Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Predator Drones based on pirated, malfunctioning software?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Predator Drones based on pirated, malfunctioning software?

    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/09...zza/page2.html

    The CIA is implicated in a court case in which it's claimed it used an illegal, inaccurate software "hack" to direct secret assassination drones in central Asia.

    The target of the court action is Netezza, the data warehousing firm that IBM bid $1.7bn for on Monday. The case raises serious questions about the conduct of Netezza executives, and the conduct of CIA's clandestine war against senior jihadis in Afganistan and Pakistan.

    The dispute surrounds a location analysis software package - "Geospatial" - developed by a small company called Intelligent Integration Systems (IISi), which like Netezza is based in Massachusetts. IISi alleges that Netezza misled the CIA by saying that it could deliver the software on its new hardware, to a tight deadline.
    The Predator B

    When the software firm then refused to rush the job, it's claimed, Netezza illegally and hastily reverse-engineered IISi's code to deliver a version that produced locations inaccurate by up to 13 metres. Despite knowing about the miscalculations, the CIA accepted the software, court submissions indicate.

    IISi is now seeking an injunction to ban Netezza and the CIA from using the software or any derivative of it, in any context.

    The relationship between the two firms dates back to 2006, when IISi signed up to resell Netezza data warehousing kit combined with Geospatial.

    The code allows users, for example, "to incorporate and cross-reference vast amounts of business data with geographic location within the same database, and enable events (such as... a cell phone signal moving from one tower to another) to be matched with personal characteristics in the database (such as... the identity of the person whose cell phone signal has moved from one tower to another)", according to IISi's court filings.

    Such techniques - quickly combining intelligence with live mobile phone surveillance from the air - are reportedly central to the CIA's targeting of missile strikes by unmanned aircraft.
    They want to kill people with my software that doesn't work

    The partnership between the two firms strengthened, and in August 2008 Netezza acquired exclusive rights to distribute Geospatial, alongside its NPS hardware. By August last year, Netezza was starting to promote its next generation appliance, TwinFin. Whereas NPS was based on IBM's Power PC chip architecture, the TwinFin relies on cheaper x86 silicon. As a result, Geospatial would not run on the new gear.

    Nevertheless, Netezza sales staff sold Geospatial running on TwinFin to a "US government customer", which later turned out to be the CIA. The purchase order, totalling $1.18m, via an obscure Virginia IT consultancy, came through on 11 September last year. This despite - as claimed in IISi court documents - that the software product referred to on the order "in fact did not exist".

    Up to this point IISi had done little work porting Geospatial, as its engineers had not had physical access to a TwinFin. Indeed, the agreement between the two firms did not require IISi to support the new machines - a fact confirmed last month by a Boston judge - but it agreed to begin the process in September 2009.

    Netezza supplied the software firm with TwinFin hardware on 1 October. Within a week, Richard Zimmerman, IISi's CTO reported that porting Geospatial was "proving fraught with difficulties" and would take at least two months.

    Two days later, on 9 October, the relationship took a strange turn. Jon Shepherd, Netezza's "general manager, location-based solutions" called Zimmerman to pressure him to deliver the code quicker, court documents say.

    "He basically told me the CIA... wanted to use [Geospatial] to target Predator drones in Afganistan and that, quote/unquote, it was our patriotic duty to work with them to get [Geospatial] ported to the TwinFin as fast as possible and that we need to have a phone conversation the next day to discuss that," Zimmerman said in a sworn deposition to the court.
    "Frankly, that response suggests a cavalier sales approach to a profound issue. Lives are at stake."
    During a conference call the next day, Netezza CEO Jim Baum repeated Shepherd's claims that national security demanded IISi's help, according to the deposition. Shepherd suggested the CIA would accept untested code in chunks, Zimmerman said.

    "My reaction was one of stun, amazement that they want to kill people with my software that doesn't work," he said.

    According to the affidavit of IISi CEO Paul Davis, who was also on the conference call, his firm did not previously know Netezza had sold the undeveloped product, let alone for deadly application by the CIA.

    In an email to Baum two days later, on Columbus day 2009, Davis wrote: "Jon [Shepherd's] statement, apparently endorsed by Jim [Baum] that the customer can 'just work with whatever we give them' is not consistent with how IISi works. And we don't really believe that is how our national security agencies work. Frankly, that response suggests a cavalier sales approach to a profound issue. Lives are at stake."

    Yet according to Baum's response, that is how the CIA worked. "It is the CUSTOMER who has indicated that he is willing to work with IISi and Netezza to accept code progressively," he wrote.

    As a follow up, Davis got a call from a man who identified himself as Skip McCormick, of the CIA, to discuss speeding up the port of Geospatial. Davis was recuperating from a heart attack and could not speak at any length. Straight after the the call, however, he received an email from McCormick with a CIA address.

    "We depend on the Geospatial tools here every day," it said.
    "We just upgraded to a [TwinFin], but it doesn't yet have the Geospatial tools. I'm trying to figure out what options are available for getting them asap."

    Davis had doubts the contact was genuine but The Register has established that a Hays W. "Skip" McCormick III, co-author of a 1998 book on software project management, has worked at the CIA for several years. Sources including conference guest lists record his involvement in software projects at the agency. According to book publicity he previously worked as a consultant to DARPA, Northrop Grumman and the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

    Further evidence of the CIA's apparent acceptance of untested software is offered by an internal Netezza email from the same day as the crucial conference call. "A US Gov customer is expecting the toolkit to be available as soon as Monday for use in a mission-critical project," wrote project manager Razi Raziuddin.

    "They do understand we won't have a fully-qualified, production-ready release and are OK with it."

    Immediately after IISi's refusal to deliver untested Geospatial code, internal emails disclosed to the court show Netezza executives began making alternative arrangements. "I want to set up some time on Thursday to get on the phone with you guys to talk about some options in the event we need an alternative TwinFin solution," Shepherd told Netezza engineers in an email.
    Thank God for optimists

    On the Thursday one of the engineers told Jim Baum via email that "it appears" Geospatial was working on TwinFin. On Friday it emerged that however Netezza adapted the software, the results were inaccurate.
    "For some strange reason many of the calculations are a little off, from 1 to 13 metres," wrote Joe Wiltshire, a federal account manager at Netezza.

    "The customer is not confident they can live with the uncertainty in meters unless we can tell them a bit about why this is happening."

    "No matter how you slice this, we are likely screwed," Netezza CEO Baum replied.

    The unreliable results were traced to a floating point problem, but less than a week later Wiltshire reported to Shepherd that in fact "they are satisfied" and believed "the minor discrepancy in metrics... is due to [TwinFin] doing a better job".

    "Thank God for optimists," came Shepherd's reply.

    The solution was later referred to as "the spatial toolkit hack" in Netezza emails when it began producing further errors in November. The existence of the hack, and its use at the CIA was only revealed after Netezza sued IISi, claiming it breached its 2008 contract by refusing to port Geospatial to TwinFin.

    That case was dismissed last month, with the judge finding that contrary to Netezza's repeated claims, IISi was under no obligation to carry out the work. Discovery also revealed that Shepherd had called on staff to develop "our own version of the spatial toolkit", which was introduced in January this year as "Netezza Spatial", which is available on the open market.

    Now IISi claims both the hack and Netezza's own software are illegally based on reverse engineering and misappropriation of its trade secrets, and is pursuing an injunction that if granted would block their use by anyone. It's unclear which, if either, is currently in use at the CIA. A hearing on the injunction application is scheduled next week.

    The complex case, which has so far received scant press attention, has the potential to embarrass the CIA, and the White House. President Obama has significantly expanded use of clandestine drone assassinations, despite heavy criticism from the UN and others.

    Questions remain over whether repeated Netezza claims that the CIA needed Geospatial for drone assassination operations were correct, and the full truth is unlikely to be made public. However, the suggestion the agency accepted a rushed job and saw inaccuracies in an optimistic light is likely to draw further controversy to the programme.

    Netezza and IISi both declined to comment for this story. A CIA spokeswoman said the agency does not comment on pending litigation, especially if it is not a party to the lawsuit.

  • #2
    Re: Predator Drones based on pirated, malfunctioning software?

    with considerable effort i think you could reverse engineer the program, although not by testing inputs and outputs. but by de-compiling it and going through some strenuous effort to revert executables back into human readable language.

    i have used netezza before on a couple of clients and a few projects.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Predator Drones based on pirated, malfunctioning software?

      I don't get it........

      The article seems quite confusing to me.

      Is the subject about intellectual property theft?

      Targeted killings?

      Or both?

      Or something else entirely?

      If it's about intellectual property theft........sounds like there's a case(just my amateir 0.02c).

      If it's about targeted killings...or more specifically, about the "inaccuracy" problem of 1 to 13 metres...it's worth mentioning that if the author or plaintiff is trying to make it appear that error could increase the risk of collateral damage(ie civilian casualties) it's probably a non-issue.

      Signals intelligence traffic analysis and data mining, etc will certainly play critical roles in the "find" part of "find, fix, finish"

      "Fix" part would likely require additional overlapping sensor and detection/targeting technologies.......and with Predator I'd be thinking optical/thermal/FLIR/etc to achieve a high enough level of confidence(down to the specific person, vehicle or structure) in order to "finish".

      From a marketing standpoint, I'd strongly encourage IISi to change their name.....might be confused with the Pakistani ISI

      This story is probably more of an embarrassment than anything.

      What I find interesting is the decline in media attention on such controversial COIN strategies.

      While I'm largely supportive of using such technology and techniques to take the fight to the enemy in denied areas.....I'm particularly concerned about the next 10-20 years when the same technology and techniques could potentially be used(or more specifically misused) in domestic law enforcement duties.

      From a law enforcement perspective, replacing aging helo fleets with next-gen UAVs and next gen Patrol Cars tied in with realtime mobile phone network data, credit card payment data, Facebook Places, vehicle license plate optical recognition data, OnStar vehicle data, etc leaves one with precious little public privacy.

      I think that much like WWII provided a massive leap forward in technological capability in a few short years, the same can be said of the GWOT....except that much of the leap forward now is "dual use", capable of being implemented to not just find, fix, finish insurgents around the globe...but also domestic populations if used inappropriately.

      Just my 0.02c

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Predator Drones based on pirated, malfunctioning software?

        Originally posted by lakedaemonian
        Is the subject about intellectual property theft?

        Targeted killings?

        Or both?
        The article is about a widely used weapon system which appears to have been rushed into production, including use of a flawed and pirated software package.

        Frankly a 42 foot error radius may not be that big an issue when 1000+ lb warheads are involved, but the fact that such a key component is literally halfa**ed ought to be of some concern.

        Another example:

        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38857999/ns/us_news-life/

        An out-of-control Navy drone entered into restricted airspace around the U.S. capital earlier this month, according to media and government reports.

        An unmanned Fire Scout helicopter — about 31 feet long and 10 feet high — was on a test flight when the incident occurred on Aug. 2, the Navy Times reported.

        Some 75 minutes into the routine flight, Navy operations in Maryland lost control of the aircraft and it eventually wandered 23 miles on a north-by-northwest course into the restricted airspace surrounding Washington, D.C.

        Operators were able to shift to another ground control station, get the helicopter under control, and return it to Webster Field in southern Maryland, according to a Navy statement. There were no injuries or damage to the aircraft.

        After the incident, all six of the Navy’s Fire Scouts were grounded and an inquiry was started into what went wrong. The Navy called the problem a "software issue," The New York Times reported.

        “When they lose contact with the Fire Scout, there’s a program that’s supposed to have it immediately return to the airfield to land safely. That did not happen as planned,” Cmdr. Danny Hernandez, a Navy spokesman, said.

        The Fire Scout is designed as a surveillance aircraft that can take off from Navy warships. It has been used in the past for drug busts in Central America.

        Incursions into the protected airspace around the nation's capital are not uncommon, according to the General Accounting Office, but most involve civilian aircraft.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Predator Drones based on pirated, malfunctioning software?

          I find this crazy, shouldn't a purchase by CIA be under NDA or secrets act?

          Also, how can a software that uses complex algorithm be reverse engineered? Unless they are using de-compilable code like Java?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Predator Drones based on pirated, malfunctioning software?

            Originally posted by touchring
            I find this crazy, shouldn't a purchase by CIA be under NDA or secrets act?
            Given that the software in question is for sale to the public, why then would its existence be covered by NDA or secrets acts?

            Also, how can a software that uses complex algorithm be reverse engineered? Unless they are using de-compilable code like Java?
            Any system where you know the inputs and the outputs can be reverse engineered.

            In this situation where Netezza was providing a hardware platform onto which the software was to be integrated, there is even more scope for reverse engineering.

            One of my sales managers when I first started in the EDA industry told me about a funny business trip he had made to Germany in the early '80s.

            After arriving, he was picked up and driven across the Berlin wall. In a college gymnasium, a wall was pulled back to show rows and rows of DECs (Digital Equipment Corp) - only these weren't actual DECs. The software he was supporting was being run on reproduced DECs, and the software itself wasn't the real software, it was copied. But the version copied had a bug, and thus all the copies had the bug - the 'customer' wanted to pay to get this bug fixed.

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Predator Drones based on pirated, malfunctioning software?

              Originally posted by c1ue View Post
              Any system where you know the inputs and the outputs can be reverse engineered.
              Not so.
              Most folks are good; a few aren't.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Predator Drones based on pirated, malfunctioning software?

                Problem Addressed:

                KABUL, Afghanistan — NATO forces in Afghanistan launched two airstrikes against Taliban insurgents on the Pakistani side of the border, killing more than 30 people, military spokesmen confirmed on Monday.

                The airstrikes, which took place last Friday and Saturday, were unusual because they involved piloted aircraft rather than drones, which are more commonly used to attack insurgents on the Pakistani side of the border, and which are normally operated by the Central Intelligence Agency.

                http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/wo...8pstan.html?hp

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Predator Drones based on pirated, malfunctioning software?

                  Originally posted by TPC
                  Not so.
                  Sure you can.

                  The model created may be (will likely be) wrong for unusual circumstances, but the range of unusual circumstances is defined by the test data set.

                  And when you've got the original running beside it, there's lots of test data to be had.

                  The entire semiconductor industry is based on this precept. If it were false, then no successful semiconductor design could ever occur as the simulation models from the devices on up are all predicated on this form of modelling - as the models must be created and are used even before the actual process is stabilized.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Predator Drones based on pirated, malfunctioning software?

                    Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                    Sure you can.
                    Ah - so when you claimed earlier anything could be reverse engineered, you didn't mean to imply they could be correctly reverse engineered.

                    Further, you seem to confuse modeling with reverse engineering. Let's say I model an Intel® Core2 Duo using a massive Python program. I could have the most perfect model of a microprocessor ever coded, and it would not be even in the slightest possible way a reverse engineered substitute. Would you be interested in purchasing a mainboard for your PC with my Python modeling code printed on microfilm glued into the socket where the CPU should go?

                    Reverse engineering develops a substitute that is suitable as a working substitute in form, fit and function.

                    Modeling develops a "model" that tells you how something else would behave in some regards.

                    There is a fundamental difference between knowing what something else will do and doing it.

                    One also cannot reverse engineer (well, not accurately anyway) NP complete algorithms for a practical cost. Cryptology depends on this for its usefulness. I use strong crypto (well, not very strong, to be honest) for almost all my web account passwords. I could give you a list of every such password I have, along with all the possible variable inputs, such as the site URL, which I might be using to compute these passwords, and neither you nor the NSA can reverse engineer my algorithm or compute even one such password that I didn't already give you.

                    Nor can one reverse engineer non-deterministic algorithms deterministically.

                    Is there a psychologist in the iTulip community who could explain to me why I even started this subthread? Clearly my psyche still has unhealed scars.
                    Most folks are good; a few aren't.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Predator Drones based on pirated, malfunctioning software?

                      Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                      ... In a college gymnasium, a wall was pulled back to show rows and rows of DECs (Digital Equipment Corp) - only these weren't actual DECs. The software he was supporting was being run on reproduced DECs, and the software itself wasn't the real software, it was copied. But the version copied had a bug, and thus all the copies had the bug - the 'customer' wanted to pay to get this bug fixed.
                      LOL - thanks for the memory refresh.

                      This problem was so well known by the NSA that some DEC CPUs had a "message" etched in Russian on them

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Predator Drones based on pirated, malfunctioning software?

                        Originally posted by TPC
                        Ah - so when you claimed earlier anything could be reverse engineered, you didn't mean to imply they could be correctly reverse engineered.

                        Further, you seem to confuse modeling with reverse engineering. Let's say I model an Intel® Core2 Duo using a massive Python program. I could have the most perfect model of a microprocessor ever coded, and it would not be even in the slightest possible way a reverse engineered substitute. Would you be interested in purchasing a mainboard for your PC with my Python modeling code printed on microfilm glued into the socket where the CPU should go?

                        Reverse engineering develops a substitute that is suitable as a working substitute in form, fit and function.

                        Modeling develops a "model" that tells you how something else would behave in some regards.
                        All you say is true.

                        But nonetheless, from the perspective of the CIA, apparently irrelevant

                        The Japanese car engines in the '70s, for example, were reverse engineered. But they also were even better than the original German models.

                        Similarly the difference between reverse engineering and modeling is a matter of perspective.

                        If you have 100% testing coverage and 100% correct testing - does it really matter if the underlying algorithm is identical or not?

                        Your cryptography example is poor - because in cryptography you don't know either what is going in or what is coming out. 100% is impossible unless you have the actual program, and if you do then there are many tried and tested ways of resolving the algorithm.

                        On the other hand is the process modeling I referred to: with less than 400 variables, the behavior of devices on silicon can be modeled in 97% of all operating conditions to within 0.3% accuracy - including the highly non-linear areas involving subthreshold currents and the areas associated with breakdown.

                        For an input with less than 20 spatial coordinates converging on a point, the modeling required is likely even more simple.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Predator Drones based on pirated, malfunctioning software?

                          Your statement that one can reverse engineer any system, given the inputs and outputs, remains false.
                          Most folks are good; a few aren't.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Predator Drones based on pirated, malfunctioning software?

                            Originally posted by TPC
                            Your statement that one can reverse engineer any system, given the inputs and outputs, remains false.
                            You only say so because of your own narrow definition of what reverse engineering means.

                            Given 100% of all possible inputs and 100% of all possible outputs, what lies in between can and will be recreated.

                            If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it doesn't matter if it is teal or mallard.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Predator Drones based on pirated, malfunctioning software?

                              Originally posted by c1ue View Post
                              You only say so because of your own narrow definition of what reverse engineering means.

                              Given 100% of all possible inputs and 100% of all possible outputs, what lies in between can and will be recreated.
                              Now you've shifted your claim in another direction.

                              Your initial claim stated "given the inputs and outputs".

                              Now you amend that to "Given 100% of all possible inputs and 100% of all possible outputs".

                              Your amended version is theoretically impossible to provide, outside of the singular stream of reality itself. "All possible inputs" includes things such as a high energy gamma ray from another galaxy flipping a memory bit, or the sun turning into a red giant, destroying planet earth, or your friendly local SWAT team firing a stray round into the device, or ...

                              Apparently I made a false assumption when I read your initial claim. I presumed that you actually intended to state something meaningful.

                              Silly me.
                              Most folks are good; a few aren't.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X