Slashdot Mirror
MITRE Corp. Report On Open Source In Government
Jeremy Allison (of the Samba team) writes "Very interesting paper just published by MITRE corporation. (In PDF - they've learned not to use Microsoft Word. :-). Highlights: 'The main conclusion of the article was that FOSS software plays a more critical role in the DoD than has generally been recognised.'; 'Create a "Generally Recognised as Safe" FOSS list ... including Linux, OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, Samba, Apache, Perl, GCC, GNAT, XFree86, OpenSSH, bind, and sendmail.'
'FOSS' stands for 'Free and Open-Source Software.' Looks like these people 'get it.'"
A very minor and unimportant comment:
Most companies when publishing in PDF format do so, not for openness but to preotect against copying or modification.
For example, my company works extensively with the FDA and we publish all our standard operating procedures (SOPs) in PDF format since it's so difficult to copy. We rely not on the openess of the format but on its limitations. Not earth-shattering but I wanted to mention that PDF is not a particularly open format, despite its structures being well known.
Correction: Upon further inspection, Qmail is graciously listed, though the others seem to still be absent (unless I can't search properly).
:)
"Qmail is a FOSS replacement for Sendmail, the
program that transfers emails between computers
on the Internet. Qmail has improved security,
reliability, and performance features."
Yep, that pretty much sums it up. I'm impressed.
Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes. --E. W. Dijkstra
This list would provide quick official recognition of FOSS (Free and Open-Source Software) applications that are:
(a) commercially supported
(b) widely used and
(c) have proven track records of security and reliability (eg. as measured by speed of closures of CERT reports in comparision to closed-source alternatives)
Gmanske.
In this paragraph MITRE seems to infer that GPL'ed software is some how more secure, or better able to be secured then other software.
"For Security, use of GPL within
groups with well-defined security boundaries should be encouraged to promote faster,
more locally autonomous responses to cyber threats. "
Page 3, Example 2.
This really makes no sense to me. Especially when the majority of the software they list as "heavily used infrastrucuture tools such as "Linux, OpenBSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, Samba, Apache, Perl, GCC, GNAT, XFree86, OpenSSH, bind, and sendmail," are a good portion of NOT licensed under the GPL. (Yes I realize some, are but the majority of that list are not.)
Doesn't make a lot of sense. Considering most people would agree the most secure OS out there is OpenBSD.
Banning Free and Open Source Software would remove certain types of infrastructure components (e.g., OpenBSD) that currently help support network security. It would also limit DoD access to -- and overall expertise in -- the use of powerful FOSS analysis and detection applications that hostile groups could use to help stage cyberattacks. Finally, it would remove the demonstrated ability of FOSS applications to be updated rapidly in response to new types of cyberattack. Taken together, these factors imply that banning FOSS would have immediate, broad, and strongly negative impacts on the ability of many sensitive and security focused DoD groups to defend against cyberattacks.
Starting on page 32, theres a very nice glossary of common Free and Open Source Acronyms.
I'll wager that the feds' decision not to mark, say, other MTAs is safe may be due to lack of adoption in the public and age of the code. Let's face it, Sendmail touches just about every email sent, anytime and anywhere. It's old code that has its nuances known. Sure, it's not a daemon but a demon, but by the DoD's logic, it can be trusted while something like qmail cannot.
:)
:P
>They are making progress in their own little way.
Military intelligence... if we ever understood it, we'd be arrested and our brains classified.
"I am root. Bow before me." To this I say, "You are root, and you bear the sins of the world upon your shoulders."
Isn't anybody gonna mention that RMS is going to say that FOSS should really be reffered to as Dental/FOSS?
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
I work for the DoD (and am lucky enough to work with MITRE folk as well), and we go for the open source solution whenever we can. Why? We're in security. We absolutely NEED to be able to hack our own code whenever necessary. We can't afford to be taken down by any sort of attack, whether it be a worm, virus, or directed attack -- and I'm not talking "afford" in the sense of a dollar amount. We also like to be able to do things like add signatures to our IDSs whenever we feel like it. We often notice and track new virus and worm activity before it "breaks." We can't wait for vendor updates.
I've sat through meetings with vendor reps where certain office members tore the reps some new orifices. I've heard from a *major AV/Firewall company name deleted* rep "Oh, you use open source FREEWARE! Well, if you want to go with something totally insecure that has absolutely no support and you don't know exactly what the code actually does..." The rep then sat there in stunned silence as the department head launched into a detailed tirade about how every member of the office not only knew what the open source we used did, most of us could re-write it if we needed to. The rep actually blushed and admitted that if we could do that, we didn't need their product.
Most of our offices do use Microsoft on most of the standard user desktops... but it's open source hacked-to-hell code that runs everything else around here! Well, aside from the gallons and gallons of coffee and Mountain Dew that runs the people..
Moderation totals that amuse me for one of my posts: Flamebait=1, Insightful=2, Funny=2, Overrated=1, Underrated=1
quoth the poster: How well is the MITRE Corporation regarded in general? How well are the thought of by the government in particular? How influential will their word on things be? You're kidding, right?
On the front page of MITRE's website: MITRE is a not-for-profit national resource that provides systems engineering, research and development, and information technology support to the government. It operates federally funded research and development centers for the DOD, the FAA, and the IRS, with principal locations in Bedford, Massachusetts, and Northern Virginia.
Trust me, they're extremely highly regarded and their analysis carries quite a bit of weight.
Moderation totals that amuse me for one of my posts: Flamebait=1, Insightful=2, Funny=2, Overrated=1, Underrated=1
Just to add some info here. Just because an article talks about usage and approval of FOSS in the "DoD" (Department of Defense), it doesn't mean that there is signifigant usage. Remember that the DoD is comprised of some management overhead and three sub departments: Army, Navy, Air Force. While Linux may be used and even endorsed by the "DoD", it's usage is not permitted without one hell of a waiver process in the Department of the Navy. Especially under NMCI(Navy Marine Corps Intranet), Linux is not even listed as an approved legacy system, much less something EDS will agree to support.
Additonally, each branch of the service is autonomous in IT management, which means there are FOUR DIFFERENT ways of running a network with the associated FOUR sets of management overhead and of course, they aren't interoperable. This is a fairly generalized statement, but most of the systems I deal with daily in the Marine Corps are specific to us and don't work with the other services systems despite the fact that they all do the EXACT SAME THING.
So kids, the moral of the story is: Write you congressman and complain about the misuse of your tax dollars. And don't forget to tell them that free software == excuse for lower taxes == more votes for them.
I've dirtied my hands writing poetry, for the sake of seduction; that is, for the sake of a useful cause. --Dostoevsky
It seems that the right hand doesn't see what the left hand is doing. That's the USA federal government for you.
With all due respect to your example, I would rather each department of the government be allowed to implement its own solutions, at least based on my experiences working for large corporations (where the right hand often doesn't know what the right middle finger is doing). The most productive situations arise when divisions and departments are allowed to solve their own problems, rather than having some senior-level executive decided, "okay, this worked for marketing, so now everyone has to do it this way." Information sharing is important, of course, but forcing one-size-fits-all "solutions" can be counter-productive.
Michael
"No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality;..."
In page 22:
[i]Ironically, a thoroughly rigorous and systematic ban on DoD use of FOSS could also affect a number of proprietary product that rely on FOSS products that permit incorporation of FOSS into their closed-source products. For example, Microsoft Office uses the FOSS zlib collection of data compression software, and thus could technically be banned as a product that incorporates FOSS software.[/i]
You didn't get the point. The problem this report tries to cover is not about costs but about the ability to control the software you use. And that's the what DoD is concerned about. And the report notes that DoD is damn dependent on FOSS:
The main conclusion of the analysis was that FOSS software plays a more critical role in the DoD than has generally been recognized. FOSS applications are most important in four broad areas: Infrastructure Support, Software Development, Security, and Research. One unexpected result was the degree to which Security depends on FOSS. Banning FOSS would remove certain types of infrastructure components (e.g., OpenBSD) that currently help support network security. It would also limit DoD access to and overall expertise in the use of powerful FOSS analysis and detection applications that hostile groups could use to help stage cyberattacks. Finally, it would remove the demonstrated ability of FOSS applications to be updated rapidly in response to new types of cyberattack. Taken together, these factors imply that banning FOSS would have immediate, broad, and strongly negative impacts on the ability of many sensitive and security- focused DoD groups to defend against cyberattacks.
I don't see where your disappointment comes up. The report shows that both OSS and FreeSoftware are the major players in DoD sectors (well I would be very admired if they wouldn't). Besides, it shows that all this FUD from M$ is a national danger to the US (and I would be HIGHLY admired if it wouldn't). Apart of some gaffes the report is superb.
Time to put Redmond on the rough nations list...
yes that is right even though the paper makes it sound like GNAT is a separate project from GCC, they are now one, GCC (GNU Compiler Collection). Their description says they are one now but I think this description was copied from each of their web sites.
Also is not RTLinux longer consider free software, because it restricts more than the GPL due to patents?
Also looks like they do not use csh at all which is under the BSD license. or pdksh which is in public domain, they are the default shells on OpenBSD.
They are also missed Binutils from the GNU which is the assembler and linker for most open/free operating systems.
Also is there not versions of sed and make and m4 and top that are under the BSD license?
Is perl not dual licensed, GPL and artistic?
I'm not trying to torch anybody's favorite software here, but both djbdns and qmail have drawbacks.
The biggest issue is the license. Qmail is limited to source-code only distribution, with an exception being made for precompiled binaries if they behave exactly the same as qmail normally behaves. Information here. This means that if you want qmail not to throw all of its binaries under /var and ignore most of /etc for configuration files (which it normally does), you have to compile and patch it by yourself. Also, there is no distributing patched versions, so if D. J. Bernstein dies tomorrow, qmail development is effectively frozen until qmail passes into the public domain decades later. That includes any security/performance patches, as well as ports to other architectures. Djbdns has a similiar license.
There is also compatability. Djbdns does not support certain zone transfer mechanisms. It ignores some IETF standards entirely and impliments its own version instead. I get upset when Microsoft twists and corrupts public standards for its own ends, and I get upset when Bernstien does it as well. I'm lazy, I don't want to have to doublecheck if my DNS servers supports a certain standard if my cofiguration changes. Qmail is more of a quibble, I don't like how it throws everything in /var. (And I'm not sure why the world needs qmtp)
I'm not saying that a lot of people and smaller sites won't find qmail/djbdns (and the rest of Bernstein's software) useful. They seem to be secure, and they do their job as long as everything is compatible.
However, one of the reasons why I avoid proprietary software for many tasks is that I don't want to hitch my wagon to somebody else's horse. If I go with a MTA that is wildly used and is GPL or BSDl, I am assured that development does not rest solely on one person. And if I go with standards-compliant software, it ends up being less of a hassle in the long run.
Djbdns and Qmail aren't bad. But they have licenses that limit distribution and development, and they break interoperability.
True, but then again Qmail has offered a USD $500 security guarantee since 1997, which so far remains unclaimed. Sendmail does not, and since then they've had a number of security issues to deal with.
As for its usage, Qmail at one stage included Hotmail among its users, so it has had a reasonable amount of testing and use.
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!
I didn't even know Microsoft has that restrictive license. It says here that it "Specifically bans use of: GPL, LGPL, Artistic, Perl, Mozilla, Netscape, Sun Community, and Sun Industry Standards."
Microsoft's site shows the license. It's really true. This particular EULA seems to be for a "Microsoft Mobile Internet Toolkit Beta 2". They actually call OSS as "Potentially Viral Software" in the license.