- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 94,358
- Reaction score
- 82,750
- Location
- Barsoom
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
if those laws have anything to do with using imported systems, they're critical laws that need to stay and be enforced.
outsourcing defense has brought down longer lived nations than ours.
Simpleχity;1065768330 said:Old Laws Are Keeping the US Navy from New IT Gear
The service’s deputy chief information officer says outdated regulations 'make it a struggle' for the military to stay on the cutting edge....
Actually, as far as I am aware, pretty much all equipment the US military uses comes from the US. For example, Cisco is the provider for most networking equipment. And that is most definately a US company.
The issue here is twofold. For one, 99% of our equipment for networking is "COTS", or "Commercial Off The Shelf". In other words, the exact same equipment that businesses use worldwide. More often then I can remember, I have gone into military wiring closets, and seen the exact same Cisco switches that I have at home. And the servers are the same HP and Dell servers that corporations use worldwide.
The requirements for testing equipment is pretty strict, and it generally takes a year or more to certify a new piece of equipment for service. Even a thing like a new operating system takes years, to ensure that the replacement is as secure and compatible as possible. Even things like firmware upgrades and software patches have to go through multiple checks before they are deployed.
I am more then passingly familiar with this, both in the civilian and military computer systems. Often times, updates and security patches are long after those civilians use (both corporate and government-military), to ensure that they do not affect other systems, and are secure from harmful bugs and even computer espionage. In 2000 when I worked at DirecTV, we were only starting to consider the deployment of NT 4.0 from NT 3.51, even though Win2k was already out. I know that the Army only phased out Windos XP in 2011, then it was on the verge of being made obsolete.
It always amazes me when people expect the government or corporations to be using the "newest and best" at all times. They do not even consider not only the fact that most systems go through rigerous testing before they are deployed, but are generally the same equipment used worldwide.
Which means when it comes to networking equipment, Cisco and HP. And for servers, Dell and HP. And for operating systems, Microsoft.
The military has a tendency of not using cutting edge tech, and there is a reason behind it. The military likes redundancy, simplicity, and reliability. Most tech adopted by the military is used after tested, retested, then dumbed down to a level that has many failsafes.
An example for the navy using cutting edge tech, my father was in the navy, in the 80's they started using apple computers with floppy disks for all records, which was cutting edge then.
In my deployment from 2010 to 2011, most of our computers still used xp or 2k,and we even still had some old ste-ice computers running win95 with floppy disks. Only the newest computers had vista, which was already obsolete then and replaced by win7. We had multiple msd computers at the maintenance tent, all but one were win2k, one was xp. The xp one was so slow you could take a 10 minute nap waiting for it to load, and they wanted to upgrade them to vista then, luckily that happened after I left active duty.
I'm honestly surprised that the US military is not using a customize version of Linux, from both a security and flexibility perspective
Well, in the military most computers will run the exact same OS until the regional G-6 mandates that they all be upgraded. And generally this happens when after a certain date they "flip a switch", and no computers with an old image can log onto the network. However, this only affects computers that are connected to a SIPR-NIPR network. If they are stand-alone machines, what OS they run does not matter.
And for specific use machines, they may very often run some absolutely antiquated systems. As recently as 2007, I ran across a computer that was still used every day to run a $100k+ rock etching machine that was an 80386 and ran Windows 3.1. They wanted a larger hard drive, because the 80 meg drive was full. I opened it, scratched my head, and told them I could not help them. Sure, I could add another drive. But I had no idea where I could find another MFM hard drive! I imagine I could have dug around to find an ISA IDE card, but it would have been 2 decades old at least, and no guarantee how long it would last.
Finally I had to sell them one of my old systems. P3-800, which I was able to use Ghost to transfer their OS and software without major issue. But I told them at that time they had better start trying to contact the maker of that cutting machine, once that computer died there was simply no way to replace it.
But STE/ICE? I have not seen one of those in decades.
Actually, I can't think of anything the military uses that is "dumbed down". We use the same hardware and software as any corporation, with the exact same firmware. This does not need to be "dumbed down" at all, since those like me who actually administer it have had extensive training in it, and often have the exact same certifications that our civilian counterparts have (CCNA, A+, Net+, MCSE, etc). And all this infrastructure is completely invisible to the end users, just as it is in any corporation.
Same with the OS. It is just a standard OS, simply locked down to restrict what a user can do in it.
That must have been the early 1980's. Back then, there was no "standard" for what a "Military Computer" was. Units simply bought their own and used them however they wanted. Then in 1986 they finally came out with a "standard desktop computer". I still remember when I had to unbox one for the first time in 1988. We had been using an old IBM DisplayWriter word processor (daisy wheel printer, 8" floppy), and we got our new computer. A Zenith 80386 with a 1.2m floppy and a 40 meg hard drive. Cutting edge at that time!
And oh the software! DOS 3.3, WordStar, Lotus 1-2-3, Dbase 3, and *drum roll* - Windows 1.02R. And yes, the exact same versions used in companies and homes worldwide. Also with the set came an Alps P2000 printer. Nope, no mice yet.
Then in 1991 I was in another office (using the exact same model computer) when I worked on my first "Military Network". It ran Banyan Vines, on a coax thinnet connection.
From the late 1980's on, military computers had to start meeting strict requirements. For a while in the early 1990's I even remember when they were trying to make all of them TEMPEST certified.
And yes, I saw the exact same thing in the civilian world as well. In 1995 I was involved in rolling out the first "Corporate Computer" at Hughes Aerospace. Just like the military a decade before, there was no standard. Each department just bought their own and used it until they had to replace it. We replaced them with either a P90 Dell with Win 3.11, or a Power Mac (for the first 4 months, the Macs were scrapped after that and pulled from service). We were pulling out of service systems that dated back to the 1970's. TRS-80s, propriatary HP machines, 8086 DOS boxes, even a couple of Atari STs, Commodore Amigas, and lots of old Macs going back to the original model.
In fact, the Mac PowerPC 6800 was a hard lesson for a lot of companies on the absolute need to conduct extensive testing before rolling out any new hardware or software. I could fill pages about what a disaster they were, and not just at Hughes. For years later I would run across them in companies ranging from Chevron, Disney, DirecTV, even US Borax and others. But that was an expensive lesson to companies nation wide.
Linux is not all that secure, never has been.
Heck, it is not even an "operating system", it is actually hundreds of them, written by thousands of different people. The only reason it is basically "secure" is that with so many variations, a hack that works on one rarely works on another. So instead the hackers look for exploits in the systems that the majority of people use.
Then you have the issue of software. Since many of us also have to do work from home, the DoD would have to make 2 different versions of programs. One for their custom Linux, then another for the majority of people who use Windows machines at home.
Linux is just the Kernel and is inherently more secure than windows as the end user does not have root access by default.
Being free and open source, the US would have full access to the complete source code and could place whatever custom front end they wanted onto the kernel.
Software and training would be a significant expense true... but than they would not be tied to the whims of one software company.
When I say dumbed down I do not mean made so simple a monkey can use it, I mean it is simplified in design to a point that it is redundant enough that it can reliably serve the military. For example when win vista was coming out, the army was starting to roll out xp, xp was outdated then, but the military wanted something tested and reliable. Vista was a disaster at launch, many operating systems are, which is why it makes sense for the military to wait to adopt new tech.
That also leaves out the problem if ship A ran apple computers, ship B ran mac computers, and ship c ran ibm computers. There is no interchangability between them. Heck when I was in the national guard we still had mac plus computers from the early 90's sitting in the shed, in military grade sliding computer boxes.
Linux is just the Kernel and is inherently more secure than windows as the end user does not have root access by default.
Being free and open source, the US would have full access to the complete source code and could place whatever custom front end they wanted onto the kernel.
Software and training would be a significant expense true... but than they would not be tied to the whims of one software company.
Security wise linux is actually not very superior at all, in the unix world, linux focuses more on compatibility and user friendliness. The unix like or based operating systems known for superior security are bsd 4.4 and it's derivatives, and solaris. Minix is much more secure as well but is a unix like micro kernel, so it is in it's own world.
if those laws have anything to do with using imported systems, they're critical laws that need to stay and be enforced.
outsourcing defense has brought down longer lived nations than ours.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?