The global Internet can fall to pieces, and the inhabitants of each country will inhabit their part of the network, says the report of the World Economic Forum on global threats. The hackers are blamed for the imminent demise of the network in its usual form, whose level of power has been compared to the largest natural disasters. Who benefits from the collapse of the Internet and will it really help him survive?
Hackers were officially named the most powerful and dangerous people on earth: cyberattacks are recognized as the third most dangerous threat to humanity after natural disasters and global warming.
The authorities can take complete control of the Internet.
Taking advantage of the situation of aggravated relations with the West, federal officials began to discuss the issue of tightening control over Internet providers. The conversation is about introducing content filtering at all levels of data transmission networks, the impossibility of locating DNS servers for. RU and. РФ domains outside of Russia and a ban on joining regional and local data transmission networks to foreign Internet networks. Thus, the state will have full control, as well as widespread censorship on the Web, many experts believe. For the population, this may result in the fact that Internet services will become more expensive, and its quality is significantly lower.
Recall that not so long ago, President Vladimir Putin said that the Internet was created and is now developing as a special project of the US CIA. And since the main data flow passes through servers located abroad, including in America, where everything is controlled, the head of state is confident that it is necessary to host the servers of large Russian Internet resources in Russia.
It is known that proposals on legal regulation in the field of communications infrastructure are being developed at the level of the Presidential Administration, writes the Kommersant newspaper. According to sources, the country will introduce a three-level network access: local, regional, and all-Russian. At the same time, data transmission from foreign countries will be possible only through the networks of all-Russian operators, they will also monitor the traffic that passes through regional and local operators. Strict content filtering will take place at absolutely all levels of the networks. DNS servers of. RU and. РФ domains will have to move to Russia for permanent residence or close. And the most difficult issue for providers: the working group proposes to deprive the Coordination Center of. RU and. РФ domains, which develops the rules for registering domain names in the. RU and. РФ zones,and transfer its functions to the authorized federal executive body.
In the Global Risks 2018 report, researchers cite statistics: in five years, the number of hacks in the systems of every global company has doubled - from 68 to 130. Despite the fact that most of the attempts of hackers have so far been unsuccessful, the likelihood of the enslavement of economic systems by cybercriminals is becoming increasingly real.
Promotional video:
The only thing that can slow down the spread of cross-border attacks can be defragmentation or disintegration of the Internet, according to the authors of the report. Sooner or later, the governments of different countries will fence themselves off the global network and create their own isolated mini-copies. However, the disintegration of the international web into many parts can provoke a halt in the development of the Internet or even destroy it altogether.
In the past year, digital attacks have become the largest crimes: hackers hacked into the systems of hospitals and schools, stopped the work of automobile concerns, published scripts of popular TV series and extorted huge amounts of money from users. In May 2017, software called WannaCry infected more than half a million computers worldwide. According to Kaspersky Lab experts, on the first day of infection, most of the attacks occurred in Russia: mobile operators, the networks of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Russian Railways and the Investigative Committee tried to repel them.
A few weeks later, the improved Petya virus of a year ago went to war against European and Russian companies (the update was named NotPetya - approx. "Lenta.ru"): then banks, energy companies and airports were affected. A few months later, domestic concerns were struck by the Bad Rabbit ransomware. Malware is constantly evolving, and sometimes even the most powerful security systems are unable to track it down.
The boom of hackers in the last five years is not accidental: it was in 2011-2012 that the glory of the international group Anonymous resounded throughout the world, which almost every month declared the government of another country or an international corporation its enemy. From January to June 2012 alone, the group fought eight virtual wars: then the websites of Interpol, the European Parliament, the FBI, the Vatican, as well as a number of portals of Russian social movements became their victims.
Since then, the glory of "anonymous" hackers haunted: Anonymous International (Humpty Dumpty), Fancy Bears, Lizard Squad and others, lesser known, - all of them organize DDos attacks, develop virus programs and hack corporate websites.
From a few interviews, it follows that hackers see themselves as anarchists. They publish correspondence of officials and terrorize banks under the pretext of "the universal human right to possess information." Cybercriminals often publish loud statements about justice, equality and democracy, making money and flattering their pride along the way.
In these conditions, governments are increasingly considering the option of forced closure of their part of the Internet in order to fight attacks on their own in the event of an attack. Such steps are considered justified by Russian officials as well: the head of Roskomnadzor, Alexander Zharov, said last December that states should have the right to regulate the national segment of the international network. The head of Roskomnadzor visited China and spoke very favorably about the methods of regulating the Internet there.
It is no coincidence that the appeal to our Chinese colleagues is that China is one of the states actively fighting against global cyber hack. In the country with the largest number of Internet users, the project of the "golden shield" has been implemented - unofficially it is called the great Chinese firewall. It is a global traffic control and filtering system that blocks most of the well-known social networks and instant messengers, forcing the country's citizens to use local services.
Bypassing the bans is severely punished: a month ago, one Wu Sanyang was sentenced to imprisonment for five and a half years and a fine of 500,000 yuan (about $ 78,000) for manufacturing and selling VPN services. The harsh sentence was motivated by a government program to strengthen control over firewall bypass. On November 1, 2017, an identical law prohibiting the use of VPNs and anonymizers to bypass blocking came into force in Russia.
However, despite the efforts of the authorities, the attack shield is malfunctioning. WannaCry, for example, is partially Chinese in origin, according to investigations. Moreover, when attacked from outside, malware managed to overcome the "shield": the Chinese Internet company Qihoo 360 reported the "downfall" of more than 30 thousand local organizations, including industrial enterprises, government organizations and educational institutions.
Due to the avalanche growth of hacker attacks among specialists, the creation of a "new Internet", conventionally called Web 3.0, is increasingly discussed. It is suggested to the users to divide the Internet into parts. The idea penetrated into popular culture thanks to the series about startups "Silicon Valley": the protagonist has developed an application with the help of which information downloaded to a smartphone is distributed in small parts in the gadgets of all users.
On the third generation Internet, according to the adherents of the concept, all data will be in a safe place - with the users themselves. Arrays of valuable data on the servers of the Internet giants become vulnerable, as they can be stolen or erased as a result of a single attack. If the information is immediately available to all users who are interested in protecting their own data, it is less vulnerable to threats. In addition, the absence of a main owner means that no one will use the information for attacks or advertising campaigns.
British scientist Tim Bernes-Lee, the creator of the World Wide Web, considers the current Internet to be a perverted version of the original idea, according to which any user could be an active participant in the system, have their own domain or server. The inventor proposes to return to the idea of the Internet as a decentralized system: if everyone stores their personal information, humanity will come closer to creating an "ideal" Internet.
What will the internet be like in 2040 and should we be afraid?
In March 1989, Tim Berners-Lee wrote a memo that eventually led to the creation of the Internet. This event has already turned a quarter of a century. Back then, in the 1980s, not everyone could understand even the simple concept of hyperlinked documents. What will the Internet be like in another 25 years? What will change by 2040?
Many utopias and dystopias have been written about the future of the Internet. Studying the hopes and fears set forth in them, we can formulate several fundamentally different scenarios for the development of the worldwide network.
World of noon
Summer morning in 2040. The Internet is everywhere, and your plans today are being built in the most convenient way thanks to the information on the network. Public transport routes and timetables on the fly adapt to the intensity of passenger traffic and the traffic situation. Buying the desired gift for your child is as easy as shelling pears: your online store offers the perfect choice based on the information available about your children. But what pleases you most is the fact that you are still alive: a month ago, doctors saved you from a serious attack - they took the right action because they had instant access to your complete medical history.
Not bad, huh? In such a scenario, information forms the basis of our entire daily life. And this is exactly how the future of the Internet is seen by its inventor Tim Berners-Lee. Speaking recently in London, he also added that someday we will probably learn to better use our data.
“I would like us to build a world in which we could control our information, own it,” he explained. "We will learn how to create computer programs that will collect data about different aspects of our lives, the lives of our families and friends."
Smart systems that use artificial intelligence to optimize workloads can help create a more efficient, simpler web experience, free from email clutter and overloaded business calendars.
With the increasing intensity of data exchange, problems with their protection may arise. However, today's privacy concerns may well be tackled by 2040, said Bruce Schneier, a computer security expert who participates in the BBC's Summit of Ideas to Change the World.
“When can we achieve legal and technical privacy on the Internet? I think in 20 or 30 years, in about one generation. The current scale of espionage and data collection will be unimaginable,”he says.
Schneier says that decades will pass and attitudes towards computer surveillance will be about the same as now - towards child labor. Most people will simply find this unacceptable.
World of midnight
Winter evening 2040. It is dark outside the window, and the whole world is rather gloomy. The Internet is teeming with cybercriminals, it is impossible to access it without endangering the safety of your bank account or personal data. Social networks are firmly occupied by trolls, Internet access fees are high, and it is highly segmented: only the rich can afford to use the most useful and modern resources. And in some countries, every step of citizens is monitored by special services using tracking programs and sensors connected to the Internet. Even if you have the opportunity to go online, you are not particularly drawn there.
In the modern world, there are already some prerequisites for a digital catastrophe. According to the New York Times, in a recent report by the American research center Pew Research on the possible state of the Internet in 10 years, the word "threat" is more than four times more common than the word "hope."
There are many potential problems. The flourishing of information services makes skeptics think about the future in the style of the Spielberg action film Minority Report, where our path in life is determined for us, and there is no place for free choice. There are also fears that network specialists may become an elite that does not admit those who do not have sufficient skills into the upper circles of society.
“The Internet will help the rich become even richer and become a tool to further alienate those who already live in poverty, mental illness and other serious problems,” said the anonymous director of the social network MetaFilter for the Pew Research report.
In order for the Internet to remain democratic and accessible to all, it is necessary to preserve network neutrality (NN) - this is the name of the concept of an open, decentralized online space as opposed to a segmented, divided into sectors of different quality. “We need to fight for net neutrality,” said Tim Berners-Lee. But pessimists believe that it will not be possible in the long run. There is even an opinion that the main battles on this field have already been lost. For example, earlier this year, a US court of appeal in Washington rejected the principle of net neutrality. In theory, this solution could allow wealthy corporations to promote their Internet services for money and block competitors.
It was not only neutrality that was under threat. The authors of the Pew report also expressed concern about the use of aggressive police methods on the Internet, which allow authoritarian regimes to increasingly effectively censor the media and spy on citizens.
And if the state intervention is not enough for you, there will always be criminals. Internet-connected household devices, according to skeptics, can be hacked remotely. Even baby monitors were hacked by hackers.
Weighted gaze
From a realist point of view, 2040 is likely to bring us a cross between these two opposite scenarios. Both good and bad will happen on the Internet. This is what Schneier pushes when it comes to cyber terrorism. He is not worried about this threat, because the Internet is a system balanced by the differing interests of its many users.
“Everyone uses cyberspace,” he says. - All polls. The sun shines on both sinners and the righteous. We all drive cars, go to restaurants and correspond by e-mail. Bad guys and good guys alike do it. So what?"
As for business, it is hardly worth hoping that it will become the standard of morality in economically difficult times. Corporations have transgressed and will probably continue to transgress certain ethical norms. On the other hand, in a free market, the consumer can hold them accountable for violations and unacceptable practices.
“Certain things, of course, should be restricted or prohibited by law,” says Berners-Lee. "In other cases, a transparent market works well: people vote with their feet and go to other sites."
New social networks such as Sgrouples and Ello are also emerging, promising to behave ethically towards users - in contrast, as critics say, from the giants of this industry.
Thus, in an open internet environment, competition will not only drive useful innovation, it will also protect egalitarian values.
However, problems will not disappear with a wave of the hand. The Internet in 2040 will not be the same as it is now, but one can be sure of one thing: it, as before, will reflect all the diversity of human nature.
The internet won't fall apart
We have long been accustomed to the fact that communication in real time, emails and messages in instant messengers reach in a matter of seconds, and web pages (as a rule) are loaded quickly. The Internet signal is transmitted at the speed of light, so it doesn't matter where the servers are located: in Russia, the USA or Australia. But is there a guarantee that any server in the world can communicate with any other at any time? The Theories and Practices continues to talk about the nominees for this year's Enlightener Prize and publishes an excerpt from the book Who Needs Mathematics? An understandable book about how the digital world works”, where Nelly Litvak and Andrey Raigorodsky explain from a mathematical point of view whether the Internet can be disconnected and what needs to be done for this.
To some extent, the Internet can be compared to the railroad system. From any station you can get to any other. But the railways are planned in a centralized way, their plan has gone through many authorities. The Internet is another matter entirely. The main communication channels (usually fiber-optic lines) belong to a wide variety of owners: companies and organizations, for example, large telephone and mobile operators. Together they constitute the so-called backbone of the Internet.
Most companies, including many Internet providers, conclude contracts for the use of communication channels and pay rent. As soon as there is an exit to the backbone, you can start building your own network, connecting new servers and computers. Local networks arise, they connect to each other, form larger networks, and so on. And all these gigantic networks of networks are connected by a central, backbone network. Hence the name of the Internet (Internet): net in English - network.
No person or company in the world is responsible for ensuring that the server through which you connect to the Internet is linked to another server, say on Kangaroo Island *. But the whole system by its nature is designed in such a way that communication is guaranteed. The Internet - a gigantic international technological and commercial structure, without which we can no longer imagine our life - does well without government and government. If you think about it, it's just amazing!
Even more striking is the fact that communication is almost never lost, although problems and inevitable regular overloads occur in communication channels. Can the Internet, at least temporarily, "fall apart"? Could it be that due to failures somewhere along the way, your server will be completely cut off from Kangaroo Island? In fact, this is a very difficult question to which there is no definite answer. That said, it's clear from experience that the Internet is incredibly immune to interference. Agree: if your server and the recipient's server are in good working order, then information always passes through the network without any problems.
This chapter is about how we can at least partially understand and explain the amazing reliability of the Internet.
Networks and interference
Let's start with a simple example. Let's say our Internet consists of only three computers that are connected to each other. If all three communication channels are working, there is no problem: all three computers can exchange information. Mini-Internet of three computers connected by communication channels. All three channels are working, all three computers can exchange information.
Now let's say that there is interference in one of the communication channels and nothing can be transmitted through it at the moment. It is immediately clear that our mini-Internet has not disintegrated. Although the direct connection between computers 1 and 2 is lost, they can still communicate information to each other through computer 3. Will the user notice a problem with the channel? Most likely no. Since the signal travels at a tremendous speed, there is no difference in the speed of information delivery - whether the signal goes directly from Moscow to Nizhny Novgorod, or it sends a round trip through Sydney or New York.
How resilient is our mini-network? It is not difficult to calculate this at all. Let's say that interference in individual communication channels occurs independently of each other with some probability, say 40%. In practice, this means that, on average, four out of ten times the channel is unavailable. Forty percent is a bit too much for the real Internet, but it will work as an example.
Even from our mini-example it is clear where the network resilience comes from. In a network, computers can communicate with each other not in one, but in several ways, through other computers. If one channel is not available, an alternative route can be found. Moreover, this effect is noticeably enhanced with a lower probability of interference.
To destroy our small network, we need to disable at least two, or even all three communication channels. If the probability of channel unavailability is 1% - the value is quite real in practice - then our modest mini-network is 33 times more stable than a separate communication channel!
Of course, our mini-internet is very far from reality. What if we have not three computers, but a whole network of tens, hundreds, thousands of machines? The speed of light will still allow information to be transmitted not directly, but along long chains. However, calculating probabilities will be much more difficult.
And this is where math is needed again! Stability problems for large networks require deep concepts and new models at the intersection of combinatorics and probability theory. Fortunately, you don't have to dig into long proofs to understand the main ideas.
What we know and what we don't know about the reliability of the Internet
Erds-Renyi's results do not completely solve the problem of Internet sustainability. Their model is not very similar to the real Internet. For example, in the Erdös-Renyi model, the number of lines at different nodes is usually close to the average. On the Internet, the spread between servers is very large. Some servers have hundreds of communication channels, while others have only two or three.
In 2000, the journal Nature published an article “Resilience to Interference and Attacks in Large Networks”. Physicists, including the very influential and famous scientist Laszlo Barabashi, took data from a small part of the Internet and, using computer experiments, decided to see what would happen if the servers were disabled one by one.
The results were nontrivial. If the servers fail randomly, for example due to interference, then the network connectivity remains for a long time. But if you deliberately disable several servers with the largest number of communication channels, then the network will quickly disintegrate. The conclusion sounded sensational: the Internet is reliable and at the same time rather fragile. It is immune to interference, but susceptible to attacks!
This work quickly became widely known. Only engineers working in this field shrugged their shoulders in bewilderment: "It can't be, our networks are very reliable!" The results of Barabashi and co-authors caused a wave of criticism, especially in a 2005 article by telecommunications experts.
One of the main arguments of critics was that on the Internet, the key ones are not multichannel servers, but those through which the largest amount of information traffic passes. On the Internet, some servers do have many communication channels, but often these servers are located on the periphery. A dense network of nodes in the middle - the backbone - is mainly responsible for traffic. It is intuitively clear that in order to destroy such a dense network of routes, you need to disable a large number of servers. Most likely, the Internet will not fall apart in the near future!
Through the broad vision of physicists and the specialized analysis of computer scientists and engineers, we know a lot about the resilience of the Internet. But the question is not yet closed.
Ideally, we need a rigorous mathematical model that includes the basic properties of the Internet. And this model requires Erdös-Renyi-type results that show what happens if one or another server or communication channel fails. Only then will we have unambiguously correct, rigorously proven results. There is progress in these areas, but it is still far from the exact answers. Work continues.