Military Communications and Information Technology: A Trusted ...
Military Communications and Information Technology: A Trusted ... Military Communications and Information Technology: A Trusted ...
44 Military Communications and Information Technology... Through standardization, access to ‘best practice’ is possible, and wide use of a public standard is an endorsement of that technology. Even if the details of a system’s technical operation is known, it cannot be compromised due to the strength of, and confidence in, protection mechanisms within the system. This can lead to system owners adopting a more sensible risk posture; instead of trying to develop costly, custom-made security solutions, a posture of adopting open standards and technologies may result in more thought being given to appropriate levels of security – resulting in a move to a ‘risk balanced’ approach, which is based on careful analysis of the threat, rather than a ‘protect against everything’ mentality which is financially inefficient and increasingly more difficult to justify. Openness as a posture may also be a deterrent to some attackers as it demonstrates confidence in your protection mechanisms. Particular security mechanisms can be adopted to deter would-be attackers, for example if an attacker knows they will be traced then they may be less likely to attack. Whilst there are clear benefits from using standardized and interoperable security mechanisms, public disclosure of a security mechanism is still seen as a risk to security: attackers are given an awareness of how the system works, without requiring the effort involved in reverse-engineering which decreases the skill level needed for basic attack attempts. There is also a concern that successful attacks against a public standard may not be disclosed. Whilst a more open and standards-based approach to security can enable interoperability, the increased information disclosure has a risk of making it easier to identify attack vectors against a system and reducing the level of skill needed to attack a system. Moving from a small number of trusted suppliers to a potentially global market for providing security mechanisms will result in a wider range of available technical options, but may also require a different stance to be taken with respect to trust in sourcing components and provenance of software and hardware. D. Technical case studies: MOSA, GVA and LOSA This paper will now outline the MOD case studies which refined the principles for developing open systems which have been stated above. MOSA has delivered a technical architecture, an enterprise model and a migration strategy and has progressed issues such as the management of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), designing for modular test and acceptance and designing for modular certification and accreditation. MOSA aimed to provide a standardized structure for flexibly assembling combat system components to provide an overall combat capability using looselycoupled, non-proprietary, published interfaces. The fundamental characteristic of MOSA is that combat systems will be constructed of replaceable modules i.e. components will be upgradeable and interchangeable.
Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions for Communications and Information Systems 45 The specific objectives of the MOSA program were to: • Reduce whole life cost as current combat systems and delivery and sustainment approaches are increasingly unaffordable; • Deliver combat agility to provide new capabilities and counter new threats and to do so rapidly; • Deliver acquisition agility to exploit a broader industrial supply base, avoid vendor lock-in and field new technologies as they become available; • Sustain capability through platform life, including countering technological obsolescence and enabling platform life extension; • Exploit the opportunities offered by COTS, modularity and openness; • Foster a common understanding and industrial openness to the benefit of the MOD in performing its mission and also to benefit industry. The MOSA architecture was developed by a consortium of seven industry companies which are major UK combat system experts. The architecting process, illustrated in Fig. 1, is generic and can be applied to systems in other domains with different functional and non-functional requirements. It describes the process that yielded a complete architectural description of the functionality of multiple applications, software infrastructure and hardware infrastructure, using suitable open standards. From the functional decomposition of the system, the key interfaces were defined. Figure 1. MOSA Architecting Process MOSA has provided the following benefits to the MOD: • Improved maintenance through component and interface commonality; • Cheaper and quicker updates and technology insertion through modular decoupled design; • Increased re-use of software, potential for reduced duplication;
- 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 and 40: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 41 and 42: Chapter 1: Concepts and Solutions f
- Page 43: 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
- Page 90 and 91: 90 Military Communications and Info
- Page 92 and 93: 92 Military Communications and Info
Chapter 1: Concepts <strong>and</strong> Solutions for <strong>Communications</strong> <strong>and</strong> <strong>Information</strong> Systems<br />
45<br />
The specific objectives of the MOSA program were to:<br />
• Reduce whole life cost as current combat systems <strong>and</strong> delivery <strong>and</strong> sustainment<br />
approaches are increasingly unaffordable;<br />
• Deliver combat agility to provide new capabilities <strong>and</strong> counter new threats<br />
<strong>and</strong> to do so rapidly;<br />
• Deliver acquisition agility to exploit a broader industrial supply base, avoid<br />
vendor lock-in <strong>and</strong> field new technologies as they become available;<br />
• Sustain capability through platform life, including countering technological<br />
obsolescence <strong>and</strong> enabling platform life extension;<br />
• Exploit the opportunities offered by COTS, modularity <strong>and</strong> openness;<br />
• Foster a common underst<strong>and</strong>ing <strong>and</strong> industrial openness to the benefit<br />
of the MOD in performing its mission <strong>and</strong> also to benefit industry.<br />
The MOSA architecture was developed by a consortium of seven industry<br />
companies which are major UK combat system experts. The architecting process,<br />
illustrated in Fig. 1, is generic <strong>and</strong> can be applied to systems in other domains with different<br />
functional <strong>and</strong> non-functional requirements. It describes the process that yielded<br />
a complete architectural description of the functionality of multiple applications,<br />
software infrastructure <strong>and</strong> hardware infrastructure, using suitable open st<strong>and</strong>ards.<br />
From the functional decomposition of the system, the key interfaces were defined.<br />
Figure 1. MOSA Architecting Process<br />
MOSA has provided the following benefits to the MOD:<br />
• Improved maintenance through component <strong>and</strong> interface commonality;<br />
• Cheaper <strong>and</strong> quicker updates <strong>and</strong> technology insertion through modular<br />
decoupled design;<br />
• Increased re-use of software, potential for reduced duplication;