Testimony of Michael A.
Vatis, Director, National Infrastructure Protection Center,
FBI
Before the Senate
Judiciary Committee, Criminal Justice Oversight Subcommittee
and House Judiciary Committee, Crime Subcommittee
February 29, 2000
"Cybercrime"
Good afternoon, Chairman Thurmond,
Chairman McCollum, and members of the subcommittees. I am
pleased to be testifying today before this special joint hearing.
Addressing the problem of cyber crime requires dynamic new
working relationships in both the government and private sector.
This joint meeting symbolizes in part those new relationships.
Our ability in law enforcement to deal with this crime problem
will also require the support of Congress, and I want to express
my appreciation for your subcommittees' longstanding support
for the work of the FBI, and for your acknowledgment of the
importance of the issue of cyber crime. The recent denial-of-service
attacks against Yahoo!, Amazon.com, E-bay, CNN, Buy.com, and
other e-commerce web sites have thrust the security of our
information infrastructure into the spotlight. I look forward
to discussing the steps we have taken to tackle this issue
to date, and the measures that are necessary to ensure that
we retain the ability to deal with this problem in the future.
The changes wrought by the Internet
to our society -- including business, education, government,
and personal communication -- are evident all around us, and
still very much in flux. The cyber revolution has permeated
virtually every facet of our lives. Unfortunately, that revolution
has entered the criminal arena as well. For just as millions
of people around the globe have incorporated the Internet
and advanced information technology into their daily endeavors,
so have criminals, terrorists, and adversarial foreign nations.
Whether we like it or not, cyber crime presents the most fundamental
challenge for law enforcement in the 21st Century. By its
very nature, the cyber environment is borderless, affords
easy anonymity and methods of concealment to bad actors, and
provides new tools to engage in criminal activity. A criminal
sitting on the other side of the planet is now capable of
stealthily infiltrating a computer network in this country
to steal money, abscond with proprietary information, or shut
down e-commerce sites. To deal with this problem, law enforcement
must retool its work force, its equipment, and its own information
infrastructure. It must also forge new partnerships with private
industry, other agencies, and our international counterparts.
We have been doing all of these things for the last two years.
But we must continue to build upon our progress to ensure
that we can perform our responsibilities to protect public
safety and national security in the Information Age. These
are some of the issues I would like to focus on today.
The NIPC
Let me begin with some background
about the National Infrastructure Protection Center, or "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 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 government 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 cyber crime 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
cyber crime 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 Cyber
Threats
Over the past several years
we have seen a range of computer crimes 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 website
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. Because of
these implications, it is critical that we have in place the
programs and resources to investigate and, ultimately, to
deter these sorts of crimes.
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% 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 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.
Examples of "hacktivism" include a case in 1996,
in which an unknown subject gained unauthorized access to
the computer system hosting the Department of Justice Internet
web site. The intruders deleted over 200 directories and their
contents on the computer system and installed their own pages.
The installed pages were critical of the Communications Decency
Act (CDA) and included pictures of Adolf Hitler, swastikas,
pictures of sexual bondage scenes, a speech falsely attributed
to President Clinton, and fabricated CDA text.
Virus Writers. Virus writers 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
"cyber crimes" 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.
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.
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 Qa'ida 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 surprising, 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.
Distributed Denial of Service
Attacks.
The recent distributed denial
of service(DDOS) attacks have garnered a tremendous amount
of interest in the public and in the Congress. 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.
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 "Trinoo," "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 other 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 website 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 attacks 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.
Recently, 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 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 multiagency 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 multiagency
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
Most importantly, however, our
success in battling cyber crime depends on close cooperation
with private industry. This is the case for several reasons.
First, most of the victims of cyber crimes are private companies.
Therefore, successful investigation and prosecution of cyber
crimes depends on private victims reporting incidents to law
enforcement and cooperating with the investigators. Contrary
to press statements by companies offering security services
that private companies won't share information with law enforcement,
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
E-bay, illustrates this point:
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").
E-Bay has long recognized that the best way to combat cyber
crime, 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.
To encourage private sector
cooperation, we have engaged in a concerted outreach effort
to private industry, providing threat briefings, issuing analyses
and threat warnings, and speaking at industry conferences.
In another example of cooperation, the Attorney General and
the Information Technology Association of America announced
a set of initiatives last year as part of a "Cybercitizens
Partnership" between the government and the information
technology (IT) industry. One initiative involves providing
IT industry representatives to serve in the NIPC to enhance
our technical expertise and our understanding of the information
and communications infrastructure.
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 website 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 2400 entries. This represents 2400 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 full-fledged 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 concrete 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
cyber crime requires a joint effort by industry and government
together, we will continue to make real progress in this area.
Keeping Law Enforcement on
the Cutting Edge of Cyber Crime
As Internet use continues to
soar, cyber crime 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. 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.
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 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.
Finally, we must look at whether
changes to the legal procedures governing investigation and
prosecution of cyber crimes are warranted. The problem of
Internet crime has grown at such a rapid pace that the laws
have not kept up with the technology. The FBI is working with
the Department of Justice to propose a legislative package
for your review to help keep our laws in step with these advances.
One example of some of the problems
law enforcement is facing is the jurisdictional limitation
of pen registers and trap-and-trace orders issued by federal
district courts. These orders allow only the capturing of
tracing information, not the content of communications. Currently,
in order to track back a hacking episode in which a single
communication is purposely routed through a number of Internet
Service Providers that are located in different states, we
generally have to get multiple court orders. This is because,
under current law, a federal court can order communications
carriers only within its district to provide tracing information
to law enforcement. As a result of the fact that investigators
typically have to apply for numerous court orders to trace
a single communication, there is a needless waste of time
and resources, and a number of important investigations are
either hampered or derailed entirely in those instances where
law enforcement gets to a communications carrier after that
carrier has already discarded the necessary information.
Another laws may be in need
of revision because they are decades old and did not anticipate
current technology. Many laws were not drafted in a technology
neutral way, and do not make much sense in today's world where
telephone carriers, Internet service providers, and cable
operators, are all providing ways to communicate both electronically
and by voice over the Internet. We are reviewing the pen register,
trap and trace statutes, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act,
and the Cable Communications Policy Act, to ensure that the
laws make sense in the current environment.
There are also issues that we
must readdress with respect to the need, under current law,
to demonstrate at least $5,000 in damage for certain hacking
crimes enumerated under 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(5). In some of the
cases we investigate, proof of damage in excess of $5,000
on a particular system is difficult to show, although the
crime of breaking into numerous systems and obtaining root
access, with the ability to destroy the confidentiality or
accuracy of information, remains very real and extremely serious.
Finally, we should consider
whether current sentencing provisions for computer crimes
provide an adequate deterrence. Given the degree of harm that
can be caused by a virus, intrusion, or a denial of service
-- in terms of monetary loss to business and consumers, infringement
of privacy, or threats to public safety when critical infrastructures
are affected -- it would be appropriate to consider whether
penalties established years ago remain adequate.
The Role of Law Enforcement
Finally, I would like to conclude
by emphasizing two key points. The first is that our role
in combating cyber crime 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.
Conclusion
I want to thank the subcommittees again for giving me the
opportunity to testify here today. The cyber crime problem
is real, and growing. The NIPC is moving aggressively to meet
this challenge by training FBI agents and investigators from
other agencies on how to investigate computer intrusion cases,
equipping them with the latest technology and technical assistance,
developing our analytic capabilities and warning mechanisms
to head off or mitigate attacks, and closely cooperating with
the private sector. We have already had significant successes
in the fight. 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.
|