CDR: Re: Carnivore All-Consuming
At 06:21 PM 11/19/00 +0000, Jim Dixon wrote:
On Sat, 18 Nov 2000 George@orwellian.org wrote:
EPIC FOIA...
http://www.latimes.com/wires/20001117/tCB00V0387.html
WASHINGTON--The FBI's controversial e-mail surveillance tool, known as Carnivore, can retrieve all communications that go through an Internet service -far more than FBI officials have said it does -a recent test of its potential sweep found, according to bureau documents [snip]
Carnivore is an NT-based PC. How could it conceivably process all communications through even a mid-sized ISP?
There are at least two problems: processing power and network architecture.
As regards the first, our customers, many of them smaller ISPs, find it necessary to employ NT clusters to handle subsets of their traffic (Usenet news, Web proxies, and so forth). So it is difficult to believe that a single NT box could monitor their entire traffic load.
A PC, using off-the-shelf HW, is capable of filtering a full 100 Mbps link (144K packets/sec) as demonstrated by the BlackICE products http://www.networkice.com/html/blackice_sentry.html steve
As regards the second, most ISPs of any size have multiple PoPs and multiple high-speed connections to other networks. It would require incredible contortions to route all of their traffic to one point for monitoring. And for the larger network, the bandwidth into that single point would be unmanageable.
The UK government proposed building something more sophisticated than Carnivore. Consultants led them to believe that this was feasible, and costed a solution. The UK ISP associations (the LINX and ISPA) replied to their proposals by saying that (a) the proposals showed no understanding of the technical structure of the Internet and (b) their cost estimates were ridiculously low, even if the Internet could be distorted sufficiently to be monitored in the manner envisioned.
As far as we can see, the UK government as an institution is not capable of even understanding the Internet. They simply do not have enough competent technical staff. They do have a lot of relatively senior people who claim to be competent - and give bad advice, some of which finds its way into legislation and programs of action.
The overall capacity and the complexity of the Internet is increasing at an explosive rate. For better or for worse, this far exceeds the growth in any government's capability of monitoring Internet traffic.
On Sun, 19 Nov 2000, Steve Schear wrote:
There are at least two problems: processing power and network architecture.
As regards the first, our customers, many of them smaller ISPs, find it necessary to employ NT clusters to handle subsets of their traffic (Usenet news, Web proxies, and so forth). So it is difficult to believe that a single NT box could monitor their entire traffic load.
A PC, using off-the-shelf HW, is capable of filtering a full 100 Mbps link (144K packets/sec) as demonstrated by the BlackICE products http://www.networkice.com/html/blackice_sentry.html
First, like any other manufacturer's claims, these should be treated with some skepticism. Second, this is an intrusion detection system. I suspect that they are looking for something simpler than what Carnivore is trying to detect. Third, even if you believe that they can really analyse data at 100 Mbps, this still doesn't give them the ability to handle more than one PoP with two DS3 connections. This is still orders of magnitude away from being able to handle a major site with multiple 2.5G connections, let alone all of the traffic handled by a major ISP. The original claim was that Carnivore could monitor all of an ISP's traffic. This isn't true for most ISPs. And the amazing growth rates that we are seeing in bandwidth and network complexity make it exceedingly unlikely that Carnivore or anything like it will ever catch up. Qwest deployed 14,000 miles of fibre some years ago. This was packaged as conduits carrying 48 fiber pairs, each pair using wave division multiplexing to carry 8 to 16 optical channels, with each channel running at 10 Gbps. That's 160 Gbps per fiber, 7,680 Gbps per conduit. Qwest is one of many carriers. 160 Gbps over a fiber pair isn't state of the art. Qwest has many conduits. If a PC can monitor 100M of bandwidth, it would take, uhm, about seventy seven thousand PCs to monitor one of Qwest's conduits. Not that I believe that one PC can monitor traffic at 100 Mbps.
The overall capacity and the complexity of the Internet is increasing at an explosive rate. For better or for worse, this far exceeds the growth in any government's capability of monitoring Internet traffic.
-- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
participants (2)
-
Jim Dixon -
Steve Schear