Slashdot Mirror


Book Review: The Death of the Internet

benrothke writes "When I first heard about the book The Death of the Internet, it had all the trappings of a second-rate book; a histrionic title and the fact that it had nearly 50 contributors. I have seen far too many books that are pasted together by myriad disparate authors, creating a jerry-rigged book with an ISBN, but little value or substance. The only negative thing about the book is the over the top title, which I think detracts from the important message that is pervasive in it. Other than that, the book is a fascinating read. Editor Markus Jakobsson (Principal Scientist for Consumer Security at PayPal) was able to take the collected wisdom from a large cross-section of expert researchers and engineers, from different countries and nationalities, academic and corporate environments, and create an invaluable and unique reference." Read below for the rest of Ben's review. The Death of the Internet author Markus Jakobsson pages 392 publisher Wiley-IEEE Computer Society Press rating 9/10 reviewer benrothke ISBN 978-1118062418 summary Excellent reference on current Internet security threats The premise of the book is that the Internet is a cesspool of inefficient management and vulnerabilities that threaten to undermine its use.

In the preface, Jakobsson asks the obvious question: is the title a joke? He writes that ultimately, if the Internet can't be secured, and that the underlying amount of crime and fraud make the Internet useless and dangerous, then it indeed will lead to the tipping point where the result would be the death of the Internet. Where is that point? Nobody knows.

Chapter 1 observes that if a hostile country or organization wants to hurt us, they may find that the easiest way of doing so is by attacking the Internet, and our very dependence on the Internet invites attacks. We are more vulnerable to these attacks as our dependence on the Internet grows.

Chapter 3 provides an in-depth look at how criminals profit off the Internet and provides an intriguing overview of how click fraud works. While the click fraud rate at one point was as high as 30%, it is still in the range of 20%. The book notes that while the overall click fraud rate has been on the decline, there is the emergence of new schemes and those that focus on display ads. The click fraud schemes are so effective that the fraudsters are operating large scale automated attacks in a way that is difficult for the ad networks to distinguish between fraudulent and real clicks, thus producing high revenue for the fraudsters.

The chapter also provides an interesting look at the malware industry. It notes that malware development and distribution is highly organized and controlled by criminal groups that have formalized and implemented business models to automate cybercrime. The authors detail the interaction between the various components in a typical cybercrime business model, in which individual groups of criminals coordinate their efforts. The outcome is a product known as CaaS – crimeware as a service.

Many have often called the Internet the Wild West. Chapter 4 details the Internet infrastructure and cloud, in which the amorphous cloud images may help fuel the false perception that the Internet is a lawless and unaccountable entity that exists beyond policy. The book notes that what is breaking the Internet is not lack of policy, but lack of enforcement and accountability. Internet criminals appears to exists outside the policy structure when the reality is that they are embedded in it and their livelihood in fact depends on the Internet functioning regularly, quickly and efficiently.

While much of the book is focused on cybercrime and fraud, the book also points fingers at ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) for in some ways facilitating this Internet crime wave. ICANN is the organization that coordinates the Domain Name System (DNS), Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, space allocation, protocol identifier assignment, generic (gTLD) and country code (ccTLD) Top-Level Domain name system management, and root server system management functions. Their premise is that ICANN is more interested in generating revenue and profits than in security.

Due to systemic failures, cybercriminals often hide behind false WHOIS information held by Registrars who do not perform adequate due diligence or enforcement. This is primarily due to the fact that the more domain names that are sold create more revenue for the Registrars. Chapter 4 notes that this weak oversight by ICANN is also one of the biggest threats to the stability of the Internet. The chapter quotes a Godaddy executive who stated that proactive measures to make Internet registries more accurate would not be affordable or useful.

The book provides an analysis of social spam, which has become more pervasive with the emergence of Web 2.0. People are sharing vast amounts of personal data that opens them to these spam attacks. Since the defining characteristic of Web 2.0 is its social nature, it encourages people to share information, collaborate and form social links. These features of social media have the implication that they create a large network of connections between users and content that is controlled almost entirely by the users. This places great power in the hands of well-intentioned users to engage with others and express themselves. But it also provides an opportunity for spammers to exploit the social web for their own interests. As a result, social web applications have become tempting targets for spam and other forms of Internet pollution.

Another fascinating observation around Web 2.0 is that the authors were able to perform use analysis, in which they were able to identify pieces of information about the users which are not necessarily shared directly by their profiles. Items such as sleeping patterns, daily routines, physical locations, and much more are able to be extracted via metadata and other external analysis.

By the time one gets to chapter 5, they have read 200 pages detailing the problems with security and privacy around the Internet core. Exacerbating this is the role of the end user where the chapter notes that if people are offered the choice of convenience or security, then security will lose. The average Internet user is more lazy than security aware; not at all an encouraging observation.

Chapter 7 details one of the banes that have plagued information security; poor user interfaces. It details the four sins of security application user interfaces: popup assault, security by verbosity, walls of checkboxes and all or nothing switches. The book is worth purchasing just for this section.

The book ends with some thoughts for the future, but there is no magic wand or quick happy endings that Jakobsson and his band of ultra-smart contributors offer. Throughout the book, the contributors do though write how there are ways to secure the Internet, but those take thorough and comprehensive strategies and design. There are countermeasures for most of the threats and vulnerabilities detailed and the book provides an unparalleled view of the current state of Internet security.

Situational awarenessis defined as the perception of environmental elements with respect to time and/or space, the comprehension of their meaning, and the projection of their status after some variable has changed. For those looking for a book to gain situation awareness about the dangers of the Internet, one is hard pressed to find a better title than The Death of the Internet.

Reviewed by Ben Rothke.

You can purchase The Death of the Internet from amazon.com. Slashdot welcomes readers' book reviews -- to see your own review here, read the book review guidelines, then visit the submission page.

20 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. No by phantomfive · · Score: 5, Interesting

    From the summary, it looks like the most serious threat to the internet is click fraud. Which frankly, in the absolute worst case, would mean that advertisers would all leave the internet.

    And really, how bad would that be? I remember the internet before advertisers.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:No by Ionized · · Score: 3, Interesting

      do you like free content? i do. if all the advertisers go away, expect everything to be paywalled or have donation buttons.

    2. Re:No by excelsior_gr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I love free content. In fact, I love it so much that I have created some myself and put it online. You should try it; it feels good!

      Besides, what's wrong with donation buttons? I very much prefer them against an obnoxious flash commercial.

    3. Re:No by MrEricSir · · Score: 2

      From the summary, it looks like the most serious threat to the internet is click fraud.

      The idea that I should sell space on my website on a per-click basis makes no real sense. Think about it:

      * The amount of money I make is tied to the quality of the ad, which I don't control.
      * If people see the ad and decide to buy a product without clicking it, that means I'm giving away ads for free.

      The problem isn't click fraud, it's that clicks aren't an appropriate way to get paid for advertising in the first place. CPC schemes might make Google a ton of money, but it's not very good for anyone else.

      --
      There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
    4. Re:No by Xest · · Score: 2

      Oh do fuck off, some of us remember the internet before the dotcom boom, where there were thousands of sites without an advert in sight and tons of really interesting content and the word or concept of paywall didn't even really exist.

      The web was built as a tool for easy and open information sharing, and grew on that premise for a decade before people started believing it was all about the ad revenue and paywalls.

      In fact, I still believe the internet was better back then, there was no corporate interference in what you can and can't do on the internet.

      If the advertisers go away the web will be far better, because people will be putting content up because they're passionate about that topic, rather than because they're trying to make a quick buck, which is exactly how it used to be.

    5. Re:No by Ionized · · Score: 2

      my original post said paywalls OR donation buttons. funny that you mention wikipedia, poster child for the donation model. thanks for helping me make my point, i guess?

      slashdot got by without advertising when it was much smaller. i promise you that its operating expenses have gotten much higher. could it survive on premium accounts and donations alone? maybe. maybe not. if it were my company, i certainly wouldn't want to roll the dice to see if it survived.

      yes, XKCD gets by without ads. congratulations, you have found one of the outliers.

      also, congrats on being so leet that you don't see ads on slashdot and don't use gmail. you are also an outlier. and you come off sounding like an elitist asshole. 'man the internet's first albums were the best. now it's mainstream crap.' well, yeah, it is. welcome to the world. just because you were here first doesn't mean you get to dictate how everyone else has to use it. people want free content, and advertising is how they get it, whether YOU like it or not.

      you are welcome to restrict your web traffic to sites that don't use ads. the people that were putting stuff out 13 years ago without ads, they are still around. and the ones that aren't? advertising didn't kill them.

    6. Re:No by Xeranar · · Score: 2

      The internet is less an issue of paid adverts vs. Free content. What the pre-2000s internet was was a series of largely university and privates pages where academia was the top of the heap. It was social by the late 90s but the commercial internet really didn't quite exist. Post-2000s the rise of better HTML and protocols allowed the internet to grow into a full virtual world democratically dominated by corporations and uneducated masses alike. The world of academia lost the war and there is no shame in that.

      What were seeing is the internet fully democratized with all social elements. As it stands until criminal activity becomes so disruptive as to make the internet unusable it will remain and even then the firat response will be to better secure it rather than kill it.

      We mostly need to worry about the internet breaking into corporate intranets more than anything. Secures fifedoms where MS, Apple, Google, and Amazon reign. Apple is already starting down this path with stricter protocols and allowances with both physical devices, proprietary OS/mOS, and stifling competition where it can. Amazon is starting to follow suit. It's the most likely scenario. Not one I wish either.

  2. Principal Scientist for Consumer Security @ PayPal by frovingslosh · · Score: 5, Funny

    Principal Scientist for Consumer Security at PayPal

    How many oxymorons can you find in that title?

    --
    I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
  3. How about the death of cities? by Kwyj1b0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When people were in small tribes and villages, crime was low. You knew everyone. You needed to work together to survive, and if you committed a crime, you were very likely killed or driven out. However, the rise of cities helped criminals hide among millions of anonymous people.

    The truth is, the internet is almost indispensable now. Security will be addressed, as it has always been addressed, after the fact. People will learn to be careful (just as, you know, you don't walk around in certain neighborhoods in the middle of the night wearing jewelry). The reason the internet has so many problems is because it became too popular too fast. It was an attractive target before anyone thought of the security flaws. But they can and will be addressed - there is no alternative.

    What you should be worried about is the crippling of the internet. Legislators will try to pass laws based on physical-world-analogies (and corporate interests). That is a far bigger problem than crime on the internet. E-crime won't make things unusable, but stupid laws will.

    1. Re:How about the death of cities? by Oligonicella · · Score: 2

      "When people were in small tribes and villages, crime was low."

      That's the 'noble primitive' myth. It's only a myth.

    2. Re:How about the death of cities? by Xeranar · · Score: 2

      It's called the noble savage, dolt. It's specifically a reference to literary works where a person from a 'lesser' civilization is viewed as more in tune with nature and inherently more moral due to the lack of greed, money, or other social ill. It was generally used as a juxtaposition to industrialized man who saw himself as a social elite.

      There is plenty of proof from anthropologists proving that small societies tended to have less social ills because there is a more interconnectivity within the group so that any faux pas or crime would cause ostracism. In other words: The OP was right and you're misusing a term you couldn't even spell right.

  4. The web will die for different reasons by jd659 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The summary of the book seems to focus too much on the “criminals” and claims that the end of the internet is in the “unregulation” of the internet. While it is a factor, let’s not forget that the growth of the internet was also attributed mainly to the same factors. Internet gave power to ordinary citizens and it’s not possible to have that power and not to have anonymity. But with anonymity comes the criminal side as well.

    The web is changing now. With every day we have less and less privacy. Large companies got to be very good at tracking everyone’s move on the web. Practically nothing remains anonymous on the web any longer. Getting an internet service in the US requires presenting a government-issued ID and SSN (wasn’t the case a few years ago). The ISP now start the deep packet inspection where everything becomes monitored and certain undesired connections are dropped. Welcome to the world of censorship where no lists will be provided of what exactly is censored. And that, not the “wild west,” will be one of the causes for the death of the internet.

    There was an interesting article in Wired magazine on the topic: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/ It provides insights about how we, as users, choose the closed platforms (e.g. google, facebook). And the more we turn away from the true open and anonymous internet, the more irrelevant the internet becomes.

    --
    There's no such thing as "illegal download"
    1. Re:The web will die for different reasons by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      There was an interesting article in Wired magazine on the topic: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/08/ff_webrip/all/ [wired.com] It provides insights about how we, as users, choose the closed platforms (e.g. google, facebook). And the more we turn away from the true open and anonymous internet, the more irrelevant the internet becomes.

      This doesn't make any sense at all. This is like saying that cars are becoming irrelevant because people frequently use toll roads, or that roads are becoming irrelevant because people choose to buy cars which they (supposedly) can't work on themselves, or because they choose to rent or lease cars.

      Google and Facebook don't work without the internet. It may not be the open and anonymous internet you and I like, but it is still the internet: a global data communications network. Google and Facebook don't even require any special software to work: they work on many different browsers, most of which are open-source and Free/free. Yes, they have problems (and yes, Facebook is a completely worthless waste of time, which is why I don't use it), but they aren't making the internet "irrelevant". You don't need Google to go to other sites; you can just type in their URL manually, or use a competing search engine like Bing or DuckDuckGo. You don't need Facebook to talk to your friends, in fact you don't need Facebook for squat. Email is still the preferred method of communications for business, as much as stupid teenagers and 20-somethings might refuse to admit it.

      Yes, getting iSP service in the US isn't anonymous; I'm not sure it ever was to be honest. I've had ISP service or other internet access since 1991, and it was either tied to my college admission, or I had to sign up for it with an ISP company, which was impossible without giving them some details about myself so they knew how to bill me for it. Regardless, there's still options for anonymity, namely with VPNs. Your ISP can do all the deep-packet inspection it likes, it can't crack a VPN session, and they can't forbid VPN use since so many people rely on VPNs to access their work systems from home. Lots of people now ever use VPNs for ALL their internet use; many VPN services even provide optional software which disables your internet connection unless the VPN is running, so you can be sure nothing you do is trackable by your ISP or anyone in the US (as the VPN's exit node is in another country like Sweden or Romania).

  5. some of internet died years ago i.e. usenet by k6mfw · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If usenet was still around, I can post question like, "I'm having difficulties of getting audio to stream on my video via ustream.tv. Video stream is ok but I cannot get my Win7 to show audio from the Dazzler video-to-usb." and "Anyone have issues of choppy video when streaming on ustream.tv?" "Anyone know how to deal with this 'dinosaur' part of error message when attempting to stream on justin.tv?"

    Right now all there is this are bankrupted sites like fixya or forums of people with same problems but no answers.

    I miss usenet, had lots of fun reading/posting on rec.arts.dance, sci.space.policy, and rec.skydiving (which some called it wreck.skywhining)

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com
    1. Re:some of internet died years ago i.e. usenet by jgrahn · · Score: 2

      If usenet was still around, I can post question like, "I'm having difficulties [...] I miss usenet, [...]

      Who told you Usenet is not around? I was there an hour ago. Some groups are still pretty decent.

    2. Re:some of internet died years ago i.e. usenet by arbulus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The worst one of all that is the forum sites that seem to do nothing but mirror other forums sites. Out of one page of google resutls, all of them are completely different forums that have the exact same thread. It makes no sense. Or bullshit sites like Experts Exchange or others where you see the exact question you are searching for, but have to pay to view the thread. My assumption is that they're just repeating back your question to you to make it look like the have the answer to get your money. Forums have become a mess. And now that so few people actually use forums, it's impossible to get any answers. I'm with you. I miss usenet.

  6. Re:Dang, if it dies can we blame Al Gore? by hendrikboom · · Score: 3, Informative

    The net was working before Al Gore. What he did was the high-level politics necessary to open it up to the ordinary man in the street, creating a very different beast upon the same protocols. That very different beast is the modern internet.

  7. Re:Dang, if it dies can we blame Al Gore? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

    It's kinda like giving JFK credit for landing men on the Moon. JFK didn't do it by any means, but without him or some other politicians, it never would have happened. The Apollo program scientists, engineers, technicians, astronauts, etc. actually made it all happen, but without funding provided and policy created by the Federal government (and JFK at the head of one of its branches) at the time, all those people would not have been able to work on that project and land people on the Moon.

    Al Gore didn't invent the internet by any means, but he played an important part in turning it into what it is now, and he deserves some credit for that. It's not often that politicians do things that are far-sighted and really useful to the country and society, and the internet is one of the most useful infrastructural things created in a long time. Now maybe if Gore hadn't done it, someone else would have, but who knows how long that might have taken.

  8. Re:Dang, if it dies can we blame Al Gore? by able1234au · · Score: 3, Informative

    ...and of course Al Gore never said he invented it. So why try to put words in his mouth.

  9. Re:Death of the Internet predicted... by Macgrrl · · Score: 2

    Was it confirmed by Netcraft?

    --
    Sara
    Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World