Military Communications and Information Technology: A Trusted ...
Military Communications and Information Technology: A Trusted ... Military Communications and Information Technology: A Trusted ...
40 Military Communications and Information Technology... based on service merit. This would enable the MOD to be a much more intelligent customer who is not tied in to particular vendors, with the ability to choose the most cost effective solution at every stage of the networks lifetime. The UK MOD is developing the next generation of tactical networks, and a key driver of this is the use of open architectures and standards. The approach taken is to define an architecture which is underpinned by open interfaces between encapsulated, heterogeneous systems. The LE TacCIS programme [7] is delivering this approach, attempting to deliver the transition from a current system of systems architecture within Command and Control Information Infrastructure (CCII) to next generation Land Environment Tactical CIS. III. Assessing the benefits and risks of open systems A. Benefits A key benefit of open systems to defense is that they enable interoperability, making both joint and coalition working easier. Interoperability is a key requirement for military communications systems, driven by top level strategies such as Network-Enabled Capability (NEC) and politically through increased coalition working in all major recent military operations. The need to strengthen partnerships through bilateral and multinational relationships is continually highlighted in toplevel MOD policy, most recently in the latest Strategy for Defence policy as part of “Military Task 3 – To succeed in other operations” [8]. Achieving both joint and coalition interoperability requires components which can be operated alongside, in conjunction or integrated with systems controlled by separate operators. In terms of communications systems, at the technology level this requires either compatible standard interfaces, which would be the optimal solution, or use of gateways, which can lead to bottlenecks, vulnerable points and communications delay. Making technical specifications available to a wider market audience enables open standard interfaces and promotes greater objective competition. This objectivity in comparing networking systems is critical to allowing intelligent decision making in procurement. A report by the national audit office, reviewing the procurement of the UK Bowman system, found that “Agile decision making must be underpinned by high quality information” [9]. Vendor lock-in emerges from limiting the technical knowledge of a system to one supplier, meaning costly support contracts are required to ensure the equipment can be operated until it reaches out-of-date service. A high level of interoperability would potentially support a modular approach to changing technological components based on mission requirements. It may be assumed that by using the well known Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) model that openness can be achieved by appropriately defined interfaces. In practice the OSI model only defines interactions between adjacent layers in a protocol and may not necessarily deliver the design intent across a dynamic system.
Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions for Communications and Information Systems 41 One example would be a custom-made real-time transport protocol which works regardless of physical layer, but may not deliver the real-time intent of the protocol. Table I summarises the benefits of open systems. TABLE I. Benefits of Open Systems Benefit Standard Interfaces Security Assessment Network Design & Planning Spectrum Management Competition Increased Modularity Description Sharing data between separate technologies is possible by providing standard interfaces to manufacturers. Open standards allow the buyer to understand and better mitigate the risks. Planning wide area networks and managing loading is simplified if interfaces of different networks are open. Efficiently exploiting spatial reuse must be underpinned by information on interference characteristics. Proprietary advantages can be objectively compared between vendors. Modular systems can be bought that fit requirements and are cost effective. These can simply be replaced when required. B. Risks The adoption of open systems is thought to be likely to provide both technical and operational benefits, but a careful understanding of the risk is required to avoid compromise of operational security. There are a number of potential barriers to the adoption of open systems in defense. The shift to assessing and adopting a broad range of technologies will place greater burden on the system integrator, and this role has largely been filled by industry suppliers. This would be a highly complex task, requiring not only the detailed technical management of systems but also the evaluation of competing technologies and vendors for each new system component, and would require a trusted partner to fill this role. In defense, there are some cultural constraints to openness, based on how things have always been done; technical details of military systems are typically kept to a ‘need-to-know’ basis, partly to reduce the possibility of vulnerability discovery through a security-by-obscurity approach, and partly because Intellectual Property rights of supplying organisations must be protected. Often, the business models of contractors does not support the information sharing necessary for open systems; therefore a culture shift is essential to maximize the effectiveness the military achieves from off the shelf components. Public release of technical specifications may lead to an ‘arms race’ of vulnerability discovery and defensive patching; the military is likely to be an attractive target to a range of attackers. There are some situations where openness may never be wanted – for example, where equipment from foreign allies
- Page 1 and 2: Military Communications and Informa
- Page 3 and 4: Contents Foreword .................
- Page 5: Contents 5 Methodology for Gatherin
- Page 8 and 9: 8 Military Communications and Infor
- Page 11 and 12: Building a Layered Enterprise Archi
- Page 13 and 14: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 15 and 16: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 17 and 18: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 19 and 20: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 21 and 22: Applying NAF for Performance Analys
- Page 23 and 24: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 25 and 26: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 27 and 28: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 29 and 30: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 31 and 32: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 33 and 34: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 35 and 36: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 37 and 38: Openness in Military Systems Jessic
- Page 39: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 43 and 44: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 45 and 46: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 47 and 48: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 49 and 50: The Concept of Integration Tool for
- Page 51 and 52: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 53 and 54: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 55 and 56: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 57 and 58: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 59 and 60: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 61 and 62: CFBLNet: A Coalition Capability Ena
- Page 63 and 64: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 65 and 66: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 67 and 68: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 69 and 70: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 71 and 72: Selected Aspects of Effective RCIED
- Page 73 and 74: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 75 and 76: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 77 and 78: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 79 and 80: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 81: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 84 and 85: 84 Military Communications and Info
- Page 86 and 87: 86 Military Communications and Info
- Page 88 and 89: 88 Military Communications and Info
Chapter 1: Concepts <strong>and</strong> Solutions for <strong>Communications</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Information</strong> Systems<br />
41<br />
One example would be a custom-made real-time transport protocol which works<br />
regardless of physical layer, but may not deliver the real-time intent of the protocol.<br />
Table I summarises the benefits of open systems.<br />
TABLE I. Benefits of Open Systems<br />
Benefit<br />
St<strong>and</strong>ard Interfaces<br />
Security Assessment<br />
Network Design & Planning<br />
Spectrum Management<br />
Competition<br />
Increased Modularity<br />
Description<br />
Sharing data between separate technologies is possible by providing<br />
st<strong>and</strong>ard interfaces to manufacturers.<br />
Open st<strong>and</strong>ards allow the buyer to underst<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> better mitigate<br />
the risks.<br />
Planning wide area networks <strong>and</strong> managing loading is simplified<br />
if interfaces of different networks are open.<br />
Efficiently exploiting spatial reuse must be underpinned by information<br />
on interference characteristics.<br />
Proprietary advantages can be objectively compared between<br />
vendors.<br />
Modular systems can be bought that fit requirements <strong>and</strong> are<br />
cost effective. These can simply be replaced when required.<br />
B. Risks<br />
The adoption of open systems is thought to be likely to provide both technical<br />
<strong>and</strong> operational benefits, but a careful underst<strong>and</strong>ing of the risk is required to<br />
avoid compromise of operational security.<br />
There are a number of potential barriers to the adoption of open systems<br />
in defense. The shift to assessing <strong>and</strong> adopting a broad range of technologies will<br />
place greater burden on the system integrator, <strong>and</strong> this role has largely been filled<br />
by industry suppliers. This would be a highly complex task, requiring not only<br />
the detailed technical management of systems but also the evaluation of competing<br />
technologies <strong>and</strong> vendors for each new system component, <strong>and</strong> would require<br />
a trusted partner to fill this role.<br />
In defense, there are some cultural constraints to openness, based on how things<br />
have always been done; technical details of military systems are typically kept to<br />
a ‘need-to-know’ basis, partly to reduce the possibility of vulnerability discovery<br />
through a security-by-obscurity approach, <strong>and</strong> partly because Intellectual Property<br />
rights of supplying organisations must be protected. Often, the business models<br />
of contractors does not support the information sharing necessary for open systems;<br />
therefore a culture shift is essential to maximize the effectiveness the military achieves<br />
from off the shelf components. Public release of technical specifications may lead to<br />
an ‘arms race’ of vulnerability discovery <strong>and</strong> defensive patching; the military is likely<br />
to be an attractive target to a range of attackers. There are some situations where<br />
openness may never be wanted – for example, where equipment from foreign allies