity, we must also recognize that 

there are legitimate reasons to allow anonymity in communications networks. A 

whistleblower, a resistance fighter in Kosovo, a battered woman’s support group—

10

all of these individuals may understandably wish to use the Internet and other new 

technologies to communicate with others without revealing their identities. 

In addition to problems related to the anonymous nature of the Internet, we are 

being challenged to investigate and prosecute criminals in an international arena. 

The Internet is a global medium that does not recognize physical and jurisdictional 

boundaries. A criminal no longer needs to be at the actual scene of the crime to prey 

on his or her victims. As a result, a computer server running a web page designed 

to defraud U.S. senior citizens might be located in Europe or Asia. A child pornographer may distribute photographs or videos via e-mail, sending the e-mails through 

the communications networks of several countries before they reach their intended 

recipients. With more than 190 Internet-connected countries in the world, the coordination challenges facing law enforcement are tremendous. And any delay in an 

investigation is critical, as a criminal’s trail might, in certain circumstances, end as 

soon as he or she disconnects from the Internet. 

Likewise, evidence of a crime can be stored at a remote location, either for the 

purpose of concealing the crime from law enforcement and others, or simply because 

of the design of the network. In certain circumstances, the fact that the evidence 

is stored and held by a third party, such as an Internet service provider, might be 

helpful to law enforcement agencies who might be able to use lawful process to get 

that information. However, storing information remotely can also create a challenge 

to law enforcement, which cannot ignore the real-world limits of local, state, and national sovereignty and jurisdiction. Obtaining information from foreign countries, especially on an expedited basis, can be a daunting task, especially when a country 

may be in a different time zone, use a different language, have different legal rules, 

and may not have trained experts available. Consequently, even as the Internet and 

other new technologies have given us new abilities to find criminals remotely, our 

abilities can be hindered if we cannot obtain the necessary legal cooperation from 

our counterparts in other countries. 

The vast majority of Internet companies are good corporate citizens and are interested in the safety of our citizens. In fact, several companies have been engaged in 

discussions with law enforcement regarding our concerns. Despite these efforts, we 

have learned that we cannot take for granted the nature of any Internet service provider’s services, its record-keeping practices, and its ability or willingness to cooperate with us. We have encountered a handful of companies involved in criminal activity. In addition, even those companies that are not involved in criminal activities 

might not be able to assist us because of business reasons or privacy concerns that 

have resulted in them not keeping the records that will assist in the investigation 

of a particular crime. 

Moreover, users connect to the Internet from anywhere in the world over old-fashioned telephone lines, wireless phones, cable modems, and satellite systems. Each 

of these telecommunications systems has its own protocols for addressing and routing traffic, which means that tracking all the way back to the criminal at his or 

her computer will require agents to be fluent in each technical language. Gathering 

this evidence from so many kinds of providers is a very different proposition from 

the days when we simply obtained an order for a telephone company to trace a 

threatening call.

Legal Challenges

Deterring and punishing computer criminals requires a legal structure that will 

support detection and successful prosecution of offenders. Yet the laws defining computer offenses, and the legal tools needed to investigate criminals using the Internet, can lag behind technological and social changes, creating legal challenges to law 

enforcement agencies. 

We may be able to correct some of the legal challenges we encounter through legislative action. For example, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030, 

arguably does not reach a computer hacker who causes a large amount of damage 

to a network of computers if no individual computer sustains over $5,000 worth of 

damage. The Department of Justice has encountered several instances in which intruders have gained unauthorized access to protected computers (whether publicly 

or privately owned) used in the provision of ‘‘critical infrastructure’’ systems and 

services—such as those that hospitals use to store sensitive information and to treat 

patients, and those that the military uses to defend the nation—but where proof of 

damage in excess of $5000 has not been readily available. 

The laws under which we are able to identify the origin and destination of telephone calls and computer messages also need to be reviewed. For example, under 

current law we may have to obtain court orders in multiple jurisdictions to trace 

a single communication. Obtaining court orders in multiple jurisdictions does not 

advance any reasonable privacy safeguard, yet it can be a substantial impediment 

11

to a fast-paced investigation. As the Attorney General testified recently, it might be 

extremely helpful, for instance, to provide nationwide effect for trap and trace orders. 

Another concern focuses on the problem of online threats and serious harassment—that is, cyberstalking. Current Federal law does not address those situations 

where a cyberstalker uses unwitting third parties to bombard a victim with messages, transmits personal data about a person—such as the route by which the victim’s children walk to school—in order to place such person or his family in fear 

of injury, or sends an e-mail or other communications under someone else’s name 

with the intent to abuse, harass, or threaten that person. We believe Federal law 

may need to be amended to address this gap. 

These aren’t hypothetical changes that we are proposing to address. Just ask the 

California woman who was awakened six times in the middle of the night to find 

men knocking on her door offering to rape her. She discovered that a man whom 

she had told she was not romantically interested in had posted personal advertisements on a variety of Internet services pretending to be her. Each posting, which 

contained her home address and telephone number, claimed that she fantasized 

about being raped. We need to ensure that laws against harassment clearly prohibit 

such horrific actions, particularly since access to the Internet means immediate access to a wide audience. 

While we believe changes in Federal law may be necessary to address these challenges, we also want to emphasize that any such legislation should be tailored to 

address the challenges we face and should avoid unnecessary infringement on personal privacy. We recognize the importance the public attaches to individual privacy, and any legislation must be carefully balanced to avoid unnecessary infringement on the privacy rights we hold dear in this country.

Resource Challenges

In addition to technical and legal challenges, we face significant resource challenges. Simply stated, we need an adequate number of prosecutors and agents—at 

the Federal, state and local level—trained with the necessary skills and properly 

equipped to effectively fight all types of cybercrime. 

While Congress has been very supportive of the Department’s cybercrime efforts, 

we need additional resources to ensure we are adequately equipped to continue our 

battle against cybercriminals. The President has requested $37 million in new 

money in FY 2001 to expand our staffing, training and technological capabilities to 

continue the fight against computer crime. Together, these enhancements will increase the Department’s 2001 funding base for computer crime to $138 million, 28 

percent more than in 2000. 

Last, the Department of Justice would like to work with Congress to develop a 

comprehensive, five-year plan—with FY 2001 as our baseline—to prevent 

cybercrime and, when it does occur, to locate, identify, apprehend and bring to justice those responsible for these types of crimes. On February 16th, the Attorney 

General testified before Congress regarding a proposed a 10-point plan to identify 

the key areas we need to develop for our cybercrime capability. The key points of 

this plan she touched upon include:

• Developing a round-the-clock network of Federal, state and local law enforcement officials with expertise in, and responsibility for, investigating and prosecuting cybercrime. 

• Developing and sharing expertise—personnel and equipment—among Federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. 

• Dramatically increasing our computer forensic capabilities, which are so essential in computer crime investigations—both hacking cases and cases where 

computers are used to facilitate other crimes, including drug trafficking, terrorism, and child pornography. 

• Reviewing whether we have adequate legal tools to locate, identify, and prosecute cybercriminals. In particular, we may need new and more robust procedural tools to allow state authorities to more easily gather evidence located outside their jurisdictions. We also need to explore whether we have adequate tools 

at the Federal level to effectively investigate cybercrime. 

• Because of the borderless nature of the Internet, we need to develop effective 

partnerships with other nations to encourage them to enact laws that adequately address cybercrime and to provide assistance in cybercrime investigations. A balanced international strategy for combating cybercrime should be at 

the top of our national security agenda. 

• We need to work in partnership with industry to address cybercrime and security. This should not be a top-down approach through excessive Government 

12

regulation or mandates. Rather, we need a true partnership, where we can discuss challenges and develop effective solutions that do not pose a threat to individual privacy. 

• And we need to teach our young people about the responsible use of the 

Internet. The Department of Justice and the Information Technology Association of America have already taken steps to do so through the development of 

the Cybercitizen Partnership, but more needs to be done.

Efforts Against Cybercrime

Despite the technical, legal, and resource challenges, the Department has made 

strides in our fight against cybercrime. We have and will continue to develop extensive investigatory and prosecutorial programs to counter cybercrime. Let me take 

a few moments to details some of our efforts to date. 

On the investigatory side, we have the FBI’s National Infrastructure Protection 

Center (NIPC) and specialized squads located in 16 field offices. 

On the prosecutorial side, we have trained attorneys, both in headquarters and 

in the field, who are experts in the legal, technological, and practical challenges involved in investigating and prosecuting cybercrime. The cornerstone of our prosecutor cybercrime program is the Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section. CCIPS, which currently has 18 attorneys, was founded in 1991 as the Computer Crime Unit and was elevated to Section status in 1996. CCIPS works closely 

on computer crime cases with Assistant United States Attorneys known as ‘‘Computer and Telecommunications Coordinators’’ (CTC’s) in U.S. Attorneys’ Offices 

around the country. Each CTC is given special training and equipment, and serves 

as the district’s expert in computer crime cases. As a result of these programs, the 

number of cases and prosecutions by the Department is growing at a tremendous 

rate. For example, in 1998, U.S. Attorneys’ Offices filed 85 computer crime cases 

against 116 defendants. This represents a 29 percent increase in the number of 

cases filed and a 51 percent increase in the number of defendants, compared to the 

previous year. During that same period of time, a total of 62 cases against 72 defendants were terminated, with 78 percent of those defendants being convicted. 

At the same time, our prosecutors are working with numerous other Federal, 

state, and local investigators and prosecutors, providing assistance in any case involving computers and other high technology, such as computer searches and seizure. In sum, the Department and, in particular, its investigators and prosecutors 

take seriously our responsibility to protect the nation’s computers and the Internet 

from computer crime. 

In addition to the Department’s efforts, other agencies including the Customs 

Service, the Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the U.S. 

Postal Service’s Inspectors General, have played a role in the investigation and prosecution of computer crimes.

Infrastructure Protection

The Department is also a full partner in ongoing efforts to assure our nation’s 

critical infrastructures and to make them less vulnerable to the emerging risks of 

the information age. 

I mentioned before that we believe strongly that the private sector should take the 

lead in protecting private computer networks, through more vigilant security efforts, 

information sharing, and, where appropriate, cooperation with Government agencies. 

Within this framework, and apart from prosecuting those who launch criminal attacks on our infrastructure (which is our critical responsibility), the Department can 

make important contributions. In the information sharing arena, we have continued 

some of the groundwork started by the President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection by more closely examining the issues that may impede robust 

sharing of risk-related information between private sector entities, between Governmental entities, and between Government and the private sector. 

As the private sector protects its networks, so must the Government. Therefore, 

the Department of Justice is working to ensure that its own networks are secure. 

We are also involved in efforts, under the auspices of the Critical Infrastructure Coordinating Group of the National Security Council, to help Federal agencies expedite 

and simplify the process of performing ‘‘vulnerability assessments,’’ in order to uncover hidden vulnerabilities of critical Government systems before others try to do 

that for us. 

Finally, the Justice Department also is involved in efforts to ensure that all programs arising out of the Federal Government’s ‘‘infrastructure assurance’’ efforts are 

implemented in way entirely respects long-standing protections for the privacy 

rights of individuals.

13

Conclusion

On behalf of the Department of Justice, I want to thank Congress for all the support it has given to our efforts to combat cybercrimes. Advancements in technology 

indicate that our efforts are only just beginning. We look forward to working with 

Congress and the private sector to ensure that we have a robust and effective longterm plan for combating cybercrime, protecting our nation’s infrastructure, safeguarding privacy, and ensuring that the Internet reaches its full potential for expanding communications, facilitating commerce, and bringing countless other benefits to our society.

Senator BURNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Holder. I appreciate 

that. Now we have Mr. William Reinsch, and Bill, thank you for 

coming back today. We have been across the table many times on 

different issues, and I appreciate your openness and your willingness to come down and visit with us on issues such as this. We are 

looking forward to your statement. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM REINSCH, UNDER SECRETARY OF 

COMMERCE, BUREAU OF EXPORT ADMINISTRATION,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Mr. REINSCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always a pleasure 

to be here, particularly a pleasure to be here and not talk about 

encryption, so I am delighted to have the opportunity to have a different subject at hand. 

My statement begins with some comments about the importance 

of computer networks and the Internet, and there is no committee 

that knows more about it than you all, so I think I will just get 

right into the meat of what I want to tell you this morning, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Senator BURNS. Your complete statement will be made a part of 

the record, however, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. REINSCH. I appreciate that. Protecting our critical infrastructure requires that we draw on various assets of the Government. 

When specific incidents or cyber events occur, the Government 

needs the capacity to issue warnings, investigate the incident, and 

develop a case to punish the offenders. The National Information 

Protection Center at the FBI is organized to deal with such events 

as they occur. Over the long term, the Government also has a duty 

to be proactive to ensure that our computer systems are protected 

from attack. 

Critical infrastructure protection involves assets of both the Government and the private sector. A number of agencies have responsibilities with respect to Government computer systems. The Department of Defense is well on its way to securing its critical systems, and OMB and NIST have responsibility for information resources management of computer systems in Federal agencies. 

I want to make clear, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government’s 

responsibility in this area. The commission of crimes is only part 

of the equation. The infrastructures at risk are owned and operated 

by the private sector. The use of information technology is so embedded in the core operations and customer service delivery systems of industry that inevitably it will be they who must work together to take the steps necessary to protect themselves. However, 

we can help. 

The first major step is the elevation of awareness across industry 

of the business case for action for leaders within industry. They 

14

have a commercial interest in maintaining a secure business environment that assures public confidence in their institutions. We 

can also help identify problems, identify good practices and management practices and strategies, publicize them, encourage planning, promote research and development, and convene meetings, 

which is not a small matter. 

In short, we can act as a catalyst for industry to mobilize. That 

is precisely the role the Commerce Department is playing in several ways. NTIA is a lead agency for the communications information sector. In February 1999, NTIA created a private sector coordinator consortium. The consortium is filled by representatives from 

the Information Technology Association of America, the Telecommunications Industry Association, and the U.S. Telecom Association, all groups I am sure you are familiar with. 

Among their initiatives, the consortium has been raising awareness among industry through the exchange of information on 

threats and vulnerabilities, conducting information security surveys across sectors, and developing and assessing critical infrastructure-related standards and best practices. Perhaps our most 

important area right now is the development of what we are calling 

the Partnership for Critical Infrastructure Security. The partnership is a collaborative effort between industry and Government. It 

brings representatives of the infrastructure sector together in a dialog with each other and with other stakeholders, including the 

risk management and investment communities, mainstream businesses, and also State and local Governments. 

Secretary Daley, Greg Rohde and I met with senior members of 

over 80 partnership companies in New York in December. We met 

again last month in Washington with over 220 senior members of 

more than 120 partnership companies to encourage business leaders to adopt information security as an integral business practice. 

The partnership agreed to address such important issues as 

cross-sector vulnerability assessments, information-sharing, and 

R&D requirements. It set up working groups in those areas which 

are continuing to meet throughout the spring, and the next meeting of the full partnership will be this summer. The Department’s 

Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office, or CIAO, also is assisting 

Federal agencies in conducting analyses of their dependencies on 

critical infrastructures. 

CIAO has just finished an ambitious pilot program that identifies 

the critical assets of the Commerce Department and maps out dependencies on Governmental and private sector infrastructures. 

This program will provide important input to managers and security officials as they seek to assure their critical assets against 

cyber attacks. The Commerce Department through the CIAO also 

coordinated the development of the national plan for information 

systems protection. President Clinton announced the release of 

version 1.0 of the plan on January 7. This is it. If you do not have 

any, I would be pleased to provide you with thousands of them. 

It represents the first attempt by any national Government to 

design a way to protect those infrastructures essential to the delivery of electric power, oil and gas, communications, transportation 

services, banking and financial services, and vital human services. 

Increasingly, these infrastructures are being operated and conVerDate Apr 24 2002 14:21 Jun 10, 2003 Jkt 078382 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\78382.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
15

trolled through the use of computers and computer networks. My 

full statement, Mr. Chairman, has substantial information about 

the details of the plan that I will pass over in the interest of time. 

Finally, let me make a comment about funding. President Clinton has proposed increases for critical infrastructure protection 

substantially over the past 3 years, including a 15 percent increase 

in his fiscal year 2001 budget to $2.01 billion. He has also developed and funded new initiatives to defend the Nation’s systems 

from cyber attack. For example, establishing a permanent export 

review team at NIST that will help agencies conduct vulnerability 

analyses and develop critical infrastructure protection plans, working to recruit, train, and retrain Federal information technology experts. 

We have developed and provided fiscal year 2001 funding for a 

Federal cyber services training and education initiative led by OPM 

and the National Science Foundation, which calls for two programs. 

The first is an ROTC-like program, where we pay for information 

technology education in exchange for Federal service, and the second is a program to establish competencies and to certify our existing IT work force. As I think you, Mr. Chairman, or Senator Hollings commented that obtaining and retraining information technology workers in the Federal Government, whether it is in the law 

enforcement area or on the civilian side, is an extremely difficult 

thing to do. 

We think this program will be an important first step, in addition to funding seven public key infrastructure model pilot programs in fiscal year 2001 at different Federal agencies, designing 

a Federal intrusion detection network, or FIDNET, to protect vital 

systems in Federal civilian agencies, and ensuring the rapid implementation of system patches for known software defects. FIDNET 

will operate in full compliance with all existing privacy laws. 

Developing Federal R&D efforts. R&D investments in computer 

security will grow by 31 percent in the President’s fiscal year 2001 

budget. Part of that includes establishing an Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection in NIST, as recommended by the 

President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, or 

PiCAST. 

The institute would identify and address serious R&D gaps that 

neither the private sector nor the Government’s national security 

community would otherwise address, but that are necessary to ensure the robust, reliable operation of the national information infrastructure. The President’s 2001 budget provides $150 million for 

the institute. 

Finally, the National Infrastructure Assurance Council, NIAC. 

The President signed an executive order creating this advisory 

council last year. Its members are now being recruited from the 

senior ranks of the critical infrastructure industries, including the 

information technology, State and local Governments, and we expect an announcement about that shortly. 

In addition, the President has announced a number of new initiatives designed to support efforts for enhancing computer security, 

including the $9 million fiscal year 2000 budget supplemental that 

jump starts several of the key elements of next year’s budget that 

I just mentioned. 

16

In closing, Mr. Chairman, let me simply say that in early February Secretary Daley met with the President and 25 senior executives concerned about the recent disruptions to the Internet. This 

meeting reinforced the need for further cooperation between Government and industry to help the private sector to develop its action agenda for cyber security. The incidents of early February are 

not cause, in our judgment, for pushing the panic button, but they 

are a wake-up call for action. 

As the President said, I think there is a way that we can clearly 

promote security. The President submitted a budget proposal that 

funds a number of initiatives that address critical information systems protection. If we are to reap the benefits of the information 

age, we need to take action to maintain public confidence in a secure business environment that ensures both our national security 

and the growth of our economy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Reinsch follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF WILLIAM REINSCH, UNDER SECRETARY OF COMMERCE, 

BUREAU OF EXPORT ADMINISTRATION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Mr. Chairman, I welcome this opportunity to appear before you to discuss the 

Federal Government’s efforts to protect the nation’s critical infrastructures. 

Interdependent computer networks are an integral part of doing business in the 

Information Age. America is increasingly dependent upon computer networks for essential services, such as banking and finance, emergency services, delivery of water, 

electricity and gas, transportation, and voice and data communications. New ways 

of doing business in the 21st century are rapidly evolving. Business is increasingly 

relying on E-commerce for its commercial transactions as well as for its critical operations. At the same time, recent hacking attempts at some of the most popular 

commercial Web sites underscore that America’s information infrastructure is an attractive target for deliberate attack or sabotage. These attacks can originate from 

a host of sources, such as terrorists, criminals, hostile nations, or the equivalent of 

car thief ‘‘joyriders.’’ Regardless of the source, however, the potential for cyber damage to our national security and economy is evident. 

Protecting our critical infrastructures requires that we draw on various assets of 

the Government. When specific incidents or cyber events occur, the Government 

needs a capacity to issue warnings, investigate the incident, and develop a case to 

punish the offenders. The National Information Protection Center at the FBI is organized to deal with such events as they occur. 

Over the long term, the Government also has a duty to be proactive to ensure 

that our computer systems are protected from attack. Critical infrastructure protection involves assets of both the Government and the private sector. A number of 

agencies have responsibilities with respect to Government computer systems. The 

Department of Defense is well on its way to securing its critical systems, and the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the National Institute of Standards 

and Technology at the Department of Commerce (NIST) have responsibility for information resources management of computer systems in Federal agencies. 

I want to make clear that the Federal Government’s responsibility in this area 

with respect to the commission of crimes is only part of the equation. The infrastructures at risk are owned and operated by the private sector. The use of information technology is so embedded in the core operations and customer service delivery 

systems of industry that inevitably, it will be they who must work together to take 

the steps necessary to protect themselves. We can help. The first major step is the 

elevation of awareness across industry of the ‘‘business case for action’’ for leaders 

within industry. They have a commercial interest in maintaining a secure business 

environment that assures public confidence in their institutions. We can also help 

identify problems, good practices in management policies and strategies, and publicize them, encourage planning, promote research and development, convene meetings. In short, we can act as a catalyst for industry to mobilize. That is precisely 

the role the Commerce Department is playing in several ways. 

First, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) 

is lead agency for the communications and information sector. In February, 1999, 

17

NTIA created a Private Sector Coordinator Consortium. This role is filled by representatives from the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA), the 

Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA), and the U.S. Telecom Association 

(USTA). Among their initiatives, the consortium has been raising awareness among 

industry through the exchange of information on threats and vulnerabilities, conducting information security surveys across sectors, and developing and asessing 

CIP-related standards and best practices. 

Another active area is the development of the Partnership for Critical Infrastructure Security. The Partnership is a collaborative effort between industry and Government. This undertaking brings representatives of the infrastructure sectors together in a dialogue with each other and with other stakeholders, including the risk 

management and investment communities, mainstream businesses, and state and 

local Governments. 

The Partnership complements the work of the Federal lead agencies responsible 

for working directly with the industry sectors in developing their critical infrastructure plans, including NTIA’s work with the communications and information technology industries. It also complements the NIPC’s focus on cyber-terrorism by encouraging industry to collaborate on information security issues. 

Secretary Daley, Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information Gregory Rohde, and I met with senior members of over 80 Partnership companies in December in New York. We met again last month in Washington, D.C., with over 220 

senior members of more than 120 Partnership companies to encourage business 

leaders to adopt information security as an integral business practice. The Partnership agreed to address such important issues as, cross-sector vulnerability assessments, information sharing, and R&D requirements. 

The Commerce Department’s Critical Infrastructure Assurance Office (CIAO) also 

is assisting Federal agencies in conducting analyses of their own dependencies on 

critical infrastructures. CIAO has just finished an ambitious pilot program that 

identifies the critical assets of the Commerce Department and maps out dependencies on Governmental and private sector infrastructures. This program will provide important input to managers and security officials as they seek to assure their 

critical assets against cyber attacks. 

The Commerce Department, through the CIAO, coordinated the development of 

the National Plan for Information Systems Protection. President Clinton announced 

the release of Version 1.0 of the Plan on January 7. 

It represents the first attempt by any national Government to design a way to 

protect those infrastructures essential to the delivery of electric power, oil and gas, 

communications, transportation services, banking and financial services, and vital 

human services. Increasingly, these infrastructures are being operated and controlled through the use of computers and computer networks. 

The current version of the Plan focuses mainly on the domestic efforts being undertaken by the Federal Government to protect the Nation’s critical cyber-based infrastructures. Later versions will focus on the efforts of the infrastructure owners 

and operators, as well as the risk management and broader business community. 

Subsequent versions will also reflect to a greater degree the interests and concerns 

expressed by Congress and the general public based on their feedback. That is why 

the Plan is designated Version 1.0 and subtitled An Invitation to a Dialogue—to indicate that it is still a work in progress and that a broader range of perspectives 

must be taken into account if the Plan is truly to be ‘‘national’’ in scope and treatment.

II. The Plan: Overview and Highlights.

President Clinton directed the development of this Plan to chart the way toward 

the attainment of a national capability to defend our critical infrastructures by the 

end of 2003. To meet this ambitious goal, the Plan establishes 10 programs for 

achieving three broad objectives. They are:

Objective 1: Prepare and Prevent: Undertake those steps necessary to minimize the possibility of a significant and successful attack on our critical information 

networks, and build an infrastructure that remains effective in the face of such attacks.

Program 1 calls for the Government and the private sector to identify significant 

assets, interdependencies, and vulnerabilities of critical information networks from 

attack, and to develop and implement realistic programs to remedy the 

vulnerabilities, while continuously updating assessment and remediation efforts.

18

Objective 2: Detect and Respond: Develop the means required to identify and 

assess attacks in a timely way, contain such attacks, recover quickly from them, and 

reconstitute those systems affected.

Program 2 will install multi-layered protection on sensitive computer systems, including advanced fire walls, intrusion detection monitors, anomalous behavior identifiers, enterprise-wide management systems, and malicious code scanners. To protect critical Federal systems, computer security operations centers will receive warnings from these detection devices, as well as Computer Emergency Response Teams 

(CERTs) and other means, in order to analyze the attacks, and assist sites in defeating attacks.

Program 3 will develop robust intelligence and law enforcement capabilities to protect critical information systems, consistent with the law. It will assist, transform, 

and strengthen U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies to be able to deal 

with a new kind of threat and a new kind of criminal—one that acts against computer networks.

Program 4 calls for a more effective nationwide system to share attack warnings 

and information in a timely manner. This includes improving information sharing 

within the Federal Government and encouraging private industry, as well as, state 

and local Governments, to create Information Sharing and Analysis Centers 

(ISACs), which would share information among corporations and state and local 

Governments, and could receive warning information from the Federal Government. 

Program 4 additionally calls for removal of existing legal barriers to information 

sharing.

Program 5 will create capabilities for response, reconstitution, and recovery to limit 

an attack while it is underway and to build into corporate and agency continuity 

and recovery plans the ability to deal with information attacks. The goal for Government and the recommendation for industry is that every critical information system 

have a recovery plan in place that includes provisions for rapidly employing additional defensive measures (e.g., more stringent firewall instructions), cutting off or 

shutting down parts of the network under certain predetermined circumstances 

(through.enterprise-wide management systems), shifting minimal essential operations to ‘‘clean’’ systems, and to quickly reconstitute affected systems.

Objective 3: Build Strong Foundations: Take all actions necessary to create 

and support the Nation’s commitment to Prepare and Prevent and to Detect and Respond to attacks on our critical information networks.

Program 6 will systematically establish research requirements and priorities needed 

to implement the Plan, ensure funding, and create a system to ensure that our information security technology stays abreast with changes in the threat environment.

Program 7 will survey the numbers of people and the skills required for information 

security specialists within the Federal Government and the private sector, and 

takes action to train current Federal IT workers and recruit and educate additional 

personnel to meet shortfalls.

Program 8 will explain publicly the need to act now, before a catastrophic event, 

to improve our ability to defend against deliberate cyber-based attacks.

Program 9 will develop the legislative framework necessary to support initiatives 

proposed in other programs. This action requires intense cooperation within the 

Federal Government, including Congress, and between the Government and private 

industry.

Program 10 builds mechanisms to highlight and address privacy issues in the development of each and every program. Infrastructure assurance goals must be accomplished in a manner that maintains, and even strengthens, American’s privacy and 

civil liberties. The Plan outlines nine specific solutions, which include consulting 

with various communities; focusing on and highlighting the impact of programs on 

personal information; committing to fair information practices and other solutions 

developed by various working groups in multiple industries; and working closely 

with Congress to ensure that each program meets standards established in existing 

Congressional protections.

With respect to funding, President Clinton has proposed increases for critical infrastructure protection substantially over the past three years, including a 15 percent increase in his FY 2001 budget to $2.01 billion. He has also developed and 

funded new initiatives to defend the nation’s systems from cyber attack:

19

• Establishing a permanent Expert Review Team (ERT) at NIST that will help 

agencies conduct vulnerability analyses and develop critical infrastructure protection plans. ($5 million). 

• Working to recruit, train, and retrain Federal IT Experts. We have developed 

and provided FY2001 funding for a Federal Cyber Services Training and Education 

initiative led by OPM and NSF which calls for two programs: the first is an ROTClike program where we pay for IT education (B.S. or M.S.) in exchange for Federal 

service; and the second is a program to establish competencies and certify our existing IT workforce. ($25 million). 

• Funding seven Public Key Infrastructure model pilot programs in FY 2001 at different Federal agencies. ($7 million). 

• Designing a Federal Intrusion Detection Network (FIDNET) to protect vital systems in Federal civilian agencies, and in ensuring the rapid implementation of system ‘‘Apaches’’ for known software defects. FIDNET will operate in full compliance 

with all existing privacy laws. ($10 million). 

• Developing Federal R&D Efforts. R&D investments in computer security will 

grow by 31 percent in the FY 2001 budget. ($606 million). 

• Establishing an Institute for Information Infrastructure Protection. The Institute 

would identify and address serious R&D gaps that neither the private sector nor 

the Government’s national security community would otherwise address, but that 

are necessary to ensure the robust, reliable operation of the national information 

infrastructure. The President’s FY2001 budget provides funding of $50 million for 

the Institute. Funding would be provided through the Commerce Department’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to this organization. The Institute was first proposed by the scientists and corporate officials who served on the 

President’s Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology, and supported by 

leading corporate Chief Technology officers. ($50 million). 

• National Infrastructure Assurance Council (NIAC). The President signed an Executive order creating this Advisory Council last year. Its members are now being 

recruited from senior ranks of the critical infrastructure industries, including the information technology, and state and local Governments.

In addition, the President announced a number of new initiatives designed to support efforts for enhancing computer security, including a $9 million FY 2000 budget 

supplemental to jump-start key elements of next year’s budget. 

In early February, Secretary Daley met with the President and 25 senior executives concerned about the recent disruptions to the Internet. This meeting reinforced 

the need for further cooperation between Government and industry to help the private sector develop its action agenda for cyber security. The incidents of early February are not cause for pushing the panic button, but they are a wake up call for 

action. As the President said, ‘‘I think there is a way that we can clearly promote 

security.’’ The President has submitted a budget proposal that funds a number of 

initiatives that address critical information systems protection. If we are to reap the 

benefits of the Information Age, we need to take action to maintain public confidence in a secure business environment that ensures both our national security 

and the growth of our economy.

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Now we hear from 

Mr. Michael Vatis, Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI here in 

Washington, D.C. It is nice to have you with us this morning. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. VATIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

DIRECTOR, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,

NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAMS 

Mr. VATIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings and 

members of the Subcommittee. I want to thank you for inviting me 

here to discuss the growing problem of cybercrime and its impact 

on commerce. Our ability in law enforcement to deal with this 

growing crime problem will require the support of Congress, and I 

greatly appreciate your support, Mr. Chairman, and this Committee’s support for the work that we have been about these last 2 

years. 

The recent denial of service attacks have thrust the security of 

our information infrastructure into the spotlight, but they are realVerDate Apr 24 2002 14:21 Jun 10, 2003 Jkt 078382 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\78382.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
20

ly only the most recent example of a large and growing problem of 

criminal activity in cyberspace. The cyber revolution has permeated 

many aspects, if not all aspects, of our lives, and we see its effects 

all around us, in the way we do business, in the way we communicate, and even in the way that Government agencies operate. 

Unfortunately, that revolution has a downside, as you mentioned 

in your own statement, Mr. Chairman, and that downside is the effect that cyberspace and the new information technologies have on 

criminal activity, because criminals are increasingly seeing the 

utility of cyber tools both to facilitate traditional sorts of crimes 

like fraud schemes and extortion, and also to engage in new types 

of crimes, where computers and the information stored on them are 

seen as the targets of the criminal activity, rather than just 

facilitators of that activity. 

Thus, we have seen criminals intruding into computers to steal 

credit cards, to steal money, to abscond with proprietary information, and to shut down e-commerce sites. And this is not just a 

crime problem. It is also a national security problem. That is because our Nation’s critical infrastructures—including things such 

as telecommunications, electrical energy, and banking and finance, 

those things that are vital to our national security as well as our 

national economy—are all dependent on computer technology. But 

that very dependence makes them vulnerable to sorts of attacks 

that did not exist 10 or 15 years ago. 

So the same basic types of cyber tools that are attractive now to 

criminals who are interested in illicit financial gain are also attractive to foreign intelligence services who might be seeking ways to 

obtain sensitive Government or private sector information, and also 

to terrorists or hostile foreign nations who are bent on attacking 

United States interests. 

The difficulty of dealing with this challenge stems from the nature of the cyber environment itself. That environment is borderless. It affords easy anonymity and methods of concealment to bad 

actors, and it provides new tools that allow remote access to targeted computers. A criminal sitting on the other side of the planet 

is just as capable of stealthily infiltrating a computer network, or 

shutting an e-commerce site down, as is somebody sitting across 

the street from his target. 

To deal with this problem in all its novel aspects, law enforcement must retool its work force, forge new partnerships with private industry and other agencies, and also work closely with our 

international counterparts, because so many of these events transcend national boundaries. 

We have been doing all of these things for the last two years at 

the NIPC, but we must ensure that we can continue to build on 

our progress to ensure that we can protect the Nation’s public safety and national security in the information age. 

As you know, the NIPC is an interagency center located at the 

FBI, and we serve as a focal point for the Government’s efforts, on 

the one hand, to warn of imminent or impending attacks, and also, 

on the other hand, to respond to any attacks that do occur. Regarding the number of our personnel, we have 94 authorized FBI positions at the NIPC, and we have 82 of those 94 people on board, 

21

with the other dozen people in the pipeline and scheduled to come 

on board shortly. 

We have a target of 40 detailees from other Government agencies—which is simply a target, since we are left, really, to the beneficence of other agencies to send people over to us to work with 

us, and we have got about half of our target on board, with some 

candidates in the pipeline as well that will come from those other 

agencies. But one of our challenges is to work with other agencies 

to get some people who have the right skills. Unfortunately there 

is a limited supply of those people in the Government, but we are 

working effectively with other agencies to ensure that they are represented at the Center, so we can build a good operational partnership. 

We also have, in addition to the Center itself, an investigative 

program across the FBI field offices around the Nation, which consists of 193 special agents who are trained in conducting network 

investigations and who also engage in critical liaison with the private sector, and, very importantly, with State and local law enforcement, since they obviously must bear a large share of the load 

in dealing with this crime problem. 

My written statement has a lengthy summary of examples of the 

many different types of cybercrime that we have dealt with over 

the last two years. I will mention here just two recent examples 

which I think point out the challenge and also the effects of 

cybercrime on e-commerce. Last Fall, we had the Melissa virus, 

which was a very quickly disseminating virus that affected numerous, customers and businesses. Within several days, working with 

AOL and the New Jersey State police, we were able to track down 

the propagator of that virus, and he recently pled guilty to both 

Federal and State charges. In his guilty plea, he admitted to affecting over a million computers and causing $80 million in damage 

from that one virus. 

Then in February of this year, we had the distributed denial of 

service (DDOS) attacks on some of the most popular e-commerce 

sites, as the Deputy Attorney General mentioned. I, too, am limited 

in what I can say here about this pending investigation, but I can 

make a couple of points. First, even before the investigation, at the 

end of last year, when we had information that some of the malicious DDOS software was being implanted in universities and 

other private sector networks that would allow a hacker to take 

over those systems and use them to attack another target, we 

issued warnings to Government agencies and to the private sector 

so that people could take steps to see whether their own networks 

had been taken over without their knowledge, and so that they 

could remove any malicious code. 

We also released a detection tool that we had created mainly for 

investigative uses, but which we also realized had possible utility 

for network protection. We made that tool available to private companies and Government agencies so that they could determine 

whether their networks had been taken over by a hacker. 

Unfortunately, those efforts did not totally eliminate the threat, 

and at the beginning of last month we did see numerous sites being 

taken offline for several hours. As a result, we have initiated several investigations across the country. We have numerous special 

22

agents following leads. We are also working very closely with several international counterparts to follow leads in their countries. 

Although I cannot go into detail, I can say we are making excellent 

progress. I am very satisfied with the progress we are making, and 

I am optimistic about the likelihood of having a successful resolution of at least some of these investigations. 

Addressing the threat of cybercrime requires teamwork. That is 

the bottom line. We have to have good teamwork among Federal 

agencies, good teamwork between Federal and State and local law 

enforcement, and good teamwork between the Government and private sector. 

We have developed partnerships with all of those other sectors 

over the last two years, and the one with the private sector is particularly important. Most of the victims of cybercrime are private 

companies, so successful investigation really depends on private 

companies letting us know when they have been victimized and 

working with us to provide us with incident information, and sometimes with technical assistance so that we can pursue investigations to the end. 

The network administrator in a private company is oftentimes in 

many ways the lead investigator, because he or she is the one who 

really knows how his or her network is set up, and can lead an 

agent through the thicket of the network and come up with the important information that is necessary to an investigation. 

I think the number of companies that have reported to us and 

have cooperated with us in the DDOS investigations is proof of the 

fact that private companies are realizing that they have to deal 

with law enforcement, and they are willing to engage in a good, cooperative venture with us. One of the keys to having a successful 

relationship with the private sector is for us to be able to demonstrate that we are capable of investigating these sorts of crimes. 

I think our track record over the last two years has shown that 

competence, and shown that we know how to investigate these 

cases, and our training efforts are enhancing our ability to do that. 

We also need to show that we are willing to give information 

back to the private sector. We do not just want them to report to 

us. We are capable and willing to give them warnings when we 

have relevant information, and also to give them information about 

the nature of the threat and some of the technical exploits that we 

are seeing bad guys use. We have a number of programs that are 

geared toward sharing that information back to the private sector, 

which in turn is helping us to generate the confidence on the private sector’s part that they can work with us. 

I think it is a truism that commerce does not thrive in anarchy, 

and as Internet use soars, and e-commerce becomes a more significant part of our overall economy, it is in our national interest to 

ensure that the conditions exist that will foster the further growth 

of e-commerce. One of the conditions for that growth is enhancing 

the security of e-commerce sites so that customers can be confident 

that their privacy will be protected and that their credit cards will 

not be stolen, and so that businesses can be assured that they will 

not be knocked offline or robbed by cyber criminals. 

Law enforcement has a significant role to play in fostering that 

security and ensuring that that confidence exists in cyberspace just 

23

as in the physical world. It is important that we maintain and enhance our investigation capabilities to help establish that confidence and raise the level of security. We are only a part of the 

task, and the private sector bears the lion’s share of the load in establishing better security on their own systems. But our role is a 

significant one, and we are very much tending to the business of 

ensuring that we can meet the challenge. I look forward to working 

with you, Mr. Chairman, and this Subcommittee to ensure that we 

continue to meet that threat. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Vatis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. VATIS, DEPUTY ASSISTANT DIRECTOR,

FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, NATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION

PROGRAMS

Introduction

Mr. Chairman, Senator Hollings, and Members of the Subcommittee: Thank you 

for inviting me to discuss the threats to our Nation’s critical infrastructures and the 

NIPC’s approach to meeting those challenges. In 1998 the National Infrastructure 

Protection Center (NIPC) was established as a focal point for the Federal Government’s efforts to protect the critical infrastructures. Much has happened since then 

to demonstrate both the wisdom of establishing such a Center and the seriousness 

of the problem it was designed to address. In the last two years we have seen the 

spread of destructive computer viruses affecting millions of users, a major international intrusion into Government computer networks, and denial-of-service attacks against some of the most popular e-commerce websites. Today I will focus on 

the nature of the national security and criminal threats we face in cyberspace, the 

progress we have made with our interagency partners in meeting those threats, and 

the continuing challenges we face.

The NIPC

The NIPC is an interagency Center located at the FBI. Created in 1998, the NIPC 

serves as the focal point for the Government’s efforts to warn of and respond to 

cyber attacks, particularly those that are directed at our nation’s ‘‘critical infrastructures.’’ These infrastructures include telecommunications and information, energy, 

banking and finance, transportation, Government operations, and emergency services. In Presidential Decision Directive (PDD) 63, the President directed that the 

NIPC serve as a ‘‘national critical infrastructure threat assessment, warning, vulnerability, and law enforcement investigation and response entity.’’ The PDD further states that the mission of the NIPC ‘‘will include providing timely warnings 

of intentional threats, comprehensive analyses and law enforcement investigation 

and response.’’

To accomplish its goals, the NIPC is organized into three sections:

The Computer Investigations and Operations Section (CIOS) is the operational response arm of the Center. It supports and, where necessary, coordinates computer 

investigations conducted by FBI field offices and other agencies throughout the 

country, provides expert technical assistance to network investigations, and provides 

a cyber emergency response capability to coordinate the response to a national-level 

cyber incident. 

The Analysis and Warning Section (AWS) serves as the ‘‘indications and warning’’

arm of the NIPC. It provides tactical analytical support during a cyber incident, and 

also develops strategic analyses of threats for dissemination to both Government 

and private sector entities so that they can take appropriate steps to protect themselves. Through its 24/7 watch and warning operation, it maintains a real-time situational awareness by reviewing numerous Governmental and ‘‘open’’ sources of information and by maintaining communications with partner entities in the Government and private sector. Through its efforts, the AWS strives to acquire indications 

of a possible attack, assess the information, and issue appropriate warnings to Government and private sector partners as quickly as possible 

The Training, Outreach and Strategy Section (TOSS) coordinates the vital training of cyber investigators in the FBI field offices, other Federal agencies, and state 

and local law enforcement. It also coordinates outreach to private industry and GovVerDate Apr 24 2002 14:21 Jun 10, 2003 Jkt 078382 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\78382.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
24

ernment agencies to build the partnerships that are key to both our investigative 

and our warning missions. In addition, this section manages our efforts to catalogue 

information about individual ‘‘key assets’’ across the country which, if successfully 

attacked, could have significant repercussions on our economy or national security. 

Finally, the TOSS handles the development of strategy and policy in conjunction 

with other agencies and the Congress. 

Beyond the NIPC at FBI Headquarters, we have also created a cybercrime investigative program in all FBI Field Offices called the National Infrastructure Protection and Computer Intrusion (NIPCI) Program. This program, managed by the 

NIPC, consists of special agents in each FBI Field Office who are responsible for 

investigating computer intrusions, viruses, or denial of service attacks, for implementing our key asset initiative, and for conducting critical liaison activities with 

private industry. They are also developing cybercrime task forces in partnership 

with state and local law enforcement entities within their jurisdiction to leverage 

the limited resources in this area.

The Broad Spectrum of Threats

Over the past several years we have seen a wide range of cyber threats ranging 

from defacement of websites by juveniles to sophisticated intrusions that we suspect 

may be sponsored by foreign powers, and everything in between. Some of these are 

obviously more significant than others. The theft of national security information 

from a Government agency or the interruption of electrical power to a major metropolitan area would have greater consequences for national security, public safety, 

and the economy than the defacement of a web-site. 

But even the less serious categories have real consequences and, ultimately, can 

undermine confidence in e-commerce and violate privacy or property rights. A web 

site hack that shuts down an e-commerce site can have disastrous consequences for 

a business. An intrusion that results in the theft of credit card numbers from an 

online vendor can result in significant financial loss and, more broadly, reduce consumers’ willingness to engage in e-commerce. Recent surveys confirm this point. According to a poll of Internet users by PC Data Online, 90 percent of those surveyed 

are concerned about the recent denial of service attacks. One in three surveyed said 

they were affected by the DDOS attacks. Further, over 40 percent of those surveyed 

said that they would be less likely to send credit card information over the Internet 

in the future. 

Such surveys demonstrate the simple fact that the Internet has become a major 

aspect of everyday life for many Americans and is fast becoming a major part of 

our economy. There were over 100 million Internet users in the United States in 

1999. That number is projected to reach 177 million in the United States and 502 

million worldwide by the end of 2003. Electronic commerce has emerged as a new 

sector of the American economy, accounting for over $100 billion in sales during 

1999, more than double the amount in 1998. By 2003, electronic commerce is projected to exceed $1 trillion. It should be no surprise, then, that as Internet use and 

e-commerce continue to grow at a rapid pace, the rate of cybercrime is also rising 

dramatically. 

A significant part of the problem is the lack of adequate security on the Internet. 

As Lou Gerstner, the CEO of IBM said in a speech at Boston College on Monday, 

‘‘No brick-and-mortar company would ever consider opening its doors without locks, 

video cameras and a security staff. Yet every day hundreds of Web enterprises do 

just that.’’ A fundamental need, therefore, is to raise the level of security on the 

Internet. This is clearly the role of the private sector. The Government has neither 

the responsibility nor the expertise to act as the private sector’s system administrator. We can help, however, by providing information to the private sector about 

concrete threats and the latest techniques being utilized by cyber criminals, so that 

private companies can take steps to secure their systems against those threats. We 

also need to ensure that law enforcement has the capabilities to investigate 

cybercrime that does occur.

The following are some of the categories of cyber threats that we confront today.

Insiders. The disgruntled insider (a current or former employee of a company) is 

a principal source of computer crimes for many companies. Insiders’ knowledge of 

the target companies’ network often allows them to gain unrestricted access to cause 

damage to the system or to steal proprietary data. The 1999 Computer Security Institute/FBI report notes that 55 percent of respondents reported malicious activity 

by insiders. 

One example of an insider was George Parente. In 1997, Parente was arrested 

for causing five network servers at the publishing company Forbes, Inc., to crash. 

Parente was a former Forbes computer technician who had been terminated from 

25

temporary employment. In what appears to have been a vengeful act against the 

company and his supervisors, Parente dialed into the Forbes computer system from 

his residence and gained access through a co-worker’s log-in and password. Once online, he caused five of the eight Forbes computer network servers to crash, and 

erased all of the server volume on each of the affected servers. No data could be 

restored. Parente’s sabotage resulted in a two day shut down in Forbes’ New York 

operations with losses exceeding $100,000. Parente pleaded guilty to one count of 

violating of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, Title 18 U.S.C. 1030. 

Hackers. Hackers (or ‘‘crackers’’) are also a common threat. They sometimes crack 

into networks simply for the thrill of the challenge or for bragging rights in the 

hacker community. Recently, however, we have seen more cases of hacking for illicit 

financial gain or other malicious purposes. While remote cracking once required a 

fair amount of skill or computer knowledge, hackers can now download attack 

scripts and protocols from the World Wide Web and launch them against victim 

sites. Thus while attack tools have become more sophisticated, they have also become easier to use. The distributed denial-of-service (DDOS) attacks earlier this 

month are only the most recent illustration of the economic disruption that can be 

caused by tools now readily available on the Internet. 

We have also seen a rise recently in politically motivated attacks on web pages 

or email servers, which some have dubbed ‘‘hacktivism.’’ In these incidents, groups 

and individuals overload e-mail servers or deface web sites to send a political message. While these attacks generally have not altered operating systems or networks, 

they have disrupted services, caused monetary loss, and denied the public access to 

websites containing valuable information, thereby infringing on others’ rights to disseminate and receive information. 

Virus Transmitters. Virus transmitters are posing an increasingly serious threat 

to networks and systems worldwide. Last year saw the proliferation of several destructive computer viruses or ‘‘worms,’’ including the Melissa Macro Virus, the Explore.Zip worm, and the CIH (Chernobyl) Virus. The NIPC frequently sends out 

warnings or advisories regarding particularly dangerous viruses, which can allow 

potential victims to take protective steps and minimize the destructive consequences 

of a virus. 

The Melissa Macro Virus was a good example of our two-fold response—encompassing both warning and investigation—to a virus spreading in the networks. The 

NIPC sent out warnings as soon as it had solid information on the virus and its 

effects; these warnings helped alert the public and reduce the potential destructive 

impact of the virus. On the investigative side, the NIPC acted as a central point 

of contact for the field offices who worked leads on the case. A tip received by the 

New Jersey State Police from America Online, and their follow-up investigation 

with the FBI’s Newark Division, led to the April 1, 1999 arrest of David L. Smith. 

Mr. Smith pleaded guilty to one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1030 in Federal 

Court, and to four state felony counts. As part of his guilty plea, Smith stipulated 

to affecting one million computer systems and causing $80 million in damage. Smith 

is awaiting sentencing. 

Criminal Groups. We are also seeing the increased use of cyber intrusions by 

criminal groups who attack systems for purposes of monetary gain. In September, 

1999, two members of a group dubbed the ‘‘Phonemasters’’ were sentenced after 

their conviction for theft and possession of unauthorized access devices (18 USC 

§ 1029) and unauthorized access to a Federal interest computer (18 USC § 1030). 

The ‘‘Phonemasters’’ were an international group of criminals who penetrated the 

computer systems of MCI, Sprint, AT&T, Equifax, and even the National Crime Information Center. Under judicially approved electronic surveillance orders, the FBI’s 

Dallas Division made use of new data intercept technology to monitor the calling 

activity and modem pulses of one of the suspects, Calvin Cantrell. Mr. Cantrell 

downloaded thousands of Sprint calling card numbers, which he sold to a Canadian 

individual, who passed them on to someone in Ohio. These numbers made their way 

to an individual in Switzerland and eventually ended up in the hands of organized 

crime groups in Italy. Cantrell was sentenced to two years as a result of his guilty 

plea, while one of his associates, Cory Lindsay, was sentenced to 41 months. 

The Phonemasters’ methods included ‘‘dumpster diving’’ to gather old phone books 

and technical manuals for systems. They used this information to trick employees 

into giving up their logon and password information. The group then used this information to break into victim systems. It is important to remember that often 

‘‘cybercrimes’’ are facilitated by old fashioned guile, such as calling employees and 

tricking them into giving up passwords. Good cyber security practices must therefore address personnel security and ‘‘social engineering’’ in addition to instituting 

electronic security measures. 

26

Another example of cyber intrusions used to implement a criminal conspiracy involved Vladimir L. Levin and numerous accomplices who illegally transferred more 

than $10 million in funds from three Citibank corporate customers to bank accounts 

in California, Finland, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Israel between 

June and October 1994. Levin, a Russian computer expert, gained access over 40 

times to Citibank’s cash management system using a personal computer and stolen 

passwords and identification numbers. Russian telephone company employees working with Citibank were able to trace the source of the transfers to Levin’s employer 

in St. Petersburg, Russia. Levin was arrested in March 1995 in London and subsequently extradited to the U.S. On February 24, 1998, he was sentenced to three 

years in prison and ordered to pay Citibank $240,000 in restitution. Four of Levin’s 

accomplices pleaded guilty and one was arrested but could not be extradited. 

Citibank was able to recover all but $400,000 of the $10 million illegally transferred 

funds. 

Unfortunately, cyberspace provides new tools not only for criminals, but for national security threats as well. These include terrorists, foreign intelligence agencies, and foreign militaries. Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet testified 

in February 2000, before the Senate Armed Services Committee, that many of the 

tools and weapons that can be used for information warfare purposes are ‘‘available 

on the open market at relatively little cost.’’ The DCI went on to note that the critical threat of IW lies in its potential as a ‘‘force multiplier’’ for an adversary of the 

United States.

Three major categories of threat actors pose a national security challenge to the 

United States in cyberspace.

Terrorists. Terrorists groups are increasingly using new information technology 

and the Internet to formulate plans, raise funds, spread propaganda, and to communicate securely. In his statement on the worldwide threat in 2000, Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet testified that terrorists groups, ‘‘including Hizbollah, 

HAMAS, the Abu Nidal organization, and Bin Laden’s al Qaeda organization are 

using computerized files, e-mail, and encryption to support their operations.’’ In one 

example, convicted terrorist Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the World Trade Center bombing, stored detailed plans to destroy United States airliners on encrypted 

files on his laptop computer. While we have not yet seen these groups employ cyber 

tools as a weapon to use against critical infrastructures, their reliance on information technology and acquisition of computer expertise are clear warning signs. Moreover, we have seen other terrorist groups, such as the Internet Black Tigers (who 

are reportedly affiliated with the Tamil Tigers), engage in attacks on foreign Government web-sites and email servers. ‘‘Cyber terrorism’’—by which I mean the use 

of cyber tools to shut down critical national infrastructures (such as energy, transportation, or Government operations) for the purpose of coercing or intimidating a 

Government or civilian population—is thus a very real, though still largely potential, threat. 

Foreign intelligence services. Not surprisingly, foreign intelligence services have 

adapted to using cyber tools as part of their espionage tradecraft. Even as far back 

as 1986, before the worldwide surge in Internet use, the KGB employed West German hackers to access Department of Defense systems in the well-known ‘‘Cuckoo’s 

Egg’’ case. While I cannot go into specifics about more recent developments in an 

open hearing, it should not surprise anyone to hear that foreign intelligence services 

increasingly view computer intrusions as a useful tool for acquiring sensitive U.S. 

Government and private sector information. 

Information Warfare. The prospect of ‘‘information warfare’’ by foreign militaries 

against our critical infrastructures is perhaps the greatest potential cyber threat to 

our national security. We know that several foreign nations are developing information warfare doctrine, programs, and capabilities for use against the United States 

or other nations. Knowing that they cannot match our military might with conventional or ‘‘kinetic’’ weapons, nations see cyber attacks on our critical infrastructures 

or military operations as a way to hit what they perceive as America’s Achilles 

heel—our growing dependence on information technology in Government and commercial operations. For example, two Chinese military officers recently published a 

book that called for the use of unconventional measures, including the propagation 

of computer viruses, to counterbalance the military power of the United States. And 

a Russian official has also commented that an attack on a critical infrastructure 

could, ‘‘by virtue of its catastrophic consequences, completely overlap with the use 

of [weapons] of mass destruction.’’

27

Distributed Denial of Service Tools

The recent distributed denial of service (DDOS) attacks on e-commerce sites have 

garnered a tremendous amount of interest in the public and in the Congress. While 

we do not yet have official damage estimates, the Yankee Group, a research firm, 

estimates the impact of the attacks at $1.2 billion due to lost capitalization losses, 

lost revenues, and security upgrades. Because we are actively investigating these attacks, I cannot provide a detailed briefing on the status of our efforts. However, I 

can provide an overview of our activities to deal with the DDOS threat beginning 

last year and of our investigative efforts over the last three weeks. These attacks 

illustrate the growing availability of destructive, yet easy-to-use, exploits that are 

widely available on the Internet. They also demonstrate the NIPC’s two-fold mission: sharing information with the private sector and warning of possible threats, 

and responding to actual attacks. 

In the fall of last year, the NIPC began receiving reports about a new set of ‘‘exploits’’ or attack tools collectively called distributed denial of service (or DDOS) 

tools. DDOS variants include tools known as ‘‘Trin00,’’ ‘‘Tribal Flood Net’’ (TFN), 

‘‘TFN2K,’’ and ‘‘Stacheldraht’’ (German for ‘‘barbed wire’’). These tools essentially 

work as follows: hackers gain unauthorized access to a computer system(s) and 

place software code on it that renders that system a ‘‘master’’ (or a ‘‘handler’’). The 

hackers also intrude into other networks and place malicious code which makes 

those systems into agents (also known as ‘‘zombies’’ or ‘‘daemons’’ or ‘‘slaves’’). Each 

Master is capable of controlling multiple agents. In both cases, the network owners 

normally are not aware that dangerous tools have been placed and reside on their 

systems, thus becoming third-party victims to the intended crime. 

The ‘‘Masters’’ are activated either remotely or by internal programming (such as 

a command to begin an attack at a prescribed time) and are used to send information to the agents, activating their DDOS ability. The agents then generate numerous requests to connect with the attack’s ultimate target(s), typically using a fictitious or ‘‘spoofed’’ IP (Internet Protocol) address, thus providing a falsified identity 

as to the source of the request. The agents act in unison to generate a high volume 

of traffic from several sources. This type of attack is referred to as a SYN flood, as 

the SYN is the initial effort by the sending computer to make a connection with the 

destination computer. Due to the volume of SYN requests the destination computer 

becomes overwhelmed in its efforts to acknowledge and complete a transaction with 

the sending computers, degrading or denying its ability to complete service with legitimate customers—hence the term ‘‘Denial of Service’’. These attacks are especially damaging when they are coordinated from multiple sites—hence the term Distributed Denial of Service. 

An analogy would be if someone launched an automated program to have hundreds of phone calls placed to the Capitol switchboard at the same time. All of the 

good efforts of the staff would be overcome. Many callers would receive busy signals 

due to the high volume of telephone traffic. 

In November and December, the NIPC received reports that universities and others were detecting the presence of hundreds of agents on their networks. The number of agents detected clearly could have been only a small subset of the total number of agents actually deployed. In addition, we were concerned that some malicious 

actors might choose to launch a DDOS attack around New Year’s Eve in order to 

cause disruption and gain notoriety due to the great deal of attention that was being 

payed to the Y2K rollover. Accordingly, we decided to issue a series of alerts in December to Government agencies, industry, and the public about the DDOS threat. 

Moreover, in late December, we determined that a detection tool that we had developed for investigative purposes might also be used by network operators to detect 

the presence of DDOS agents or masters on their operating systems, and thus would 

enable them to remove an agent or master and prevent the network from being unwittingly utilized in a DDOS attack. Moreover, at that time there was, to our knowledge, no similar detection tool available commercially. We therefore decided to take 

the unusual step of releasing the tool to the Department of Defense, other Government agencies, and to the public in an effort to reduce the level of the threat. We 

made the first variant of our software available on the NIPC web site on December 

30, 1999. To maximize the public awareness of this tool, we announced its availability in an FBI press release that same date. Since the first posting of the tool, 

we have posted three updated versions that have perfected the software and made 

it applicable to different operating systems. 

The public has downloaded these tools tens of thousands of times from the web 

site, and has responded by reporting many installations of the DDOS software, 

thereby preventing their networks from being used in attacks and leading to the 

opening of criminal investigations both before and after the widely publicized atVerDate Apr 24 2002 14:21 Jun 10, 2003 Jkt 078382 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\78382.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
28

tacks of the last few weeks. Our work with private companies has been so well received that the trade group SANS awarded their yearly Security Technology Leadership Award to members of the NIPC’s Special Technologies Applications Unit. 

Last month, we received reports that a new variation of DDOS tools was being 

found on Windows operating systems. One victim entity provided us with the object 

code to the tool found on its network. On February 18 we made the binaries available to anti-virus companies (through an industry association) and the Computer 

Emergency Response Team (CERT) at Carnegie Mellon University for analysis and 

so that commercial vendors could create or adjust their products to detect the new 

DDOS variant. Given the attention that DDOS tools have received in recent weeks, 

there are now numerous detection and security products to address this threat, so 

we determined that we could be most helpful by giving them the necessary code 

rather than deploying a detection tool ourselves. 

Unfortunately, the warnings that we and others in the security community had 

issued about DDOS tools last year, while alerting many potential victims and reducing the threat, did not eliminate the threat. Quite frequently, even when a threat 

is known and patches or detection tools are available, network operators either remain unaware of the problem or fail to take necessary protective steps. In addition, 

in the cyber equivalent of an arms race, exploits evolve as hackers design variations 

to evade or overcome detection software and filters. Even security-conscious companies that put in place all available security measures therefore are not invulnerable. 

And, particularly with DDOS tools, one organization might be the victim of a successful attack despite its best efforts, because another organization failed to take 

steps to keep itself from being made the unwitting participant in an attack. 

On February 7, 2000, the NIPC received reports that Yahoo had experienced a 

denial of service attack. In a display of the close cooperative relationship that we 

have developed with the private sector, in the days that followed, several other companies (including Cable News Network, eBay, Amazon.com, Buy.com, and ZDNET), 

also reported denial of service outages to the NIPC or FBI field offices. These companies cooperated with us by providing critical logs and other information. Still, the 

challenges to apprehending the suspects are substantial. In many cases, the 

attackers used ‘‘spoofed’’ IP addresses, meaning that the address that appeared on 

the target’s log was not the true address of the system that sent the messages. In 

addition, many victims do not keep complete network logs. 

The resources required in an investigation of this type are substantial. Companies 

have been victimized or used as ‘‘hop sites’’ in numerous places across the country, 

meaning that we must deploy special agents nationwide to work leads. We currently 

have seven FBI field offices with cases opened and all the remaining offices are supporting the offices that have opened cases. Agents from these offices are following 

up literally hundreds of leads. The NIPC is coordinating the nationwide investigative effort, performing technical analysis of logs from victims sites and Internet 

Service Providers (ISPs), and providing all-source analytical assistance to field offices. Moreover, parts of the evidentiary trail have led overseas, requiring us to 

work with our foreign counterparts in several countries through our Legal Attaches 

(Legats) in U.S. embassies. 

While the crime may be high tech, investigating it involves a substantial amount 

of traditional investigative work as well as highly technical work. Interviews of network operators and confidential sources can provide very useful information, which 

leads to still more interviews and leads to follow-up. And victim sites and ISPs provide an enormous amount of log information that needs to be processed and analyzed by human analysts. 

Despite these challenges, I am optimistic that the hard work of our agents, analysts, and computer scientists; the excellent cooperation and collaboration we have 

with private industry and universities; and the teamwork we are engaged in with 

foreign partners will in the end prove successful.

Interagency Cooperation

The broad spectrum of cyber threats described earlier, ranging from hacking to 

foreign espionage and information warfare, requires not just new technologies and 

skills on the part of investigators, but new organizational constructs as well. In 

most cyber attacks, the identity, location, and objective of the perpetrator are not 

immediately apparent. Nor is the scope of his attack—i.e., whether an intrusion is 

isolated or part of a broader pattern affecting numerous targets. This means it is 

often impossible to determine at the outset if an intrusion is an act of cyber vandalism, organized crime, domestic or foreign terrorism, economic or traditional espionage, or some form of strategic military attack. The only way to determine the 

source, nature, and scope of the incident is to gather information from the victim 

sites and intermediate sites such as ISPs and telecommunications carriers. Under 

29

our constitutional system, such information typically can be gathered only pursuant 

to criminal investigative authorities. This is why the NIPC is part of the FBI, allowing us to utilize the FBI’s legal authorities to gather and retain information and to 

act on it, consistent with constitutional and statutory requirements. 

But the dimension and varied nature of the threats also means that this is an 

issue that concerns not just the FBI and law enforcement agencies, but also the Department of Defense, the Intelligence Community, and civilian agencies with infrastructure-focused responsibility such as the Departments of Energy and Transportation. It also is a matter that greatly affects state and local law enforcement. This 

is why the NIPC is an interagency center, with representatives detailed to the FBI 

from numerous Federal agencies and representation from state and local law enforcement as well. These representatives operate under the direction and authority 

of the FBI, but bring with them expertise and skills from their respective home 

agencies that enable better coordination and cooperation among all relevant agencies, consistent with applicable laws. 

We have had many instances in the last two years where this interagency cooperation has proven critical. As mentioned earlier, the case of the Melissa virus 

was successfully resolved with the first successful Federal prosecution of a virus 

propagator in over a decade because of close teamwork between the NIPCI squad 

in the FBI’s Newark Division and other field offices, the New Jersey State Police, 

and the NIPC. 

The ‘‘Solar Sunrise’’ case is another example of close teamwork with other agencies. In 1998, computer intrusions into U.S. military computer systems occurred 

during the Iraq weapons inspection crisis. Hackers exploited known vulnerabilities 

in Sun Solaris operating systems. Some of the intrusions appeared to be coming 

from the Middle East. The timing, nature, and apparent source of some of the attacks raised concerns in the Pentagon that this could be a concerted effort by Iraq 

to interfere with U.S. troop deployments. NIPC coordinated a multi-agency investigation which included the FBI, the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Justice, the Defense Information Systems Agency, the National Security Agency, and the Central 

Intelligence Agency. Within several days, the investigation determined that the intrusions were not the work of Iraq, but of several teenagers in the U.S. and Israel. 

Two juveniles in California pleaded guilty to the intrusions, and several Israelis still 

await trial. The leader of the Israeli group, Ehud Tenenbaum, has been indicted and 

is currently scheduled for trial in Israel in April. 

More recently, we observed a series of intrusions into numerous Department of 

Defense and other Federal Government computer networks and private sector entities. Investigation last year determined that the intrusions appear to have originated in Russia. The intruder successfully accessed U.S. Government networks and 

took large amounts of unclassified but sensitive information, including defense technical research information. The NIPC coordinated a multi-agency investigation, 

working closely with FBI field offices, the Department of Defense, and the Intelligence Community. While I cannot go into more detail about this case here, it demonstrates the very real threat we face in the cyber realm, and the need for good 

teamwork and coordination among Government agencies responsible for responding 

to the threat.

Private Sector Cooperation

Our success in battling cybercrime also depends on close cooperation with private 

industry. This is the case for several reasons. First, most of the victims of 

cybercrimes are private companies. Therefore, successful investigation and prosecution of cybercrimes depends on private victims reporting incidents to law enforcement and cooperating with the investigators. Contrary to press statements by cyber 

security companies that private companies won’t share information with law enforcement, many private companies have reported incidents and threats to the NIPC 

or FBI field offices. The number of victims who have voluntarily reported DDOS attacks to us over the last few weeks is ample proof of this. While there are undoubtedly companies that would prefer not to report a crime because of fear of public embarrassment over a security lapse, the situation has improved markedly. Companies 

increasingly realize that deterrence of crime depends on effective law enforcement, 

and that the long-term interests of industry depend on establishing a good working 

relationship with Government to prevent and investigate crime.

Testimony two weeks ago before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for 

Commerce, State, and Justice by Robert Chesnut, Associate General Counsel for 

eBay, illustrates this point:

30

Prior to last week’s attacks, eBay had established a close working relationship 

with the computer crimes squad within the Northern California office of the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (‘‘FBI’’). eBay has long recognized that the best 

way to combat cybercrime, whether it’s fraud or hacking, is by working cooperatively with law enforcement. Therefore, last year we established procedures for 

notifying the FBI in the event of such an attack on our web site. As result of 

this preparation, we were able to contact the FBI computer intrusion squad during the attack and provide them with information that we expect will assist in 

their investigation. In the aftermath of the attack, eBay has also been able to 

provide the FBI with additional leads that have come to our attention.

Second, the network administrator at a victim company or ISP is critical to the 

success of an investigation. Only that administrator knows the unique configuration 

of her system, and she typically must work with an investigator to find critical 

transactional data that will yield evidence of a criminal’s activity. 

Third, the private sector has the technical expertise that is often critical to resolving an investigation. It would be impossible for us to retain experts in every possible 

operating system or network configuration, so private sector assistance is critical. 

In addition, many investigations require the development of unique technical tools 

to deal with novel problems. Private sector assistance has been critical there as 

well. 

We have several other initiatives devoted to private sector outreach that bear 

mentioning here. The first is called ‘‘InfraGard.’’ This is an initiative that we have 

developed in concert with private companies and academia to encourage information-sharing about cyber intrusions, exploited vulnerabilities, and physical infrastructure threats. A vital component of InfraGard is the ability of industry to provide information on intrusions to the local FBI field office using secure e-mail communications in both a ‘‘sanitized’’ and detailed format. The local FBI field offices 

can, if appropriate, use the detailed version to initiate an investigation; while NIPC 

Headquarters can analyze that information in conjunction with other information 

we obtain to determine if the intrusion is part of a broader attack on numerous 

sites. The NIPC can simultaneously use the sanitized version to inform other members of the intrusion without compromising the confidentiality of the reporting company. The key to this system is that whether, and what, to report is entirely up 

to the reporting company. A secure web site also contains a variety of analytic and 

warning products that we make available to the InfraGard community. The success 

of InfraGard is premised on the notion that sharing is a two-way street: the NIPC 

will provide threat information that companies can use to protect their systems, 

while companies will provide incident information that can be used to initiate an 

investigation and to warn other companies. 

Our Key Asset Initiative (KAI) is focused more specifically on the owners and operators of critical components of each of the infrastructure sectors. It facilitates response to threats and incidents by building liaison and communication links with 

the owners and operators of individual companies and enabling contingency planning. The KAI began in the 1980s and focused on physical vulnerabilities to terrorism. Under the NIPC, the KAI has been reinvigorated and expanded to focus on 

cyber vulnerabilities as well. The KAI currently involves determining which assets 

are key within the jurisdiction of each FBI Field Office and obtaining 24-hour points 

of contact at each asset in cases of emergency. Eventually, if future resources permit, the initiative will include the development of contingency plans to respond to 

attacks on each asset, exercises to test response plans, and modeling to determine 

the effects of an attack on particular assets. FBI field offices are responsible for developing a list of the assets within their respective jurisdictions, while the NIPC 

maintains the national database. The KAI is being developed in coordination with 

DOD and other agencies. Currently the database has about 2600 entries. This represents 2600 contacts with key private sector nodes made by the NIPC and FBI field 

offices. 

A third initiative is a pilot program we have begun with the North American Electrical Reliability Council (NERC). Under the pilot program, electric utility companies and other power entities transmit cyber incident reports in near real time to 

the NIPC. These reports are analyzed and assessed to determine whether an NIPC 

warning, alert, or advisory is warranted. Electric power participants in the pilot program have stated that the information and analysis provided by the NIPC back to 

the power companies fully justify their participation in the program. It is our expectation that the Electrical Power Indications and Warning System will provide a fullfledged model for the other critical infrastructures. 

Much has been said over the last few years about the importance of information 

sharing. Since our founding, the NIPC has been actively engaged in building conVerDate Apr 24 2002 14:21 Jun 10, 2003 Jkt 078382 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\78382.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
31

crete mechanisms and initiatives to make this sharing a reality, and we have built 

up a track record of actually sharing useful information. These efforts belie the notions that private industry won’t share with law enforcement in this area, or that 

the Government won’t provide meaningful threat data to industry. As companies 

continue to gain experience in dealing with the NIPC and FBI field offices, as we 

continue to provide them with important and useful threat information, and as companies recognize that cybercrime requires a joint effort by industry and Government 

together, we will continue to make real progress in this area.

Meeting the Growing Cyber Threat

As Internet use continues to soar, the number of cyber attacks is also increasing 

exponentially. Our case load reflects this growth. In FY 1998, we opened 547 computer intrusion cases; in FY 1999, that number jumped to 1154. Similarly, the number of pending cases increased from 206 at the end of FY 1997, to 601 at the end 

of FY 1998, to 834 at the end of FY 99, and to over 900 currently. These statistics 

include only computer intrusion cases, and do not account for computer facilitated 

crimes such as Internet fraud, child pornography, or e-mail extortion efforts. In 

these cases, the NIPC and NIPCI squads often provide technical assistance to traditional investigative programs responsible for these categories of crime. 

We can clearly expect these upward trends to continue, and for the threats to become more serious. While insiders, hackers, and criminal groups make up much of 

our case load at the moment, we can anticipate a growing number of national security cases in the near future. To meet this challenge, we must ensure that we have 

adequate resources, including both personnel and equipment, both at the NIPC and 

in FBI field offices. We currently have 193 agents nationwide dedicated to investigating computer intrusion and virus cases. In order to maximize investigative resources the FBI has taken the approach of creating regional squads in 16 field offices that have sufficient size to work complex intrusion cases and to assist those 

field offices without a NIPCI squad. In those field offices without squads, the FBI 

is building a baseline capability by having one or two agents to work NIPC matters, 

i.e. computer intrusions (criminal and national security), viruses, InfraGard, state 

and local liaison, etc. 

At the NIPC, we currently have 101 personnel on board, including 82 FBI employees and 19 detailees from other Government agencies. This cadre of investigators, 

computer scientists, and analysts perform the numerous and complex tasks outlined 

above, and provide critical coordination and support to field office investigations. As 

the crime problem grows, we need to make sure that we keep pace by bringing on 

board additional personnel, including from other agencies and the private sector. 

In addition to putting in place the requisite number of agents, analysts, and computer scientists in the NIPC and in FBI field offices, we must fill those positions 

by recruiting and retaining personnel who have the appropriate technical, analytical, and investigative skills. This includes personnel who can read and analyze complex log files, perform all-source analysis to look for correlations between events or 

attack signatures and glean indications of a threat, develop technical tools to address the constantly changing technological environment, and conduct complex network investigations. There is a very tight market for information technology professionals. The Federal Government needs to be able to recruit the very best people 

into its programs. Fortunately, we can offer exciting, cutting-edge work in this area 

and can offer agents, analysts, and computer scientists the opportunities to work on 

issues that no one else addresses, and to make a difference to our national security 

and public safety. In addition, Congress provided the FBI with a pilot program that 

exempts certain technical personnel from the Title V civil service rules, which allows us to pay more competitive salaries and recruit and retain top notch personnel. 

Unfortunately, this pilot is scheduled to expire in November unless extended. 

Training and continuing education are also critical, and we have made this a top 

priority at the NIPC. In FY 1999, we trained 383 FBI and other-Government-agency 

students in NIPC sponsored training classes on network investigations and infrastructure protection. The emphasis for 2000 is on continuing to train Federal personnel while expanding training opportunities for state and local law enforcement 

personnel. During FY 2000, we plan to train approximately 740 personnel from the 

FBI, other Federal agencies, and state and local law enforcement. 

Developing and deploying the best equipment in support of the mission is also 

very important. Not only do investigators and analysts need the best equipment to 

conduct investigations in the rapidly evolving cyber system but the NIPC must be 

on the cutting edge of cyber research and development. Conducting a network intrusion or denial-of-service investigation often requires analysis of voluminous amounts 

of data. For example, one network intrusion case involving an espionage matter currently being investigated has required the analysis of 17.5 Terabytes of data. To 

32

place this into perspective, the entire collection of the Library of Congress, if 

digitized, would comprise only 10 Terabytes. The Yahoo DDOS attack involved approximately 630 Gigabytes of data, which is equivalent to enough printed pages to 

fill 630 pickup trucks with paper. Technical analysis requires high capacity equipment to store, process, analyze, and display data. Again, as the crime problem 

grows, we must ensure that our technical capacity keeps pace. We are also working 

closely with other agencies to ensure that we leverage existing resources to the fullest extent possible.

Challenges in Combating Cyber Intrusions

The burgeoning problem of cyber intrusions, viruses, and denial of service attacks 

poses unique challenges to the NIPC. These challenges require novel solutions, close 

teamwork among agencies and with the private sector, and adequate human and 

technical resources. 

Identifying the Intruder. One major difficulty that distinguishes cyber threats 

from physical threats is determining who is attacking your system, why, how, and 

from where. This difficulty stems from the ease with which individuals can hide or 

disguise their tracks by manipulating logs and directing their attacks through networks in many countries before hitting their ultimate target. The ‘‘Solar Sunrise’’

case illustrates this point. This will continue to pose a problem as long as the Internet remains rife with vulnerabilities and allows easy anonymity and concealment. 

Jurisdictional Issues. Another significant challenge we face is intrusions involving 

multiple jurisdictions. A typical investigation involves victim sites in multiple states 

and often many countries. This is the case even when the hacker and victim are 

both located in the United States. In the United States, we can subpoena records, 

engage in judicially approved electronic surveillance, and execute search warrants 

on suspects’ homes, seize evidence, and examine it. We can do none of those things 

ourselves overseas; rather, we depend on the local authorities to assist us. In some 

cases the local police forces simply do not understand or cannot cope with the technology. In other cases, these nations simply do not have laws against computer intrusions and are therefore limited in their ability to help us. FBI Legal Attaches 

in 35 embassies abroad provide critical help in building bridges with local law enforcement to enhance cooperation on cybercrime and in working leads on investigations. As the Internet spreads to even more countries, we will see greater demands 

placed on the Legats to support computer crime investigations. The NIPC also has 

held international computer crime conferences and offered cybercrime training classes to foreign law enforcement officials to develop liaison contacts and bring these 

officials up to speed on cybercrime issues. 

The most difficult situation will arise, however, in which a foreign country with 

interests adverse to our own simply refuses to cooperate. In such a situation, we 

could find that an investigation is stymied unless we find an alternative method of 

tracing the activity back to its source.

The Role of Law Enforcement

Finally, I would like to conclude by emphasizing two key points. The first is that 

our role in combating cybercrime is essentially two-fold: (1) preventing cyber attacks 

before they occur or limiting their scope by disseminating warnings and advisories 

about threats so that potential victims can protect themselves; and (2) responding 

to attacks that do occur by investigating and identifying the perpetrator. This is 

very much an operational role. Our role is not to determine what security measures 

private industry should take, or to ensure that companies or individuals take them. 

It is the responsibility of industry to ensure that appropriate security tools are made 

available and are implemented. We certainly can assist industry by alerting them 

to the actual threats that they need to be concerned about, and by providing information about the exploits that we are seeing criminals use. But network administrators, whether in the private sector or in Government, are the first line of defense. 

Second, in gathering information as part of our warning and response missions, 

we rigorously adhere to constitutional and statutory requirements. Our conduct is 

strictly limited by the Fourth Amendment, statutes such as Title III and ECPA, and 

the Attorney General Guidelines. These rules are founded first and foremost on the 

protection of privacy inherent in our constitutional system. Respect for privacy is 

thus a fundamental guidepost in all of our activities.

33

Conclusion

I want to thank the Subcommittee again for giving me the opportunity to testify 

here today. The cyber threat is real, multifarious, and growing. The NIPC is moving 

aggressively to meet this challenge by training investigators and analysts to investigate computer intrusion cases, equipping them with the latest technology, developing our analytic capabilities and warning mechanisms to head off or mitigate attacks, and closely cooperating with the private sector. We have already made considerable progress in developing our capabilities to protect public safety and national 

security in the Information Age. I look forward to working with Congress to ensure 

that we continue to be able to meet the threat as it evolves and grows. Thank you.

Senator BURNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Vatis. 

We have been joined by Senator Wyden. Do you have a statement, Senator? 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Senator. I will just wait for questions. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you. 

I want to preface my line of thinking here just a little bit. We 

have an economic thing that is happening right now in the American business world, and in fact our whole economics, and we have 

this terrific increase in energy prices, which is going to create a little more pressure, I think, on the Internet, the way we move information, the way we do business, because of the cost of transportation to be right honest with you. 

I think before the summer is out you are going to see we are 

going to be in a crisis situation. I cannot imagine right now my 

farmers, and this is a long way from what we are talking about, 

but I cannot imagine doubling the cost of fuel and trying to sell a 

product off the farm now that is not making any money under the 

conditions of last year, and now we are going to double our input 

cost and expect the same price this year. 

I cannot imagine me even cranking the first flywheel on a tractor, to be right honest with you, but we have that moving, and I 

have a feeling this is going not only in the way we move information but also our e-commerce is going to have new pressures, as far 

as volume is concerned, in the upcoming year as we face this energy situation for the rest of the year, so I want to preface that, 

and that is what I am kind of concerned about. 

Then we talk about security. Mr. Holder, with the exception to 

formal hearings, have you been in any communications with any of 

the Members of Congress regarding this situation to describe to 

them what your concerns are and the needs we are going to have? 

Now, the representative from the Federal Bureau of Investigation says it is going to take a lot of teamwork between industry, 

Government, between Government agencies within the Government, and I am saying that I do not think I have had one call from 

one agency saying we have got a phenomenon out here that is 

working and some way or another we are going to have to deal 

with this. 

And Congress I think will play a role and has to play a role in 

the future, but have you had any kind of meetings with Congress 

to bring us, Senator Hollings or whoever, up to date on the role 

that we should be playing, and especially your concerns about security and these kinds of situations? 

Mr. HOLDER. To my knowledge there has been work, I think, at 

the staff level. I have not convened any meetings with any MemVerDate Apr 24 2002 14:21 Jun 10, 2003 Jkt 078382 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\78382.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
34

bers of Congress, but I think we have had meetings at the staff 

level to talk about the needs we have identified both with regard 

to legislation and resources. 

The Attorney General has talked about the creation of a 5-year 

plan starting in the next fiscal year to figure out exactly what challenges we think we are going to face, what resources we think we 

are going to need to face those challenges, and we think in that regard, in the formulation of that plan in particular, that interaction 

with Congress on the Senate side and the House side would be particularly important. 

Senator BURNS. I say that because sometimes in these situations 

we are kind of behind the curve, even though you may have some 

facts that maybe we can prevent—and I am not saying that we 

have got the answers, but I am saying, though, that Congress finally has to play a role somewhere along the line in consultation 

between the agencies and Congress. 

It would certainly help us, some of us—and even on the security 

side, can you give me, any of you can give me a profile of what kind 

of personalities engage in these destructive and senseless attacks 

like we have experienced? 

Mr. VATIS. I am actually reluctant to state any one profile because there is a tremendous range of different types of actors that 

we see, ranging from the insider, an employee or a former employee at a company who wants to take revenge against his employer and so steals information to give to a competitor, or shuts 

down the system just to spite his employer. Teenage hackers who 

are breaking into systems just for bragging rights in the hacker 

community, or for the challenge of doing it. 

More and more, organized groups of often young people but not 

necessarily juveniles who are breaking into systems to steal things 

for financial gain, and then all the way on the other end of the 

spectrum, foreign intelligence services that we are seeing looking 

at these new tools as a new mechanism for gathering information, 

so it really runs the gamut across that broad range. 

Senator BURNS. Senator Hollings. 

Senator HOLLINGS. I am encouraged by the appearance of each 

of you, and particularly Mr. Vatis, that the FBI is on top of it. We 

have had the Appropriations Committee hearings on this, and topic 

currently, under Senator Gregg’s leadership we have been getting 

into child pornography and other internet-related issues. 

The grasp of these subjects is necessary, but I would dissent from 

the idea expressed, and the timidity, about how the private sector 

should do this. Look here, if the private sector could do it they 

would find money in it and do it. 

We got into the Internet to secure our communications. We said 

back in the late sixties, suppose they drop a bomb on the Pentagon 

and we have got all the troops out there—divisions and tanks and 

planes—but nobody can communicate. So then we started tying together research endeavors on the various university campuses, and 

ergo, the Internet. Now it is our responsibility of the infrastructure 

to get the security. 

I have got to go, Mr. Chairman, right down to the conference on 

the FAA authorization bill. Before I go, let me note that we have 

to make sure that our transportation systems line air transporVerDate Apr 24 2002 14:21 Jun 10, 2003 Jkt 078382 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\78382.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
35

tation are secure. You would not want somebody to muck up the 

radar and everything else at Reagan National and suddenly have 

the planes start crashing all around. None of us wants to go to an 

interview and say, ‘‘well, you know, we just had a hearing on it, 

and we all agreed it is the private sector’s responsibility. Let the 

planes crash.’’ I mean, come on. 

Let’s get away from this argument that security is a private sector responsibility. After all this industry is developing pell-mell into 

oligopolies where two or three more or less control the market and 

whereby no one else can get in. 

We find Microsoft, for example, buying up some 200 different individual little endeavors, anytime anybody comes in with a new 

idea, the oligopoly comes in and says, whoopee, we will pay you so 

much or we will extinguish it. So you take the money, and that 

ends that. 

The Government has a fundamental role in the Internet. Let’s 

stop waiting on the partnerships and let’s face our responsibility to 

secure our own infrastructure. We need to protect our own departments, communications, power, transportation, and otherwise. Can 

we do it? Is it possible? Who can answer that? Can we really make 

it secure, do you think? 

Mr. VATIS. I will just briefly address that. I think we absolutely 

can. I think the technology exists, and is being developed, to secure 

our systems. I think there has been a rush to market with new features for competitive reasons, and security has lagged behind as a 

concern of the manufacturers. 

Senator HOLLINGS. What you are telling me, and you can interrupt me, is if I can make it secure, then I can certainly guarantee 

the privacy, because I can make certain that that security is not 

invaded, is that right, and logical? 

Mr. VATIS. I think the means exist to protect privacy, to protect 

the operability of systems, and I think we are seeing some significant strides in that direction. 

I think I agree with you that the Federal Government does have 

primary responsibility, certainly for securing its own systems, and 

certainly for carrying out law enforcement responsibilities. which is 

a fundamental task of Government, and for issuing warnings about 

attacks. 

But the one place I think that the private sector does have the 

primary responsibility is for ensuring its own security. If a business goes into e-commerce and puts out a Web site through which 

it transacts business with customers, it cannot be our responsibility 

in the Government to tell them how to secure that system, or to 

regulate how they do that. That is what I mean by security being 

primarily the private sector’s responsibility. 

Senator HOLLINGS. At DARPA, we gave all our research technology over to Boeing and Lockheed, and they are going like 

gangbusters. There is a similar situation at the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology. We farm out all of that technology. 

We are not trying to hold it, but we are trying to find it. 

It is very interesting, Mr. Chairman, because your bill got this 

gentleman, Mr. Reinsch—it is interesting that he is from the Export Administration. He is not from any security—he is not from 

any technology. He is from exports, and here he appears from the 

36

Export Administration. Now, correct me, and tell me about your 

technology. 

Mr. REINSCH. What my bureau does, Senator Hollings, is control 

the export of critical technology products for national security reasons. 

Senator HOLLINGS. That is how you got in it, and that is the only 

reason that we woke up here, at the congressional level, because 

of the export of the technology. It was not because of the import, 

the use, the development, the securing, or the infrastructure of the 

U.S. Government. 

Mr. REINSCH. Well, if I could comment on several of your points, 

that part I think has proven to be an area of much broader agreement, and typically in a debate environment, there is less attention 

paid to it. If you will look at the plan, you will find most of it and 

most of the Government’s resources right now, in fact, are devoted 

to precisely what you are talking about, which is the protection of 

Federal Government critical systems and assets. 

Senator HOLLINGS. Is there any need otherwise in what you have 

outlined? I like the President’s plan, but you know from experience 

you have got all the resources. You are heading it up. Do you need 

any help, and do we need to pass any law or fund any policy that 

you can think of? 

Mr. REINSCH. Let me say tactfully, Senator Hollings, that the 

Appropriations Committees have been very generous to law enforcement and national security, and less generous to the Commerce Department and civilian agencies that have some of these 

same responsibilities. 

Senator HOLLINGS. How much more do you need at the Commerce Department? 

Mr. REINSCH. Well, we support the President’s request, for 2001. 

Senator HOLLINGS. How about your request? What else would 

you like to have? 

Mr. REINSCH. For my particular bureau? You do not want me to 

start on that. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HOLLINGS. In all fairness, tell us what you need to do 

the job. 

Mr. REINSCH. For this function, we have requested and could use 

actually sooner than next year an additional $31⁄2 million, which is 

peanuts compared to the whole thing. 

Senator HOLLINGS. I worry about it, because you three have got 

a grasp on exactly what my concern is, that the Government gets 

in here and gets on top of infrastructure security that these functions are properly funded and properly coordinated. From your 

presentations here this morning, the coordination seems to be 

there, but it is a mammoth task. If industry could do it, they would 

have already done it and sold it, you know what I mean? 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. REINSCH. There are areas, Mr. Chairman, if I could comment, where we think industry is not going to do it, frankly, because there is not any money in it. 

Senator HOLLINGS. Thank you. We have had a hearing. 

[Laughter.] 

37

Mr. REINSCH. That is the genesis in part of the NIST request for 

its institute. 

Senator Hollings. 

Senator BURNS. Is the hearing over? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator HOLLINGS. No. We finally got what we wanted. 

Senator BURNS. Senator Wyden. 

STATEMENT OF HON. RON WYDEN,

U.S. SENATOR FROM OREGON 

Senator WYDEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of questions 

for you if I could, Mr. Holder. My judgment is that the challenge 

here is more one of enforcement of existing law, rather than trying 

to develop a whole lot of new laws to deal with that threat. Would 

you agree with that? 

Mr. HOLDER. I think there are some changes we might want to 

consider with regard to existing law. There are problems, for instance, with the current jurisdictional limit, where Federal jurisdiction, criminal jurisdiction begins there is a $5,000 limit we have to 

meet. We think that is an artificially high limit. 

The question of how we are able to use our technology to detect 

who is actually perpetrating these crimes, we have to, for instance, 

go from court to court to court as we are trying to trace back who 

engages in these kinds of attacks, and every time we go to a different State or a different jurisdiction we have to come up with a 

new court order, and the thought about maybe having a national 

court order that would allow us to get access to that information, 

I mean, there are a number of things that we are thinking about. 

In terms of legislation we might propose, any legislation we propose would have to be balanced between the investigative needs 

that we have and the privacy interests that are really paramount 

in this area. 

Senator WYDEN. I can tell you, I think the American people are 

going to be real concerned about the discussion about national 

court orders, legislation in that area. As you know, there is enormous concern right now about privacy, and it has now emerged as 

one of the two or three most important concerns to people. 

And the reason I asked you the question about whether you 

think this is more of an enforcement issue rather than a question 

of needing new laws is that the whole history of these kinds of debates is that we have these threats, and particularly now, where 

we are clearly dealing with people who are not technologically simpletons—these are very, very sophisticated people—is that we have 

these attacks, and the call goes out for a variety of new laws, and 

very often I think there is the potential to have the cure worse 

than the ailment. 

I guess I would ask next, what would you say to those who are 

troubled by the prospects that there could be further encroachments on privacy as a result of some of these ideas that you are 

advancing, and I was not familiar in detail with this national court 

order, and I follow this area pretty closely. What would you say to 

those who are concerned about the prospect that this could further 

erode privacy rights, and what assurance would you want to provide to them this morning? 

38

Mr. HOLDER. Well, I would say first off the requests that we are 

considering are really ones that are, I think, very modest in scope. 

The notion, for instance, about the court order that would have Nation-wide effect, as we try to track these things down—somebody 

in New Jersey does something that attacks a network, a computer 

Web site in Oregon and runs it through Wisconsin and Texas. 

As we go to try to trace this thing back, and time is important 

in trying to find out who is the perpetrator of this, we get to Wisconsin, we get to Texas, and each time we want to go back we have 

to get yet another court order. 

Our proposal, one we are thinking about, is that we would have 

the ability to go to a judge and ask for an order that would allow 

us, as we get to these different States, not to have to go to get another judge to get essentially what the first judge has already given 

us. 

I do not think that really encroaches on privacy, and I think that 

to assure people, I think everyone should understand that the proposals we are making are, as I said, very modest in scope, and are 

made by people who are very sensitive to the concerns that people 

have raised about privacy. The reality is, the Internet really can 

only be successful if those privacy interests are considered and, in 

fact, if they are protected. 

Senator WYDEN. But understand as well that you are asking for 

powers that the Federal Government would have that largely expand the privacy threats to people already who are concerned 

about it in the private sector. Now, your obligation is obviously different than the obligations in the private sector, and I recognize 

that, but at the same time I think you are going to have to be very 

vigilant in terms of addressing these privacy issues. 

And let me suggest a model that I talked about when we had the 

encryption debate, and one of the things that concerns me is that 

I do not want to see this discussion go the same route as that debate, where essentially we were gridlocked for years in terms of 

how to address both national security and the desire for companies 

to be able to export these products. 

If the focus is primarily on enforcement, rather than the passage 

of new laws, I think having ongoing discussion with people in the 

private sector so that they can try to tell you how to get out in 

front of the innovation curve, so to speak, where the criminals are 

always more inventive and always more innovative, is the best way 

to deal with this, rather than to go out and try to advance new 

laws, which any way I look at it seem to give the Federal Government more power in areas that will raise privacy questions. 

Mr. HOLDER. Well, I agree with you, we have to have that interaction with private industry and, as I have indicated, I think in 

terms of protecting the Internet, at least with regard to the initial 

parts of it, I think the responsibility should lie with private industry, but in terms of legislation, we have also thought about the proposal that what we would like to do is have electronic communications subject to the same consideration, the same kinds of privacy 

safeguards as oral and wire communications, so we would actually 

enhance the privacy considerations. 

Senator WYDEN. I think those kinds of things will be well-received. Senator Burns and I have a privacy bill, and if that is the 

39

kind of thing you are interested in, I think we would be very open 

to looking at something like that. 

Even in the context of the privacy discussion it may not be solely 

within the province of our committee, but we are very hopeful. We 

have spent well over a year trying to develop a bipartisan privacy 

bill. We are very hopeful that we are going to be able to see 

progress on this and get it out on the floor of the Senate, given the 

public concern, and that is the kind of idea that I think makes a 

lot of sense, because in effect you do advance privacy rights. 

You are addressing what is a concern of law enforcement, but I 

can tell you that if you stand up at a town hall meeting in my 

home State and start talking about national court orders and some 

of the other things that I have seen discussed, I think we may well 

end up with the same sort of gridlock we had on the encryption 

issue, and I do not want to see us go that route. There is too much 

goodwill, I think, in both the law enforcement community and in 

the private sector for us to just go back to that sort of encryption 

model, where everybody is gridlocked for years and years. 

I felt for a long time that we were pursuing in the encryption 

area an approach that instead of a win-win was a lose-lose. It was 

not getting you what you needed in terms of law enforcement, and 

we were losing out in terms of international markets because we 

had this outdated standard in terms of the bit measure and the 

like for exports. 

So let’s pursue a different model. You give us ideas about the 

oral and written communication that make it easier for you to do 

your job and for us to be able to say in Montana and Oregon we 

are advancing people’s privacy, and I think we are on our way to 

a winner, but some of these other suggestions I would urge you to 

be pretty cautious about. 

Mr. HOLDER. I really think there is an ability, if we really talk 

with one another—there are I think sometimes instinctive reactions, negative reactions to the notion that we want to have additional legislation, and yet when we have interacted with industry 

and specifically told them these are the kinds of things we are 

thinking about, the reaction we have had has actually been pretty 

favorable, and people seem somewhat surprised when we say we 

also want to do things on the privacy side and have requirements 

that apply to wire and oral communications also apply to electronic 

communications. 

I think that shows the necessary sensitivity that I think we have 

in the Government as we formulate these proposals. 

Senator WYDEN. Clearly, a prospect that we can start bringing 

to the online world some of these approaches that we have used offline is a very, very promising orientation, and I like that. 

What I think is going to raise the decibel level and generate 

much more controversy are some of these issues relating to court 

orders, the evidentiary standards that have been talked about 

concering how to gather some of this information, and the techniques for gathering it. 

That is what I want us to be cautious about, because in that area 

I think we might harm privacy rights and, set back the legitimate 

businesses that you are understandably concerned about, as I am. 

The unintended consequences prospect is very much alive when 

40

you talk about things involving evidence, techniques for gathering 

information, the court orders and the like. I appreciate your sensitivity and look forward to talking with you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you. 

You know, going along this same line, this may be the wrong 

question to the wrong panel, but instead of asking for new laws 

and new ways of pursuit of people who would hack, I go back to— we were raised—I bet every one of us sitting in here today, we 

were raised in a culture that even though we had open mail boxes 

out on the farm, you just did not touch another man’s mail box because there was a Government warning there that you are violating the mails. 

Do we have any way of posting warnings—FBI warnings on dubbing old VCR’s, you know. Do we have any way of putting up there, 

it is a violation, a Federal violation to wander even into cyberspace 

in areas where you are unauthorized? I do not know, I am just 

thinking about it as he was talking about it. You know, the direction we are going, how do we know these people think that they 

are in violation of doing something and there are severe penalties 

for doing so? 

Mr. HOLDER. I suppose there are technical ways to do that. I 

would really defer to industry as to how effective they think those 

kinds of things might be and whether, frankly, there might be 

some chilling effect in having those kinds of warnings, but again, 

it is not something I have really thought about. 

Mr. VATIS. We do have banners on Federal computers that warn 

people who are coming into a system that if they are intruding 

without authorization, that constitutes a Federal crime, and that 

their activities that are subject to being monitored and investigated. 

There are not, as far as I know, similar banners on all private 

sector systems, but it would certainly be technically feasible and 

fully legal for someone to put such a banner on a private sector system and say, ‘‘If you intrude into my system I will report the incident to law enforcement and I will seek to have you prosecuted if 

you violate Federal law.’’

Senator BURNS. Well, I am just saying, you know, even though 

we walked by our neighbor’s mail boxes every day, you just did not 

fiddle around with another man’s mail, and there was a post— every mail box we ever bought there was a Government message 

there, even though it was never locked or anything like that, and 

we were raised in that culture. You were taught that when you 

were a little child in your neighborhoods. 

Mr. HOLDER. I think that is an important point, and a very good 

one, in that we need to do something with our young people in particular, but I think people more generally—people tend not to take 

the kinds of lessons that we learn with other things and apply 

them to the Internet. 

There are privacy concerns that people have. There are certain 

things that you would not do in the material, the real world that 

people seem to do when it gets to the cyber world, or to the Internet, and we need to train people to make them more sensitive, 

make them aware that the kinds of don’ts, things you would not 

41

do in the real world you should also not do when it comes to the 

cyber world, so it is a question, I think, of educating people and 

training them. 

Senator BURNS. I was just thinking, in the conversation, the culture you were raised in, and that if you did monkey with somebody 

else’s mailbox, they would usually beat you home and they called 

your mom and dad up and you got quite a beating when you got 

home. 

But I just wonder if there is some way, even when signing on, 

if the operating bed or the operating system that you have got, 

there is not a warning that you have a certain responsibility, you 

are licensed to use this, but you have a certain responsibility that 

goes along with it. And I am wondering if something like that can 

be done and would scare off maybe some of the folks who would 

tend to wander into areas where they are not supposed to be. 

We want to thank you for your testimony this morning. The industry comes up next. I want to beg of you to let us know, Members of Congress. It does not hurt, even in the security area, where 

we cannot discuss things maybe in an open forum, but we can in 

a private forum, either in your office or, it does not make any difference. But keep us abreast, if you would, of what is going on out 

here. 

I am going to ask a question. How serious is this business? Extortion is a terrible, terrible thing that happens in any society. Is 

it a big problem in the Internet world? 

Mr. VATIS. There have been numerous instances of extortion 

plots carried out via e-mail, and threats delivered by e-mail. There 

have also been specifically computer-related extortion efforts, 

where criminals have said, ‘‘Unless you pay me a certain amount 

of money, I am going to shut down your system or I am going to 

do something else to harm you.’’

Before these denial of service attacks took place, the last highly 

publicized example of a cybercrime was exactly that sort of extortion attempt, where somebody broke into a company called CD Universe (which sells CD’s online), stole numerous credit card numbers 

from that company, and then threatened the company by saying 

that, unless CD Universe paid a certain amount of money, the 

hacker would post those credit card numbers on a Web site—which 

he subsequently did. That is another case that we have under investigation, but it is only one example of a rising trend in that sort 

of extortion scheme. 

Senator BURNS. Well, that does not scare me much, because my 

wife keeps our credit cards right up to the limit, so they are not 

going to be OKed anyway. [Laughter.] 

No, not really. She is coming back to town. We have got to clear 

that from the record. [Laughter.] 

But I just wondered how bad that situation was, because I know 

that is a terrible, terrible, terrible crime. And thank you again this 

morning for your time and your testimony. We appreciate that very 

much. And if other Senators do have questions, I will direct them 

to you. And if you could respond to them and the committee, it 

would certainly help. And your full statements will be made part 

of the record. And we thank you for coming this morning. 

42

We move now to the second panel, made up of Mr. Michael 

Fuhrman, who is Manager, Security Consulting, Cisco Systems, out 

of San Jose, California; Paul Misener, who is Vice President of 

Amazon, out of Seattle; and Raj Reddy, from Herbert A. Simon Professor of Computer Science and Robotics, Carnegie Mellon University, out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

Gentlemen, we appreciate you coming this morning and sharing 

your information with us. Again, you can summarize your statements, and rest assured that your full statements will be made a 

part of the record. Again, I thank you for coming this morning. 

Mr. Misener, we will start off with you this morning. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL MISENER, VICE PRESIDENT,

GLOBAL PUBLIC POLICY, AMAZON.COM 

Mr. MISENER. Good morning, Chairman Burns. It is very good to 

see you again, in particular. I thank you very much for inviting me. 

My name is Paul Misener, and I am Amazon.com’s Vice President for Global Public Policy. Amazon.com opened its virtual doors 

in July 1995, with a mission to use the Internet to transform book 

buying into the fastest, easiest, and most enjoyable shopping experience possible. Today, Amazon.com also offers consumer electronics, toys, CD’s, videos, DVD’s, home improvement tools, and 

much more. Seventeen million people in more than 160 countries 

have made us the leading online shopping site. And we also have 

a thriving auctionsite, Mr. Chairman. 

Amazon.com greatly appreciates the opportunity to testify before 

your Subcommittee. 

Senator BURNS. You are starving us old auctioneers to death. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MISENER. Please join us there. 

Amazon.com greatly appreciates this opportunity to testify before 

your Subcommittee on the recent distributed denial of service attacks. We look forward to working with Congress to address these 

incidents and other important Internet policy issues. 

Because the Internet and electronic commerce is the driving factor in the current booming economy, our Nation’s economic wellbeing depends in part on stopping illegal activity that impedes ecommerce. We particularly support the Federal Government’s involvement in fighting criminal behavior on the Internet. And we 

recognize and appreciate, however, your Subcommittee’s important 

role in overseeing communications commerce. 

Mr. Chairman, although the distributed denial of service incidents that occurred last month have been described many times in 

the press and elsewhere, a short description of what specifically 

happened to Amazon.com bears repeating. In essence, for about an 

hour on February 8, 2000, a large amount of so-called junk traffic 

was directed to our Internet site. This junk traffic degraded the 

technical quality of service at the site. To be clear, this was not a 

break-in at our online premises, but rather a deliberate and illegitimate crowding of virtual driveways and sidewalks around our online store. This crowding somewhat hinders our customers’ ability 

to visit and shop. 

At all times during this crowding, however, our customers’ information was safe and secure, and many customers were able to 

43

enter our store and shop. Nonetheless, for about an hour, our customers experienced congestion-related delays when visiting the 

site. For Amazon.com customers’, who have come to expect the 

world’s best online shopping experience, even such a relatively 

minor inconvenience was frustrating. 

This is a key point for these hearings, Mr. Chairman. Consumers 

are the ones inconvenienced by distributed denial of service attacks. Indeed, millions of consumers have come to rely on the Internet to communicate, shop, invest, obtain news, and learn online. 

The denial of service attacks last month interrupted these important consumer activities and, thus, it is on behalf of consumers that 

all of us must work to prevent these attacks in the future. 

So what can the Federal Government do about denial of service 

attacks? Amazon.com believes the Government’s key role should be 

to prosecute the perpetrators of these and other online criminal activities. Currently laws have been used successfully in recent cases. 

In addition, some have suggested extending existing laws or enacting new laws, and others have suggested establishing stiffer penalties under existing statutes. 

On behalf of our current and future customers, Amazon.com 

would be happy to work with Congress on any new legislation to 

address Internet crime issues. 

Successful prosecutions, of course, also rely on adequate resources with which to conduct investigations. Amazon.com believes 

that additional resources should be applied in at least four areas: 

law enforcement training, personnel retention, public education, 

and agency coordination. 

Let me say a few things about each area. First, continuous training of law enforcement personnel in the latest digital forensic techniques, as well as current Internet technologies, should be at the 

top of any list for additional funding. In particular, additional 

training in electronic evidence handling is necessary, for preservation of digital evidence is as important for cybercrime prosecutions 

as preservation of fingerprints is for physical crimes. 

Second, given the strong demand for information technology experts, both within and outside of Government, law enforcement 

agencies need additional resources to retain senior IT professionals 

and attract new ones. 

Third, Federal law enforcement agencies should have sufficient 

resources to help educate private industry and consumers on preventing Internet-related crime. 

Finally, better coordination and communication among Federal, 

State, local, and international law enforcement agencies is needed. 

The recent incidents were not geographically localized, and there is 

no reason to expect future Internet crime to be. 

In all of these areas, increased Government interaction with private industry would help. Amazon.com already is engaged in this 

sort of informal partnership. In addition to existing ongoing investigations, our technologists are working with various law enforcement personnel on the latest developments in Internet technology 

and techniques. We believe it would be premature, however, to formalize this partnership. 

Absent from our suggested Federal response is a role for the Federal Communications Commission. The reason is straightforward: 

44

The distributed denial of service attacks involved coordinated and 

criminal transmission of content over the Internet. It is hard to see 

how the FCC has statutory authority over such matters. And even 

if it had or were given such authority, the agency currently lacks 

the resources and expertise to do what is necessary at this point; 

namely, to fight the criminal activity. 

Simply put, useful FCC involvement would require statutory 

changes, additional resources and additional expertise to succeed. 

This is work better left to law enforcement agencies. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we applaud your effort to address 

these denial of service attacks and to formulate an appropriate 

Federal response. As indicated, we believe the situation currently 

is best handled using law enforcement mechanisms. But we would 

appreciate your Subcommittee’s continued interest in the matter. 

On behalf of our current and future customers, Amazon.com 

stands ready to help. Thank you very much for the opportunity to 

testify before your Subcommittee. I would be pleased to answer 

your questions and I look forward to working with you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Misener follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAUL MISENER, VICE PRESIDENT, GLOBAL PUBLIC POLICY, AMAZON.COM

My name is Paul Misener, and I am Amazon.com’s Vice President for Global Public Policy. Amazon.com opened its virtual doors in July 1995 with a mission to use 

the Internet to transform book buying into the fastest, easiest, and most enjoyable 

shopping experience possible. Today, Amazon.com also offers consumer electronics, 

toys, CDs, videos, DVDs, home improvement tools, and much more. Seventeen million people in more than 160 countries have made us the leading online shopping 

site. 

Amazon.com greatly appreciates the opportunity to testify before your Subcommittee on the recent distributed denial of service attacks. We look forward to 

working with Congress to address these incidents and other important Internet policy issues. Because electronic commerce is the driving factor in the current booming 

economy, our nation’s economic well-being depends in part on stopping illegal activity that impedes e-commerce. 

We particularly support the Federal Government’s involvement in fighting criminal behavior on the Internet. We recognize and appreciate, however, your Subcommittee’s important role in overseeing communications commerce. 

Mr. Chairman, although the distributed denial of service incidents that occurred 

last month have been described many times in the press and elsewhere, a short description of what specifically happened to Amazon.com bears repeating. 

In essence, for about an hour on February 8, 2000, a large amount of so-called 

‘‘junk traffic’’ was directed to our Internet site. This junk traffic degraded the technical quality of service at the site. 

To be clear: this was not a break-in at our online premises but, rather, a deliberate and illegitimate crowding of the virtual ‘‘driveways and sidewalks’’ around our 

online store. This crowding somewhat hindered our customers’ ability to visit and 

shop. 

At all times during this crowding, however, our customers’ information was safe 

and secure, and many customers were able to enter and shop at our store. Nonetheless, for about an hour, our customers experienced congestion-related delays when 

visiting the site. For Amazon.com’s customers, who have come to expect the world’s 

best online shopping experience, even such a relatively minor inconvenience was 

frustrating. 

This is a key point for these hearings: consumers are the ones inconvenienced by 

distributed denial of service attacks. Indeed, millions of consumers have come to 

rely on the Internet to communicate, shop, invest, obtain news, and learn online. 

The denial of service attacks last month interrupted these important consumer activities and, thus, it is on behalf of consumers that all of us must work to prevent 

these attacks in the future. 

So what can the Federal Government do about denial of service attacks? Amazon.com believes the Government’s key role should be to prosecute the perpetrators 

45

of these and other online criminal activities. Current laws have been used successfully in recent cases. In addition, some have suggested extending existing law or enacting new laws, and others have suggested establishing stiffer penalties under existing statutes. 

On behalf of our current and future customers, Amazon.com would be happy to 

work with Congress on any new legislation to address Internet crime issues. 

Successful prosecutions, of course, also rely on adequate resources with which to 

conduct investigations. Amazon.com believes that additional resources should be applied in at least four areas: law enforcement training, personnel retention, public 

education, and agency coordination. Let me say a few things about each area. 

First, continuous training of law enforcement personnel in the latest digital forensic techniques, as well as current Internet technologies, should be at the top of any 

list for additional funding. In particular, additional training in electronic evidence 

handling is necessary, for preservation of digital evidence is as important for 

cybercrime prosecutions as preservation of fingerprints is for physical crimes. 

Second, given the strong demand for information technology experts, both within 

and outside of Government, law enforcement agencies need additional resources to 

retain senior IT professionals and attract new ones. 

Third, Federal law enforcement agencies should have sufficient resources to help 

educate private industry and consumers on preventing Internet-related crime. 

Finally, better coordination and communication among Federal, state, local, and 

international law enforcement agencies is needed. The recent incidents were not 

geographically localized, and there is no reason to expect future Internet crime to 

be. 

In all of these areas, increased Government interaction with private industry 

would help. Amazon.com already is engaged in this sort of informal partnership: in 

addition to assisting the ongoing investigations, our technologists are working with 

various law enforcement personnel on the latest developments in Internet technology and techniques. We believe it would be premature, however, to formalize this 

partnership. 

Absent from our suggested Federal response is a role for the Federal Communications Commission. The reason is straightforward: the distributed denials of service 

attacks involve coordinated and criminal transmission of content over the Internet. 

It is hard to see how the FCC has statutory authority over such matters. Yet even 

if it had, or were given, such authority, the agency currently lacks the resources and 

expertise to do what is necessary at this point, namely, to fight the criminal activity. 

Simply put, useful FCC involvement would require statutory changes, additional resources, and additional expertise to succeed. This is work better left to law enforcement agencies. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we applaud your effort to address these denials of 

service attacks and to formulate an appropriate Federal response. As indicated, we 

believe the situation currently is best handled using law enforcement mechanisms, 

but we would appreciate your Subcommittee’s continued interest in the matter. On 

behalf of our current and future customers, Amazon.com stands ready to help. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify before your Subcommittees. 

I would be pleased to answer your questions and I look forward to working with 

you.

Senator BURNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Misener. 

Now we have Michael Fuhrman, who is Manager, Security Consulting, Cisco Systems. Welcome before the Subcommittee. We look 

forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL FUHRMAN, MANAGER,

SECURITY CONSULTING, CISCO SYSTEMS 

Mr. FUHRMAN. Thank you, Chairman Burns. 

I am Michael Fuhrman of Cisco Systems. As you know, Chairman, we are the largest manufacturer of equipment that connects 

people and businesses to the Internet. We are based in San Jose, 

California, and we have large operations in Massachusetts, North 

Carolina and Texas. 

Senator BURNS. Did you ever consider Montana? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FUHRMAN. We do have sales offices in Montana, yes. 

46

In particular, I manage our company’s Security Consulting Services Group, which helps to ensure the security of some of the best 

known sites on the Internet. My team of engineers and specialists 

evaluate the protective measures being employed by our customers. 

We help them respond to anyone or anything that threatens the integrity of their systems. And as last month’s hacker attacks on 

some of the world’s busiest Web sites graphically demonstrated, 

this is a task that requires constant vigilance. 

Cisco security specialists were among those who responded to the 

denial of service attacks that temporarily blocked access to several 

sites, beginning on February 7th. I am happy to tell you that we 

were able to help some of our customers quickly identify the technology being used in the attacks, employ effective countermeasures, 

and beat back repeat efforts by hackers to obstruct access. 

Now, in a nutshell, the hackers initially were able to briefly shut 

customers out of some targeted Web sites, as Mr. Misener said, by 

bombarding these sites with more information than they could 

process at the time. In a way, we liken it to the Internet equivalent 

of trying to go shopping the day after Thanksgiving. The crowds 

are overwhelming and the parking lots are full. The difference in 

this case is, however, that people were not prepared for this activity. 

Now, after these assaults, there was some heated speculation 

about whether the public can depend on the Internet as a reliable 

means of doing business and sharing information. Now, the lesson 

to be learned from the attacks is not that the hackers have some 

sort of technological edge. On the contrary, the technology that is 

employed in these attacks is well-known to those of us in the systems security field. Proper defenses for a majority of these, the 

technology does exist. 

The lesson is that events like this can be anticipated and managed with the proper diligence and planning. The technology community showed that it can respond swiftly and effectively, taking 

steps to quickly mitigate the attacks and to make it harder for future attacks in the future. 

Now, it is important to note, in all of these assaults, targeted 

Web sites were interrupted only for relatively brief periods. It is 

also important to note, again, as Mr. Misener stated, these attacks 

blocked access to some systems, but did not penetrate into the internal systems of these companies. 

The technology community has already joined with the Federal 

Government to respond more effectively should attacks like these 

be repeated in the future. The community and the Government are 

forming an organization that will disseminate critical information 

quickly and widely if the Internet is threatened. 

We at Cisco keenly understand the importance of this task. We 

will conduct $12 billion of business over our Web site this year. 

Our employees perform 95 percent of their tasks on our Web site. 

My consulting group in particular recently conducted a 6-month 

survey of 33 businesses connected to the Internet, where we measured their state of security. We found that, on average, one out of 

every three of the companies’ devices connected to the Internet 

were vulnerable to some form of attack or another. 

47

We also found, however, that 90 percent of the vulnerabilities 

could be solved with technology that was readily available today, 

if the technology is properly employed and consistently updated. 

Now, this, of course, is easy to say and extraordinarily difficult to 

do. 

We have to remember that a decade ago the Internet was little 

more than a clunky mechanism that a few educational research institutions used to trade messages we now all know as E-mail. The 

blazing speed at which the Internet has developed and the equally 

rapid pace at which threats to the Internet’s security have evolved 

make it hard even for those who build and maintain Web sites to 

keep pace. 

But businesses and others who operate Web sites are learning 

that security must become an ever more important concern. The 

number of companies who come to Cisco, for instance, in assistance 

in securing their networks has grown by over 50 percent over the 

last 12 months alone—a very encouraging statistic. And we have 

all learned that one thing the technology can do collectively is to 

increase the sharing of information about up-to-the-minute developments in security. 

We believe that this public/private partnership is the most effective response to the recent attacks. In the private sector, incentives 

must be put into place to encourage all Web sites to deploy security 

technologies, to protect themselves and their customers from hacker attacks. In the public sector, we are grateful that the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation has devoted significant resources to investigating these attacks. And we hope that the perpetrators will be 

prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. 

We encourage the Federal Government to serve as a role model 

for private industry, by equipping its own computer systems with 

the best security measures possible. This, too, of course, will not be 

easy. Both the Government and private enterprise are having difficulty attracting and retaining enough skilled professionals in the 

field of systems security. I am happy to tell you that the private 

sector has joined with the Office of Personnel Management to help 

the Government in the area by developing training and mentoring 

programs. Again, we regard this as an excellent example of public/

private partnership. 

At this time, however, we do not ask Congress for new laws in 

the area of Internet security. Cooperation, not regulation, not legislation, will ensure that the Internet remains secure and, at the 

same time, open to the broadest public access. The Internet is and 

always should remain an open medium. No one can insulate the 

Internet and everything connected to it from all threats, or guarantee that no attack on any particular Internet site will succeed. 

Even our oldest, most established public infrastructures pause on 

occasion. Power and telephone lines come down, water mains 

break, highways become clogged. And like them, the Internet will 

occasionally have localized difficulties. These are but potholes on 

the information superhighway, which we will fill in as fast as they 

appear, learning how to prevent similar potholes in the future. 

The recent attacks actually demonstrated that the technology 

community can quickly identify threats to the Internet, quickly act 

to eliminate them, and quickly take measures that will reduce the 

48

impact of similar threats in the future. This spirit of innovation 

and rapid development propels the Internet’s exponential growth 

and ensures that the Internet will remain secure as it continues to 

grow. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Fuhrman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL FUHRMAN, MANAGER, SECURITY CONSULTING, CISCO SYSTEMS

Chairman Burns and distinguished senators, I am Mike Fuhrman of Cisco Systems. As you may know, Cisco is the world’s largest manufacturer of equipment that 

connects people and businesses to the Internet. We are based in San Jose, California 

and have substantial operations in Massachusetts, North Carolina and Texas. 

I manage our company’s Secure Consulting Services Group, which helps ensure 

the security of some of the best-known sites on the Internet. My team of engineers 

and specialists evaluates the protective measures being employed by our customers 

and helps them respond to anyone or anything that threatens the integrity of their 

systems. As last month’s hacker attacks on some of the world’s busiest web sites 

graphically demonstrated, this is a task that requires constant vigilance. 

Cisco’s security specialists were among those who responded to the so-called ‘‘denial of service attacks’’ that temporarily blocked access to several web sites beginning Feb. 7. I’m happy to tell you that we were able to help some of our customers 

quickly identify the technology being used in these attacks, employ effective countermeasures and beat back repeat efforts by hackers to obstruct access. 

In a nutshell, hackers initially were able to briefly shut customers out of some 

targeted web sites by bombarding those sites with more information, some of it more 

false or misleading, than they were able to process. In a way, it was the Internet 

equivalent of trying to shop on the day after Thanksgiving, when the crowds are 

overwhelming. But in this case, the problem was nobody knew the rush was coming 

and therefore we weren’t quite prepared to handle it. 

After these assaults, there was some overheated speculation about whether the 

public can depend on the Internet as a reliable means of doing business and sharing 

information. The lesson to be learned from these attacks is not that hackers have 

some kind of technological edge that enabled them to do what they did. On the contrary, the technology employed in these attacks is well known to those of us in the 

systems security field and proper defenses against that technology are widely available. 

The lesson is that events like these can be anticipated and managed with diligence and proper planning. The technology community showed that it can respond 

swiftly and effectively, taking steps to quickly mitigate the attacks and to make it 

harder for similar assaults to succeed in the future. 

It’s important to note that, in all of these assaults, service to targeted web sites 

was interrupted only for relatively brief periods. It’s also important to note that 

while these attacks blocked access to some targeted computer systems, they do not 

appear to have penetrated the outer defenses of these systems. We know of no case 

in which hackers obtained access to confidential customer information, such as credit card numbers, or did lasting damage to any of the targeted sites. 

And it’s important to note that the technology community has already joined with 

the Federal Government to respond more effectively should attacks like these be repeated in the future. The community and the Government are forming an organization that will disseminate critical information quickly and widely if the Internet is 

threatened. 

We at Cisco Systems keenly understand the importance of this task. We will conduct $12 billion worth of business over our own web site this year, and our employees are able to perform about 95 percent of their work on the site. 

Cisco Secure Consulting Services recently conducted a six-month survey of 33 

businesses connected to the Internet and measured their ‘‘state of security.’’ We 

found that, on average, one out of every three devices connected to the Internet was 

vulnerable to some form of attack. But we also found that over 90 percent of the 

vulnerabilities could be solved with technology that is readily available, if the technology is properly employed and constantly updated. 

This is easy to say and extraordinarily difficult to do. A decade ago, the Internet 

was little more than a clunky mechanism that a few educational and research institutions used to trade messages we now know as email. The blazing speed at which 

the Internet has developed—and the equally rapid pace at which threats to Internet 

49

security have evolved—make it hard even for those who build and operate web sites 

to keep pace. 

But businesses and others who operate web sites are learning that security must 

become an ever-more-important concern. The number of companies who have come 

to Cisco for assistance in securing their networks has grown by over 50 percent during the last 12 months alone—a very encouraging statistic. And we have all learned 

that one thing the technology community can do collectively to increase is to share 

information about up-to-the-minute developments in systems security. 

The community has joined with the Federal Government to do just this. Even before last month’s attacks, industry leaders had joined to form the Partnership for 

Critical Infrastructure Security. The PCIS is a voluntary organization that is working to share information about threats to the Internet and other crucial networks, 

and determine how best to respond to those threats. About 120 companies are cooperating in this effort. 

And last month at the White House information technology summit, Cisco was 

one of about 40 Internet companies that agreed to develop a structured mechanism 

to react to events like the recent hacker attacks. As with the PCIS, industry is coordinating its activities with the Federal Government. 

We believe that this public-private partnership is the most effective response to 

these recent attacks. In the private sector, incentives must be put into place to encourage all web sites to deploy security technologies to protect themselves and their 

customers from hacker attacks. 

In the public sector, we are grateful that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has 

devoted significant resources to investigating these attacks and we hope the perpetrators will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. We encourage the Federal Government to serve as a model for private industry by equipping its own computer systems with the best security measures possible. 

This, too, will not be easy. Both the Government and private enterprise are having difficulty attracting and retaining enough skilled professionals in the field of 

systems security. I’m happy to tell you that the private sector has joined with the 

Office of Personnel Management to help the Government in this area by developing 

training and mentoring programs. Again, we regard this as an excellent example of 

public-private partnership. 

At this time, however, we do not ask Congress for new laws in the area of Internet security. Cooperation, not regulation or legislation, will insure that the Internet 

remains secure and at the same time open to the broadest possible public access. 

The Internet is, and should always remain, an open medium. No one can insulate 

the Internet and everything connected to it from all threats or guarantees that no 

attack on any particular Internet site will succeed. Even our oldest, most established public infrastructures pause on occasion—power and telephone lines come 

down, water mains break, highways become clogged—and, like them, the Internet 

will occasionally have localized difficulties. These are but potholes on the information superhighway, which we will fill in as fast as they appear—learning how to prevent similar potholes in the future. 

These recent attacks actually demonstrated that the technology community can 

quickly identify threats to the Internet, quickly act to eliminate them and quickly 

take measures that will reduce the impact of similar threats in the future. This spirit of innovation and rapid development propels the Internet’s exponential growth 

and ensures that the Internet will remain secure as it continues to grow. 

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Mr. Fuhrman. 

Dr. Reddy, welcome to our Subcommittee. 

And can I get your statement right after this? 

Senator ABRAHAM. Why do we not let him go. 

Senator BURNS. I think that is wise. Thank you. 

Dr. Reddy, thank you very much for coming this morning. We 

look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF RAJ REDDY, PH.D., HERBERT A. SIMON

PROFESSOR OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ROBOTICS,

CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY 

Dr. REDDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a great opportunity for us to testify before the Subcommittee. 

50

My name is Raj Reddy. I am the Herbert A. Simon Professor of 

Computer Science and Robotics at Carnegie Mellon University. I 

also serve as the Co-Chair of the President’s Information and Technology Advisory Committee, commonly known as PITAC. 

In the PITAC February 1999 report to the President, labeled ‘‘Information Technology: Investing in our Future,’’ we highlighted the 

need for increased investments in national security—about 15 

months ago—as well as a number of other research areas. 

Today, on behalf of PITAC, I will provide you with insights into 

the state of the Internet security in our country and outline some 

of the PITAC recommendations that will help our Nation to build 

and support a more reliable, available, secure, and scalable Internet. I will also provide some personal observations on, besides legal 

and administrative remedies, what research and technology remedies might exist to solve this problem of denial of service. 

While advances in information technology have created unprecedented economic growth and transformed our lives in thousands of 

positive ways, weaknesses still remain that enable malicious hackers to disrupt Internet service and overload popular Web sites. An 

analysis of these highly visible disruptions to the Internet reveals 

a wide range of causes, including denial of service from hackers. 

The PITAC shares Congress’ concern about these recent hacker 

attacks. In our February 1999 report, we observed that the Internet has grown well beyond the intent of its original designers 25 

years ago, and that our ability to extend its use has created enormous challenges. In our report, we recommended a research agenda to help ensure the survivability of our information infrastructure in the face of malicious attacks, equipment and software failures, and legal overload, where a large number of people call in a 

Schwab account site on a busy stock market day. 

We concluded that the support for critical, long-term fundamental research in IT is diminishing, and that the current research 

is too focused on near-term problems related to agency missions. To 

help maintain the U.S. leadership in IT, information technology, 

and restore a commitment to high-risk, high-return research, we 

recommended that the Federal Government create a strategic initiative in long-term R&D funding, and increase the funding for 

R&D over the next 5 years by $1.4 billion. 

Our report recommended a balanced research agenda in software, scalable information infrastructure, high-end computing, and 

work force implications. Specifically, we recommended research to 

support scalable information infrastructure, authentication and security mechanisms, mechanisms for detecting system intrusion, 

mechanisms for detecting mitigating and responding and recovering from human error in the creation and the use of the infrastructure, mechanisms for assuring information quality, and a 

number of others. 

PITAC is encouraged by the strong bipartisan support for the information technology research and development and by the $235 

million increased appropriation this year for the Federal IT R&D 

programs. Based largely on our recommendations, the administration proposal for the fiscal year 2001 budget includes a $600 million increase in investments for a balanced information technology 

51

R&D program, which includes funding for networking and software 

research to enable more secure, reliable, dependable networks. 

We applaud the Senate’s past leadership in supporting this information technology R&D, and we hope you will support the full set 

of research priorities we recommended in our report. 

Now I would like to make some personal observations on the specific problem of Internet security. Remedies to the problems of denial of service attacks and security loopholes and insider risks, 

there are a number of different ways of skinning this cat. One is 

legal; the other is administrative; and, finally, there is also an opportunity to use research and technology to stop many of these 

problems. And I would like to share with you some ideas on that 

topic. 

I propose that we establish a national network test bed that can 

be used to develop and demonstrate what I will refer to as an 

ultra-dependable, self-healing Internet. The purpose of this test bed 

is to try out new approaches without disrupting the crucial production infrastructure. It is an R&D vehicle. The proposed test bed 

will be similar to the ultra high-speed network test bed, NGI, Next 

Generation Internet, that has been funded in the last few years. 

It will include attributes such as reliability, availability, 

scalability, in addition to security. The operative issue is not security alone, as interpreted narrowly, but how to create a dependable 

Internet that we can all trust, like we trust the telephone system 

today. The ultra-dependable Internet would be used to develop 

technologies to enable self-healing networks. 

A self-healing network would work similar to the human immune 

system. It would continuously monitor the system—in this case, the 

network—analyze what is happening in the system, what packets 

are going through, and it would detect abnormal patterns automatically and immediately begin actions to remedy this problem. It 

would use software agents, capable of self-monitoring, self-diagnosing, and self-repair, much as the human immune system uses 

distributed antibodies to disable antigens and restore balance in 

the human body. 

Just as in the human system, where a few people may occasionally get sick but the society as a whole continues to function, we 

may accept an occasional denial of Internet service in a particular 

location, as long as most of the users are able to access most of the 

Web sites most of the time without any degradation of service. The 

proposed self-healing network will increase the packet handling 

overhead and perhaps make the system slower. We believe, with 

the exponential growth in technology, this will not be a serious 

problem in the future. 

In addition to the research needed to develop the faster networks, we will also need research in data warehousing of metadata contained in the packet headers, data mining of the statistical 

parameters that would classify normal and abnormal traffic, and 

repair strategies for generating signals that would make abnormal 

requests detectable. 

In conclusion, I believe the creation of a dependable Internet infrastructure, as dependable as the telephone service, is essential to 

the future of the economic growth and security of this Nation. To 

accomplish this, we need bold new research initiatives and uniform 

52

application of ideas across the international Internet infrastructure. Support for the increased Federal investments in IT R&D is 

a positive first step. But continued dialog among Federal researchers, industry and academia is essential to create bold new ideas 

like a self-healing, dependable information infrastructure. 

In summary, Mr. Chairman, it is estimated that the market capitalization of the Internet-based industries created since 1990 exceeds $1 trillion, resulting in capital gains taxed paid to the Nation 

of over $200 billion. Investing a small fraction of this national income in research toward creating an ultra-dependable, self-healing 

Internet will help ensure the continuation of this engine of growth. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Reddy follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RAJ REDDY, PH.D., HERBERT A. SIMON PROFESSOR OF

COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ROBOTICS, CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY

Introduction

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity 

to testify about important research and development efforts aimed at increasing 

Internet security and protecting our Nation’s Information Infrastructure. 

My name is Raj Reddy, and I am the Herbert A. Simon University Professor of 

Computer Science and Robotics at Carnegie Mellon University. I also serve as CoChair of the President’s Information Technology Advisory Committee, commonly 

known as PITAC. In the PITAC’s February 1999 report to the President, ‘‘Information Technology Research: Investing in Our Future,’’ we highlighted the need for increased investment in network security, as well as other important research areas. 

Today, on behalf of PITAC, I will provide you with insight into the state of Internet 

security in our country and outline some of the PITAC recommendations that will 

help our Nation build and support a more reliable, available, secure, and scalable 

Internet. I will also present my personal views on an R&D strategy for developing 

and demonstrating highly dependable networks.

Background

While advances in information technology have created unprecedented economic 

growth and transformed our lives in thousands of positive ways, weaknesses still 

exist that enable malicious hackers to disrupt Internet service and overload popular 

Web sites. An analysis of the highly visible disruptions to Internet access reveals 

a wide range of causes, including denial of service attacks from malicious hackers 

using insecure hosts infected with ‘‘zombie’’ diseases (Yahoo!), software bugs 

(Ameritrade), insecure configurations (Schwab), change management (E-trade), and 

security loopholes (Hotmail, Melissa). 

PITAC shares Congress’ concern about these recent hacker attacks. In our report 

to the President, we observed that ‘‘the Internet is growing well beyond the intent 

of its original designers and our ability to extend its use has created enormous challenges. As the size, capability, and complexity of the Internet grows, it is imperative 

that we do the necessary research to learn how to build and use large, complex, 

highly-reliable, and secure systems . . . It is therefore important that the Federal 

Government undertake research on topics ranging from network reliability and 

bandwidth, to robust, reliable, secure ways to deliver and to protect critical information.’’ In our report, we recommended a research agenda to help ensure the survivability of our information infrastructure in the face of malicious attacks or viruses, 

equipment or software failures, and overload. Before I discuss the specifics of the 

R&D agenda for Internet security, I would first like to briefly summarize the findings and recommendations of our report.

The PITAC Report Findings and Recommendations

The PITAC was established pursuant to the High Performance Computing Act of 

1991 and was tasked to look at a number of issues in high performance computing 

and communications. After a detailed review of the Federal IT R&D programs, we 

concluded that U.S. leadership in IT provides an essential foundation for promoting 

economic growth, education and research, environmental stewardship, public health, 

and national security. We also concluded that there has been an erosion of support 

for long-term fundamental research in IT and that current research is too focused 

53

on near-term problems linked to agency missions. Our Committee recommended 

that the Federal Government create a strategic initiative for long-term R&D and increase funding for IT R&D by $1.4 billion by fiscal year 2004 over the fiscal year 

1999 base programs funding level. Our report recommended a balanced research 

agenda, with priority for the following areas:

• Software: Methods for efficiently creating and maintaining high-quality software of all kinds and for ensuring the reliability of the complex software systems that now provide the infrastructure for much of our Government and our 

economy. 

• Scalable Information Infrastructure: Techniques for ensuring that the National Information Infrastructure consisting of communications systems, the 

Internet, large data repositories, and other emerging systems is reliable and secure, and can grow gracefully to accommodate the massive numbers of new 

users (perhaps billions) and applications expected over the coming two decades. 

• High End Computing : Continued invention and innovation in the development of fast, powerful computing systems and the accompanying communication 

systems are needed to implement critical science, engineering, and business applications ranging from aircraft design to weather and climate modeling. 

• Social, Economic, and Workforce Implications of IT: Research directed towards better understanding the sociological and economic impacts of innovations in information technology and toward growing the workforce to meet the 

national need for information technology professionals.

Our recommendation for research to support a scalable information infrastructure 

included topics to enable the survivability of our networks and information. Survivability means that services will be available when needed and information will be 

delivered in a timely fashion. The recommended research agenda includes:

• Authentication and security mechanisms for a large, heterogeneous, and 

evolving infrastructure 

• Mechanisms for detecting system intrusion and information software corruption 

• Mechanisms for detecting, mitigating, responding to, and recovering from, or 

for preventing, human error in the creation and use of the infrastructure 

• Mechanisms for assuring information quality • Scalable information and service replication strategies • Mechanisms for monitoring services to ensure correct operation within given 

quality-of-service bounds 

• Repositories for guaranteed long-term preservation of information

Our report recommendations have received strong bi-partisan support and we were encouraged by the $235 million increase for IT R&D appropriated in this 

year’s budget. The President’s fiscal year 2001 budget proposes an increase of nearly $600 million in IT R&D in a balanced research program that addresses the recommendations in the PITAC report. Proposed funding includes networking and software research directed towards technologies to enable more secure, reliable, and dependable networks. The PITAC applauds the Senate’s past support and leadership 

for IT R&D and hopes the Senate will support the full set of research priority areas 

recommended in our report. 

The PITAC report provides broad concepts for a balanced IT R&D program. While 

we recognized the importance of network security, reliability, and dependability, we 

did not develop a detailed R&D agenda for Internet security. Our recommendations 

cover a range of important topics to be addressed, rather than proposals for specific 

research projects.

The Impact of Internet Downtime on Businesses and Society

Denial of service happens when the network fabric is overloaded through intentional and unintentional (‘‘legal’’) overloading of the system with too many requests. 

This is analogous to a large number of people calling California in the event of an 

earthquake report, or a computer calling a phone continuously thereby blocking anyone else getting through in case of an emergency. The cost of denial of service and 

overloading can be substantial. The Yankee Group estimates that the online industry may have lost $1.2 billion in revenue from the Web site attacks earlier this 

month. (WSJ, Feb 24, 2000). A Gartner Group study showed that the average cost 

of downtime in brokerage operations is about $6.5 million per hour! According to 

the Boston-based market research firm, $29 million in refunds were paid out by 

MCI to customers affected by the 10 day outage of its frame relay network in August 1999. Three thousand companies were affected. (Online News, 10/28/99). eBay 

paid $3.9 million in credits to its customers for the service outage that halted bidVerDate Apr 24 2002 14:21 Jun 10, 2003 Jkt 078382 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\78382.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
54

ding completely at its popular service for an unprecedented 22 hours in June 1999. 

Distributed network sites can lose $20,000 to $80,000 per hour. (Computer Reseller 

News, 1998). At a cost of $80,000 per hour, the average company will lose $7.1 million per year in centralized network downtime. 

These costs are expected to increase as companies incur indirect costs in the form 

of lawsuits, regulatory scrutiny, impact on brand name and public image, loss of 

customer base, lower employee morale and productivity, and higher employee stress. 

The impact on businesses of system outage can be even more devastating. In an 

April 1999 survey of consumers, research firm Jupiter Communications found that 

46 percent leave a preferred site if they experience technical or performance problems. Statistics from McGladrey and Pullen show that for every five organizations 

affected by a disaster, two will be unable to maintain their critical business functions and make a recovery. Of the remaining three, one will not survive the next 

two years. In fact, a company that experiences a computer outage lasting more than 

10 days will never fully recover financially (‘‘Disaster Recovery Planning: Managing 

Risk and Catastrophe in Information Systems’’ by Jon Toigo). 

According to Cahners in-stat group, Internet downtime hits businesses financially, 

(http://www.instat.com/abstracts/ia/1999/is9906sp—abs.htm), affecting direct revenue/customer base, compensatory payments, inventory cost, and depreciation of 

capital. It also affects business in ways not seen on the balance sheet, such as market capitalization loss, employee downtime, and delays to market items that may 

prove more financially damaging than the explicit losses associated with an outage. 

The report ‘‘Data Failure: The Financial Impact on Internet Business’’ quantifies the 

real-cost damages for site outages based on SEC filings and publicly released information. The report compares two e-commerce business models and illustrates how 

much is at stake in the event of data failure.

Steps Towards a Secure and Dependable Internet

Many of the problems of Internet access can be avoided by taking some simple 

common sense precautions. For example:

Online businesses can:

• Educate users on cyber hygiene, security tools, and procedures such as use 

of the firewalls, intrusion detection systems, anti-virus software, automatic 

daily disinfecting tools, etc. 

• Discourage masquerading and spoofing attacks by ensuring that network 

traffic exiting from the local area network of an organization carries the address 

consistent with the valid set of addresses for that organization. 

• Protect against inside hacker risk by providing backup and retrieval from an 

off-site storage service provider. Disaster tolerance backup facilities are offered 

by many suppliers. Such services guarantee constant availability of data in the 

face of technical or natural catastrophe, including surge capabilities for unplanned swells in site traffic. 

• Provide 24 hour-per-day, 7 day-a-week physical security to central facilities 

and server farms. Alternatively, use the backup and retrieval from an off-site 

storage service as described in the previous bullet.

Industry can:

• Release hardware and software that prevents insecure configurations, and 

provide tools for intrusion detection. 

• Re-engineer operating systems and applications to make them immune to 

the effects of viruses and other forms of malicious code. 

• Identify and close the security loopholes and backdoors by working with 

major vendors to provide access to the source code and encourage open source 

movement. 

• Develop and deploy a secure communications infrastructure that can be used 

by network operators and Internet service providers to enable real-time collaboration when dealing with attacks.

Many of the common sense measures listed above depend on the voluntary compliance of more than a 100 million Internet users and organizations that provide Internet service. However, history has shown us that compliance failures will occur, either unintentionally or maliciously. Rather than leaving the Internet vulnerable because a few persons or organizations are careless or reckless, we should develop an 

information infrastructure that is not dependent on voluntary compliance of security 

practices and policies.

55

Personal Views on a Strategy for a National Self Healing Network Testbed

I would now like to make some personal observations and make a specific recommendation for creating a national self healing network testbed. The PITAC recommended an aggressive new program in networking research, including network 

security. We also recommended expanded research to explore ways that laws protecting privacy, intellectual property, and other rights are extended effectively into 

this new media. We continue to support increased funding in these critical areas. 

The PITAC is currently reviewing Federal research plans and will be issuing new 

recommendations later this year. Since these new recommendations are not available, I would like to present my personal views on logical next steps. 

By now we understand the sources of highly publicized Internet crashes: malicious hacker attacks and ‘‘legal’’ users overloading popular web sites. Many of the 

remedies require straightforward implementation of known solutions, either administrative or legal. However, herein lies the problem—we simply cannot depend on 

every system to be properly administered or every person to behave as desired. Instead, we should strive to develop an Internet infrastructure in which it does not 

matter if someone is careless or reckless. In my view, one of the key goals of networking research over the next few years should be development of a ‘‘self healing’’

network. A self healing network would work similar to the human immune system. 

It would constantly monitor the system (in this case, the network), analyze what 

is in the system, and if it finds something wrong within the system, immediately 

begin actions to remedy the problem. A self healing network would be capable of 

self-monitoring, self-diagnosing and self-repairing. To accomplish this, we should establish a national network testbed that can be used to develop and demonstrate 

what I will refer to as an ‘‘ultra-dependable Internet.’’ This is similar to an ultrahigh speed network, but with the focus on dependability rather than speed. 

I will use the phrase ‘‘dependable Internet’’ to specifically include attributes such 

as reliability, availability, and scalability in addition to security. The operative issue 

is not ‘‘security’’ as interpreted narrowly in the research circles but rather ‘‘how to 

create a dependable Internet Infrastructure’’ that is as reliable as the current telephone system. By dependable, I mean a system (‘‘as if my life depended on it’’) that 

is:

• reliable, i.e., always up, accessible, accurate, and consistent, 

• available, i.e., a system with no world-wide-wait and a response time of 

under 200 milliseconds most of the time, 

• scalable, i.e. an infrastructure capable of scaling to a billion simultaneous 

users and a trillion inter-connected devices, and 

• secure, i.e. no fear of loss of privacy and immunity to sniffing and spoofing.

The goal of a self healing network is to provide mechanisms for detecting unauthorized use of networking equipment, tracking inappropriate uses, and identifying 

the individuals using networks for malicious intent, without compromising individual rights to privacy and security on the network. Over the years we have found 

ways to balance privacy and security in traditional commerce. Applying these precedents to the new networked world will require combining the skills of technologists 

and people knowledgeable of the legal, economic, and social issues. Clearly this is 

an enormous challenge, but I believe it is a critical national research challenge and 

deserves an appropriate response.

A Self Healing Network

A self healing network is one which continuously monitors all the traffic within 

the system (every packet entering the system is validated before it can proceed) 

with a view to detect and disable abnormal traffic patterns. It is predicated on using 

‘‘software agents’’ capable of self-monitoring, self-diagnosis, and self-repair much as 

the human immune system uses (distributed) anti-bodies to disable antigens and restore balance in the human body. Just as in human systems where a few people 

may get sick some of the time, but society as a whole continues to function, we may 

accept an occasional denial of service as long as most users are able to access most 

of the web sites without any degradation of service. 

Self monitoring within the Internet core fabric requires agents capable of continuous and autonomous monitoring of ‘‘packet’’ traffic using ‘‘software sensors.’’ ‘‘Self 

repair agents’’ undertake a set of autonomous corrective actions against the offending source that is generating the unusual traffic by dropping the packets or limiting 

it to a ‘‘fair share’’ the number of packets entering the fabric. The work of these 

agents and the humans tracking network security could be helped if the new generation of routers add information packets that make it easier to detect malicious 

patterns of use and to track the attacks to their source. 

56

The proposed self healing network will add to the packet handling overhead at 

each router in the fabric and has the potential to make the system slower, waste 

bandwidth, and compromise privacy. At first blush, this requirement appears to be 

impractical, as the Internet is expected to handle trillions of packets every day and 

would require expensive retrofitting of the existing commercial Internet Service Providers (ISPs). However, such a transition is not only essential to the future economic 

growth and security of the nation, but also practical given the expected exponential 

advances in processor, memory, and optical networking technologies. The expected 

additional overhead in packet handling will be ameliorated by better algorithms, exponential improvements in processor (predicted by Moore’s law), memory, and bandwidth technologies and increasing locality of Internet traffic patterns (‘‘Internet is 

global and the traffic is local’’). 

In addition to the research needed to develop terabit networks, faster routers, efficient algorithms, and distributed computation techniques, research will also be 

needed for data warehousing of meta-data contained in packet headers, data mining 

of this data to establish statistical parameters that can be used to classify normal 

and abnormal traffic requests, and repair strategies for generating a signal (analogous to the busy signal used in voice telephony) to sites making abnormal requests 

without prior arrangement for surge capacity.

Conclusion

In conclusion, creating a dependable Internet infrastructure that is as dependable 

as telephone service is essential to the future economic growth and security of the 

nation. It is possible to create a system capable of achieving these goals while ensuring absolute protection of personal privacy and without major reductions in networking speed. Indeed, rapid advances in computing power and networking speed 

should make the new security systems nearly invisible to users. The main challenge 

is to find the right balance between having a dependable Internet infrastructure 

without compromising the ease of use by non-experts and protecting the privacy of 

the individuals connected to the infrastructure. To accomplish this will require both 

new research ideas and the uniform application of known and new ideas across the 

Internet infrastructure. It makes sense to apply the creative energies of academe 

to these social problems. 

Development of networks capable of meeting our goals for security and privacy 

will only happen with a concerted research investment supported by both Government and industry. One strategy would be to support a network testbed designed 

with the specific goal of evaluating innovative strategies for network protection—

including commercial concepts. Such a testbed would provide useful networking 

services and at the same time let commercial operators and Government research 

organizations evaluate advanced networking security concepts. 

It is estimated that market capitalization of Internet based industries created 

since 1990 is more than a trillion dollars resulting in capital gains taxes of more 

than $200 billion to the nation. Investing a small fraction of this national income 

in research towards creating a self healing Internet will ensure the continuation of 

this engine of growth!

Acknowledgements

This paper has benefited from the comments and suggestions from several PITAC 

members: Jim Gray, Irving Wladawsky-Berger, Vint Cerf and Bob Kahn and from 

other colleagues: Anish Arora, V.S. Arunachalam, Ed Lazowska, and Rich Pethia. 

Please send comments to rr@cmu.edu.

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Doctor. Those are interesting comments. 

I am going to move to Senator Abraham, who has joined us now. 

If you would like to either make your statement or summarize or 

present it for the record, and if you have questions for this panel, 

we would entertain those at this time. And then I will followup. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SPENCER ABRAHAM,

U.S. SENATOR FROM MICHIGAN 

Senator ABRAHAM. Thank you very much, Senator Burns. And 

thank you for your leadership on the Subcommittee level and on 

the full committee level on these issues. We appreciate what you 

do on a variety of these key topics. 

57

I just will make a brief statement. I have got two or three conflicting hearings this morning and other events, but I wanted to 

come by because I think this is a really important topic for us to 

focus on. 

I drew from this panel conclusions similar to ones I reached 

based on some meetings I had immediately in the wake of the recent spate of hacker activity. I was out in the Bay Area, Silicon 

Valley, and met with representatives from about 20 companies at 

that time, which was just in the week afterward, and with a group 

of businesses in my own State. Although Michigan is not as wellknown as a high-tech center perhaps as other parts of the country, 

we actually do have a real growing industry there. And I came 

away with conclusions very similar to the ones expressed by the 

panelists. 

I do not think there is any question that we need to proceed in 

a careful way here. We have to recognize the extent to which Government regulations are going to be effective are limited. I do think 

that we need to continue to focus on some of the things we can do 

with respect to penalties that can be invoked against people who 

commit computer-related crimes. I am not sure the current penalty 

structure really is adequate based on what I studied. 

I think the panels at the current time are kind of low. I think 

we need to establish Federal and civil criminal penalties against 

electronic identify theft, attacking one of the tools which is often 

used by cyber-terrorists and techno-thieves. I think we also need to 

examine Federal, civil and criminal penalties with respect to unauthorized access to information systems. I think these are areas 

where we can do some things that do not put such impediments in 

place that we constrict the development of the Internet and the development of e-commerce activities that are going to be going on. 

I also think that we need to encourage Governmentwide policies 

to improve the security of Federal information systems. That is not 

so much under our domain in this particular committee, but I 

think it is an area that we need to, based on these recent developments, that we need to perhaps as a Congress focus more attention 

on. And I know that Senator Thompson, in his committee, has focused on this and begun to introduce legislation along that line. 

And then I also serve on the Judiciary Committee, and we have 

looked at ways that we could create Federal grant programs to assist State and local law enforcement agencies in deterring, investigating and prosecuting computer crimes. Because obviously some 

of the resources available at the local level tend to maybe not be 

adequate to meet some of the challenges that the high-tech criminals pose. And I think that that is a reasonable area for us to both 

be part of and to look into. 

So these are some of the things I am going to be working on. But 

I think we also have to appreciate that there is sort of, obviously, 

a need to recognize the proprietary nature of information that is 

accumulated by industries, of technologies that are developed. And 

this is where I think some of the comments made in your earlier 

statements are particularly relevant. We have to appreciate that 

and understand that we can always come up with, I think, anticrime legislation that can potentially be effective, but sometimes it 

58

is so effective that it completely inhibits normal human discourse 

and activity. 

I was saying in my meetings in Michigan, we could presumably 

stop most, if not all, bank robberies if we strip searched everybody 

who went into a bank. But that probably would mean that very few 

people went into banks. Similarly, we can probably come up with 

a variety of processes that would minimize the potential for Internet crime or cyber-terrorism, but at such a level that there would 

be no more activity of an e-commerce nature or anything else. 

We can always overreach. I think we have to be very careful not 

to. And so I appreciate what you are trying to accomplish today. 

I look forward to working with you. And I thank the panel. I appreciate very much their participation. 

Senator BURNS. Thank you, Senator. 

I have just a couple of questions, and then we will just start the 

dialog. I am concerned. I think Senator Hollings kind of hit on it 

a while ago, and even the panel on law enforcement or those people 

who are in charge of monitoring these kind of activities. While I realize that you have got to watch the bottom line—I mean, we are 

all in business, we have to make a living and we have an obligation 

to our board of directors and our obligations to our own industry—

and given the competitiveness of this industry so far, and we have 

tried to maintain this to be very open, very competitive, let 

entrepreneurialship and imagination and ingenuity flow, it seems 

like we have not really given an extra measure to security until we 

had this incident happened with this information. 

Business and security should be complementary, not mutually 

exclusive. And I am wondering if you could comment on this. They 

say you have run out of interest after a while in discussions about 

security. How can we increase this dialog? And how can we heighten the interest in security and the working between Government 

and law enforcement? 

I want you all to take a shot at this. So, Mr. Misener, if you want 

to lead it off. 

Mr. MISENER. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. There is a need for both 

locks and police. We spent a lot of time talking about the police 

today and a little bit recently on the lock side. We at Amazon.com 

take security very seriously, and it is very important to us as a 

business and to our customers. As indicated before, we did not experience a break-in at our premises. Rather, it was this surrounding of the premises by this junk traffic that was directed toward our site. 

And so, to that extent, to the extent that there was this criminal 

behavior, we do believe that in addition to the locks that we put 

on our house, that we also need the police to help enforce against 

the criminal activity or prosecute the perpetrators of that criminal 

activity around the outside of the house. 

Senator BURNS. Dr. Reddy. 

Dr. REDDY. Mr. Chairman, besides the locks and the police, there 

is a third option. Normally, when we build any infrastructure, 

whether it is the interstate highway system or anything else, the 

Government takes responsibility at certain levels. Unfortunately, 

the Internet fabric, everybody has their own sites and they can secure those, but no one person is responsible for the Internet fabric. 

59

And that is by design. That is the way it was designed in 1969, because we wanted it to be scalable. 

However, that particular design has run its course. I think we 

need new research and new test beds to demonstrate an ultra-dependable network which has all the same features, and it can be 

shown and it can be used and demonstrated. And that is the responsibility of the Government, in the sense of what Senator Hollings was talking about and what you are also saying. It is not a 

question of increasing police, or it is not a question of telling private industry to put on more locks. There is another piece in between, the Internet fabric, that no person is responsible for. And 

therefore, the Government has to take responsibility for it. 

Senator BURNS. Mr. Fuhrman. 

Mr. FUHRMAN. Thank you, Chairman. If I could add, if we step 

back a second, everybody looks through their glasses on life and 

their perspectives are built upon their experiences that they have 

gone through or others that they have observed. And so I think an 

unfortunate step that we have taken here at this point is that we 

have had to wait, in essence, for some of these attacks to occur for 

folks to wake up and go through the experience and realize that 

this is now something that they before had either discounted or 

just had not gotten to yet that is now something to be added up 

to my priority list. 

And I think, as we continue to step closer and we make great 

progress as we go forward, we are going to see businesses and customers start taking security even more seriously than they have in 

the past. 

Senator BURNS. It is very interesting, the field called biometrics, 

where users verify their identity through a pad that scans either 

fingerprints or a monitor that scans retinas, among other devices. 

Does biometrics have a role to play in increasing security on the 

Internet in coming years? What is the potential? Anybody can take 

a shot at that. 

Dr. REDDY. Mr. Chairman, biometrics has the same privacy problems. There is even a simpler solution than biometrics. Intel has 

designed into every chip an I.D. So when a packet is transmitted 

from a computer, you can add that I.D. But there was a big hue 

and cry about the privacy issues, and the whole thing stopped 

dead. Anybody that tries to put biometrics or anything else which 

involves identification of the individual, as opposed to just the machine that perpetrated the thing, will probably cause the same 

kinds of issues. So I do not know what the right answer is. 

Senator BURNS. Mr. Misener. 

Mr. MISENER. Mr. Chairman, I share the assessment that this 

would cause perhaps a hue and cry if discussed as a viable option, 

although I would recognize that biometrics and other forms of personal identification are important to protecting actual true security 

issues as opposed to sort of online e-commerce issues. 

Senator BURNS. Mr. Fuhrman, you can comment on this. But I 

was struck by the fact of what you said a while ago. I really had 

not thought of it in the context that they did not actually get into 

your shop, but they surrounded your shop, and prevented anybody 

else from your normal daily activities. And therein lies the problem, more than the security of gaining entry into your shop. 

60

Is that a correct assessment? 

Mr. MISENER. That is correct. But recognize also, sir, that there 

were security breaches at other sites that allowed the hack attacks 

to occur. For example, at some universities there were security 

breaches, true intrusions of their systems, that allowed these distributed denial of service attacks to take place against other systems. And those systems were less well protected than others on 

the in terms of. 

Senator BURNS. It was my understanding that it took several 

computers to do all this. And if this person that perpetrated this 

thing, if he had to buy all the computers, he probably would not 

do it. But he could enter other computers and tell them what to 

do. 

Dr. REDDY. Mr. Chairman, there is a problem here. There is also 

legal traffic that can demonstrate the same properties as a hacker 

attack. For example, when Victoria’s Secret announced that they 

were going to have a Web site where they were showing their new 

fashions, everybody and his brother wanted to see it. And the same 

denial of service happened there. There is nothing illegal there. It 

just happened. 

It is like what happens when there is an earthquake in California: everybody calls in to make sure that their loved ones are 

safe. You cannot get through. So it is not just illegal, malicious attacks. Legal things can also cause this problem. That is why you 

need a self-monitoring, self-healing network, which says, sorry, 

there is a lot of traffic going, you cannot use it. There is a busy 

signal. 

So some people at least get through, as much as the traffic would 

permit, at Amazon.com. The rest of the people are not able to get 

through. Rather than everybody being stopped. 

Senator BURNS. The other day I visited a facility that monitors 

telephone traffic. It tells them where they have a problem, they 

have a line outage. And it tells them that they are rerouting. And 

also during particular times of day their traffic is such that there 

is a potential that they have to add another line or to reroute the 

traffic or then protect what 911 does and all of this. Are we saying 

that? 

Dr. REDDY. The same thing. 

Senator BURNS. The same thing. We are going down the same 

line. 

Dr. REDDY. It is what is called a network management system. 

We need an Internet network management system. And what happens now is, as we heard from the previous panel, the Government 

is somehow going to protect each of their sites. But I can still disable people from getting through to your site. And what we need 

is to stop it at the source, not at the destination. And that requires 

a complete concept of knowing exactly the overall well-being of the 

entire network all the time. That is the kind of thing you saw in 

the telephone systems. We do not have that. 

Senator BURNS. Do you envision an automatic thermostat, so to 

speak? 

Dr. REDDY. Yes, that is exactly it. The whole idea is to build a 

dependable network in which there is a continuous monitoring of 

the entire traffic from everybody, and knowing where the abnormal 

61

behavior is happening, and then shut them down at the source 

rather than letting them come all the way to the Government site 

and there trying to block them from getting in. 

Senator BURNS. It offers interesting challenges. It really does. 

Any closing statements by any of you? 

[No response.] 

Senator BURNS [continuing]. None at all. Well, we appreciate 

your coming here today and sharing this information. We will probably investigate this further. 

Dr. Reddy, I am very interested in what your testimony is here 

today, and I would hope that the rest of the Senators on this Committee read it. And I think that they will, because you offer several 

suggestions in there that I think we should take note of. And all 

of you who have offered suggestions, I appreciate that. 

Again, industry, the teamwork thing has to happen. Because I 

am not convinced right now that there has to be new laws or anything like that. I am saying that we as an industry have to come 

together. And it is like I said a while ago, in security, we were all 

raised that you do not fool around with somebody else’s mailbox, 

but I do not see any warning out there like I saw on a mailbox or 

our folks got on us about that. I know those things have to be 

taken into account. 

Thank you very much. These hearings are closed. 

[Whereupon, at 11:20 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(63)

APPENDIX

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MAX CLELAND, U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA

Good morning Mr. Chairman and distinguished guests. The tremendous advances 

being made in the computer and telecommunications industries are forever changing the way we do business in this country and abroad. This new digital age in 

which we are living has ushered in the ability to trade stock, shop for a car, buy 

air line tickets and to buy, sell and trade just about anything else using the Internet. Many of the firms that are engaging in this new way of doing business didn’t 

exist a few years or even months ago. The growth of e-commerce has been so rapid 

that projections made about how much business will be conducted over the Internet 

were often outdated as soon as they are published. On March second of this year 

the Commerce Department released the first ever estimate of retail e-commerce 

sales or e-tail sales. Reported e-tail sales over the Internet and other electronic networks have reached a historic $5.3 billion in the fourth quarter of 1999. 

While there are now new opportunities for the good people of our nation to gain 

greater productivity and have access to a wider selection of goods and services, there 

is an attendant menace to on-line businesses which threatens to disrupt the way 

commerce is conducted over the Internet. This menace is HACKERs who are seeking to gain unauthorized access to systems for the purpose of destroying, corrupting, 

stealing or monitoring information vital to the operation of computer systems owned 

by others. 

These hackers have distinguishing screen names, or aliases, and are apparently 

very bright, intelligent people with deviant, malicious minds and a hankering for 

chaos. One suspected hacker is a 17 year-old New England boy who told investigators that he has been using computers since he was three and spends 16 hours a 

day on the Internet. 

All businesses must be protected from the hackers, but no where is it more important than the businesses and industries that are vital to the nation’s health, wealth 

and security and make up our nation’s critical infrastructure. These critical infrastructure businesses and industries are engaged in information and communications, banking and finance, basic utilities, aviation, mass transit, public health services, and oil and gas production and storage. On the Government side, the critical 

infrastructure consists of internal security, Federal law enforcement, foreign intelligence, foreign affairs and national defense. All of these activities must be protected 

from the destructive, corruptive, stealing or monitoring of information by unauthorized persons. Anyone attempting to hack into these systems must be stopped because their actions threaten our country’s security. 

A GAO report released March second of this year provides commentary on the 

proposed Government Information Security Act and cites some very disturbing facts 

about the state of the Government’s computer security:

The Environmental Protection Agency has had invasions of its systems that resulted in damage and disruption to that agency’s operations. 

The Department of Veterans Administration has been cited for weaknesses in 

its computer systems that could compromise sensitive medical and benefit payment information of our nation’s veterans. 

A test on the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s systems reveled 

that their systems could have been penetrated posing serious threats to orbiting 

spacecraft and the scientific data received from these spacecrafts. 

The State Department’s computers are also vulnerable to attack and unauthorized access by hackers, terrorists or other unauthorized individuals.

It appears that from this listing that there is a pressing need to improve computer 

security planning and management and to make the cases like these just cited the 

exception, not the rule in the Government’s systems. 

Fear, mistrust and the uncertainties created by hackers can slow the economic 

growth and prosperity that many public and private sector experts envision for the 

Internet. As the Government sets out to continue to protect our nation’s critical inVerDate Apr 24 2002 14:21 Jun 10, 2003 Jkt 078382 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\WPSHR\GPO\DOCS\78382.TXT SCOM1 PsN: CAROLT
64

frastructure from domestic and foreign intruders and e-businesses set out to reduce 

the costs of theft and destruction of data and hardware by hackers, we must ensure 

that people seeking to do business over the Internet are safe from hackers, and that 

sufficient cooperation and coordination between the Government and private industry is encouraged. Most recently this cooperation resulted in a smooth transition to 

the year 2000. We can and must replicate these results in the area of computer security. 

I am very interested in hearing from the panel about your thoughts with regard 

to the scope and magnitude of the hacker problem and what your recommendations 

are for putting hackers out of business.

Æ