Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Software Linux

Linux Secure Enough For The Army 71

Posted by timothy from the sir-yes-sir-it-is-a-penguin-sir dept.
LordPixie writes " As summarized over at Defense Tech, the U.S. Army is soon to be infected with the infamous OSS virus. They have chosen Linux as the operating system for the abysmally named 'System of Systems Common Operating Environment,' a part of Army's planned Future Combat Systems."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Secure Enough For The Army More

Linux Secure Enough For The Army

Comments Filter:

  • Cool.... but wait (Score:3, Funny)

    by SpaceLifeForm ( 228190 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:27AM (#10129635)
    Does MS and SCO know about this?
    How many days until TPTB change this decision?
    • Are you suggesting that the first FCS test deployment might be against a target in Utah? Somehow I imagine that the Washington target is too hardened with it's $force$ $field$ able to deflect nearly anything.
    • Does MS and SCO know about this?

      "System of Systems Common Operating Environment"... Look really carefully at that acronym... :-o
  • Army may have had a tough time with The Hulk [komar.org], but I think they'll SMASH SCO and their lawyers!

  • An army of one... (Score:4, Funny)

    by keiferb ( 267153 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:31AM (#10129700) Homepage
    ...and he's currently playing tuxracer in his eyepiece.

  • Picky picky picky (Score:4, Funny)

    by devphil ( 51341 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:35AM (#10129740) Homepage


    for the abysmally named 'System of Systems Common Operating Environment,'

    Look, you can either take whatever acronyms they hand out, or suffer under "backronyms" like PROTECT and PATRIOT. They don't know how to do anything else.

  • Right After... (Score:4, Informative)

    by 4of12 ( 97621 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:38AM (#10129785) Homepage Journal

    they ordered about US$4.7e8 worth of Microsoft products for the next 6 years. [nwsource.com]

    I'll give them credit for covering both options, though.

    OTOH, it's possible they could have got a better deal waving around a credible FOSS initiative, like others have done recently.

  • one problem of Open Source (Score:3, Insightful)

    by quinto2000 ( 211211 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:40AM (#10129814) Homepage Journal
    I personally object to software I develop being used for military applications. Luckily most of the F/OSS software I've created wouldn't be useful for them, but how ironic for the many people that create F/OSS because of humanitarian goals, to see it mis-appropriated for death and destruction. Not to mention how hard it is to stomach giving another free resource to the mis-named Defense Department when they already drain funding from social services, healthcare and education. (and yes, i realize that other people can still use Linux -- I just doubt that the DOD license purchasing budget will be reduced)

    • Re:one problem of Open Source (Score:5, Funny)

      by FLAGGR ( 800770 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:54AM (#10129986)
      SgtJenkins@military.mil$ drop bomb
      -bash: drop: command not found
      SgtJenkins@military.mil$ make bomb
      make: *** No rule to make target `bomb'. Stop.
      SgtJenkins@military.mil$ kill terrorists
      -bash: kill: terrorists: no such pid
      SgtJenkins@military.mil$ man i want windows back
      No manual entry for i
      No manual entry for want
      No manual entry for windows
      No manual entry for back
      • Sgt Jenkins: Finally we found Bin Laden. Better call in an airstrike with MS Airstrike TM.
        Clippy: Hi thank you for using MS Aistrike would you like me to A: Explain countless options you already know or don't care about. B: Ask me a question I won't answer but I will keep offering to answer your question. C: Call airstrike on allied position.
        Clippy: You just closed me, please remember I will randomly come back to annoy you.
        Sgt Jenkins: Finally, lets see enter the coordinates, open several dozen tabs and ext

    • Re:one problem of Open Source (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CamMac ( 140401 ) <PvtCam.yahoo@com> on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @12:03PM (#10130080)
      One of the entire reasons OSS is such a great thing is that becuase its OpenSourced, if can be adapted for use in ways that the original coder never though of. And dispite the fact that most soldiers have a hard time with an excel function, the fact that they might have acess to the source could allow for in theater modifications. Adaptability is a great thing.

      Of course, this includes ways the orignial coder might object to, but I'm sure they'll get over it. If your going to bitch about your software being used by the Department of Defense, remind me to not lift a finger when your getting your ass beat in some back alley. If your willing to help everyone but me, at no cost to you, why should I lift a finger to help you? Doesn't that fly in the face of OpenSource? I do give this to you in the HOPE that you might do something that might help me?

      --Cam

    • Re:one problem of Open Source (Score:4, Insightful)

      by GypC ( 7592 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @12:03PM (#10130083) Homepage Journal

      Yes, abolish all armies and then there will be peace in the world.

      *eye roll*

      Grow up.

    • Re:one problem of Open Source (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Marxist Hacker 42 ( 638312 ) <seebert42@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @12:28PM (#10130339) Homepage Journal
      Do you also have a problem using TCP/IP because it was a DARPAnet project to begin with? Hate to say it- but giving free resources to the mis-named Defense Department means that the government as a whole will have more money for social sercives, healthcare, and education- some smart congresscritter is sure to notice that FOSS licencing is cheaper than CS licensing and cut it from the budget.
    • Well, you can't have it both ways. Either OSS is totally unencumbered and free for public use, or not. You could write a license that says that it's free for everyone but the government or weapons manufacturers, but that's darn hard to enforce. I mean, do you really think the Pentagon obeys licenses and patent laws in cases of "National Security"?

      Ethically, I would say you're blame free. If you build a house, and a serial killer moves in, are you an accessory to murder? Most tools (excluding guns and

      • Most tools (excluding guns and explosives, and even those can be debated) take on beneficial or harmful characteristics only when wielded by a person who has made a choice.

        What are you saying? Guns and explosives all come with some sort of hidden mind-control device that rob their wielders of free will?

      • Actually there is a well known example of that. A lot of free software has anti south african police clauses. These sorts of licenses are enforcable in the sense that the pentagon would view violating them the same they would see violating any other license (they would rather not but they do what they have to).

        In any case prohibitions on user classes violate the GPL and can't be linked in.
      • I know that there's a tradeoff involved, and arguably the fact that the US Military can use the opensource code is worth it if a hundred NGOs can also use it . I'm just pointing out the ethical question, not saying that it's a solved one.
    • " I personally object to software I develop being used for military applications"

      Then stop writing OSS software, or come up with your own anti-military-use license for your software. The whole point of OSS is that ANYBODY can use it any way they want to.

      Oh, and if you're ever attacked or assualted, especially by, oh, I don't know, a terrorist or something...will you cry for help to the mis-named Defense Department? Maybe you'll get by using Gnu-Fu, and tossing your Debian Discs O'Death at them....
    • Aw jesus fucking christ on a bicycle, It does not matter what it is, somebody is going to figure out how to apply it to killing or enslaving his fellows. It's not a problem of technology, it's a problem of humans.
    • I personally object to software I develop being used for military applications.

      in other words, you don't write free software

      ever heard of a baby-mulching machine?
    • I guess you're the anti-Theo then. Regarding the removal of ipf from OpenBSD:
      But software which OpenBSD uses and redistributes must be free to all (be they people or companies), for any purpose they wish to use it, including modification, use, peeing on, or even integration into baby mulching machines or atomic bombs to be dropped on Australia.
    • Do you support the Red Cross? They help out military personnel as well. F/OSS is much like the Red Cross. War is a part of what defines humanity and always will. With systems like these, we can at least be sure to hit only the targets we want to hit (thus minimizing or possibly eliminating unnecessary collateral deaths), and keep our own casualties down.

  • Ours vs theirs (Score:3, Funny)

    by chris_mahan ( 256577 ) <chris.mahan@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:45AM (#10129882) Homepage
    I can't wait for the Zealots to start arguing which distro is best:

    -USA Army Linux Combat Integration System
    -Deutsch Bundeswehr Linux Tactical Strike Module
    -PRC Linux Command and Control
    -Al-Quaeda Linux Insurrection III

    You know, Mr Torvalds will have to do like Mr Nobel before it's all over.

  • System of Systems (Score:5, Informative)

    by GuyMannDude ( 574364 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @11:46AM (#10129889) Journal

    ...the abysmally named 'System of Systems Common Operating Environment'...

    The term "system of systems" refers to the fact that FCS is meant to allow the army to be able to reconfigure things easily and rapidly to allow the technology to be used for a wide range of missions. Yeah, it sounds a bit strange if you're not used to the terminology but they do pick these phrases, acronyms, and words for a reason. You can read more about FCS here [globalsecurity.org]. Basically, the idea is to use a collection of smaller, more manueverable vehicles (including tanks, guns, as well as unmanned ground and aerial vehicles) to accomplish a wide array of military missions. FCS will lack the heavy armor (e.g., 70 ton tanks) that we currently have which could make the force more susceptible to destruction. The advantage of using a lighter force, however, is that it doesn't take them so long to set up, they can move pretty quickly, and don't require as much support equipment and supplies (e.g., fuel). The army plans to make the lighter FCS unit survivable through a lot of fancy communication and data-sharing technologies. So the fact that they have decided to choose Linux is reasonably signficant. FCS will rely very heavily on the quality of their software.

    GMD


    • History's Verdict
      Victor Davis Hanson
      July 16, 2004

      About this time 60 years ago, six weeks after the Normandy beach landings, Americans were dying in droves in France. We think of the 76-day Normandy campaign of summer and autumn 1944 as an astounding American success -- and indeed it was, as Anglo-American forces cleared much of France of its Nazi occupiers in less than three months. But the outcome was not at all preordained, and more often was the stuff of great tragedy. Blunders were daily occurren

      • The army soon learned that their light Sherman tanks were no match for Nazi Panthers and Tigers. Hundreds of their "Ronson-lighters"

        First, the hypothetical "lighter force" of FCS would use unmanned, remote-controlled tanks. So if they suffer a high rate of destruction, it's no big deal. To the USA, lives are much more precious than equipment.

        Second, the USA has attack aircraft that can easily target and destroy any heavy armored vehicle long before the FCS arrives on the ground. "70 ton tanks" agains

    • Basically, the idea is to use a collection of smaller, more manueverable vehicles ... to accomplish a wide array of military missions.

      A conceptually sound idea.

      Maybe somebody ought to think about applying this kind of principle to the operation of software components:)

  • ... Dan O'Dowd says it's not secure enough [designnews.com].

    And shouldn't he know? I mean, he sells an OS that is designed for military use, so obviously he's an expert. And unbiased, too!

    Sorry, Dan. Looks like your FUD didn't work.

    • Yuppers, you're right, Dan's FUD's a dud with the DOD, dude! *highfive*

      Heh, English is _so_ cool! :)

    • What was kind of humorous and interesting, if true, is the assertion that Thomson, one of the creators of UNIX, had written a backdoor in the binary distribution of UNIX that would add him as a user to whatever system it was installed on.

      There is also the claim that Windows was "certified" at a higher level of security by the Army itself than Linux. Does anyone what criteria were used to assess the relative security of these OSs?

      • Re:But , but... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by swillden ( 191260 ) *

        What was kind of humorous and interesting, if true, is the assertion that Thomson, one of the creators of UNIX, had written a backdoor in the binary distribution of UNIX that would add him as a user to whatever system it was installed on.

        I don't think Ken Thompson ever did that, he just demonstrated how it could be done, even with a compiled-from-source operating system.

        There is also the claim that Windows was "certified" at a higher level of security by the Army itself than Linux. Does anyone what cr

    • Dan O'Dowd's article didn't make much sense until I figured something out: He's assuming that the military is installing off-the-shelf linux. Once you realize that, his comments do make sense.

      Somehow, I don't think that's quite true. The Army is probably not running FC2 or Debian or even Slackware.

      While it is true, as others here have suggested, that most soldiers wouldn't be able to make any sense of the source code, I suspect that the Army has a significant crowd of geeks who are quite capable of doin
  • What other operating system can be recompiled to fit in the restricted memory space of a rifle?
    • What about Symbian OS? is it a clone/version of Linux too?
      • To be honest about it- the Army's only looking at Open Source, not necessarily Linux specifically- I don't remember, is Symbian open source? I think if it's not you might have a hard time programming it to do the laser finder to call in a missile instead of simply getting your GPS location to call a taxi when you're too drunk to know where you are.

        Also, isn't Symbian kind of locked into the cell phone market?
    • What other operating system can be recompiled to fit in the restricted memory space of a rifle?
      NetBSD [netbsd.org] perhaps?
  • Just read the article. Sounds interesting, but I was a little peturbed by the fact that the projects were described as "titanic".

    Does that mean they'll sink without trace within weeks of getting started?

  • Obvious Choice (Score:4, Informative)

    by Mork29 ( 682855 ) * <keith,yelnick&us,army,mil> on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @01:45PM (#10131092) Journal
    As a sys admin for the military, most of us complain about our dependence on a private company in the government sector. This will allow the Army to create what they need, and add what they need, themselves. Computers in combat environments do things that no off the shelf software was designed to do. Most of our stuff has to be home brewed or contracted out. Linux gives the military more flexiblity in this field. I wish I could run linux on our client/server systems for desktops, but I'm stuck with Windows for now. We do run Unix for many of our supply systems... Unfortunately that Unix platform was provided by SCO..... Many years ago....

  • Very misleading title (Score:4, Informative)

    by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @02:50PM (#10131737) Journal
    It seems to suggest that just now the american army has decided that Linux may be used within its service. That is not the case at all. The army has been using Linux for a long time already and decided it was safe enough.

    This news is that Linux has been chosen as THE os for the future replacing the other OSes currently in use. This is a far greater story.

    • Also misleading. (Score:2, Informative)

      by Ayanami Rei ( 621112 ) *
      Linux will be the underpinnings of all the systems in the C&C and operations systems of the FCS. This has nothing to do with Army day-to-day operations or other existing combat systems.

      It's a specific fighting force that they plan on employing in the future. It's very exciting stuff though.

  • System of Systems Common Operating Environment? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by david.given ( 6740 ) <dg@cowlark.com> on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @02:56PM (#10131787) Homepage Journal
    Look, you can't come up with a name that bad by accident. They must have done it on purpose.

    My theory is that some Linux fanatic in the DoD is giving the finger to a certain Unix vendor. Which one? Say the acronym out loud and you'll get it...

  • Linux the logical choice, nothing to do with MS (Score:4, Informative)

    by stanwirth ( 621074 ) on Wednesday September 01, 2004 @03:27PM (#10132106)

    Most of the military embedded, comms and simulation systems have traditionally been developed on a Unix platforms, and the embedded work was typically done with VxWorks.

    Migrating to linux means minimal porting costs from Unix platforms, it means preservation of the skill set already developed in military R&D outfits (FFRDCs) and it means freeing various corners of that world from the commercial interests of providers of proprietary *nix platforms. It also opens up a whole world of development environments for embedded systems. Porting from Unix to Linux can be combined with a refactoring exercise to make those systems more reliable, too -- whereas porting to say Windows -- would just be a complete mess. An ever-changing mess, as MS issues a never-ending stream of binary patches and updates and API changes and has a never ending string of vulnerabilities that cannot be patched in the field because nobody has the source.

    Linux is the logical choice, the rational choice for these systems from the standpoint of simplifying and unifying software development processes, having access to a greater range of development tools, and for making these systems more reliable. The cost benefits of the software systems reliability, simplicity and visibility considerations compounds the savings on the licensing fees.

    Those MS licenses they're also getting? Windows machines are used for administrative purposes -- think glorified typewriter, not the next guided missile system. It was far more worrying (and completely unrealistic, and probably politically motivated) when the military was considering standardizing their systems on MS--which is like hiring a secretary to drive a tank.

  • If they adapt open source software won't that software remain open source and hence be available for download for the enemy?
    • If you distribute within an organization (military) you don't have to release the source.
    • Only if they redistribute it. I suppose that means, though, that if they start selling equipment to the Israelis or someone, it'll have to be without an any programming or else with the source.

      Actually, this good be a good thing. Think about how aid to Saddam Hussein, the Afghani mujahadeen, and so forth has caused problems down the line. If the army is contractually obligated not to give or sell equipment to outside and foreign groups without also giving out the source code, they may be able to use thi
      • "Look, Ariel, baby, we'd love to sell you our tanks, but with all these terrorists running around it would be a security risk to give you our code. Which we'd have to do. Sorry...."

        Actually, I'd think that lots of people in the DoD would be arguing for delivering the code to the Israelis. That way, the Israelis would not only be beta testers, but their hackers would probably send back all sorts of good patches.

        If any of the bad guys are going to find exploits, it would be a lot better for the US if tho
  • The army and DOD "go together like peas and carrots" and the DOD is microsoft's largest customer. I think this is the bigger aspect of this story. If they're willing to try a shift like this in the army that means later on they'll have the confidence to switch desktops all over the country running windows. The US government is a huge buyer of microsoft products. This will only enhance FOSS's reputation as a legitimate player in the battle field (yes, pun intended).
    • I'd like to think you're right, but I suspect you're not.

      Parphrasing rather a lot, the DOD would tend to have lots of "desktop"-class systems whereas the Army would tend to have lots of "server"-class systems.

      Stupid analogy, right? Let me explain.

      Servers tend to do a few things, but do them exceptionally reliably. I figure most field combat systems would tend to do exactly one thing, and would need to do it exceptionally reliably. A missile control system is not also going to double as a supply coordi
  • http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2004/0830/web-sipr net-08-31-04.asp [fcw.com] tells about two viruses (virii?) discovered on the classified military network SIPRNET, specifically, at the Army Space and Missile Defense Command. Apparently our missile control and space defense operates on Microsoft - but how did a virus enter the network? SIPRNET computers are not connected to any other network, and are generally behind locked, limited-access doors.
    • SIPRNET computers are not connected to any other network, and are generally behind locked, limited-access doors.

      The main goal of the doors around SIPRNET sites, and the guards who man them, is to prevent classified data from leaving. Their primary focus is to no writable media leaves a SIPRNET computer. Users often bring CD-Rs or floppies containing data, with the expectation that they'll be left behind in a locked wastebasket (for eventual secure incineration).

      There are rules that require incoming fi
  • As it looks now, my government will be the last to implement open source software... :-(

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday September 02, 2004 @03:25AM (#10136573)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

Slashdot Top Deals

No spitting on the Bus! Thank you, The Mgt.

Close