Linux Secure Enough For The Army

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."

Comments

Army uses Ninnle Linux!

[Anonymous Coward]

The distro of choice!

NORAD has been using it for a number of years now.

Cool.... but wait

[SpaceLifeForm]

Does MS and SCO know about this?
How many days until TPTB change this decision?

Linux: it's not just a job, it's an adventure!

[xmas2003]

Army may have had a tough time with The Hulk, but I think they'll SMASH SCO and their lawyers!

The name is not a bad choice

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, it has SCO, right there in the middle:

sSCOe

This is all part of a nefarious plan to allow SCO to sieze control of our Army through litigation.

An army of one...

[keiferb]

...and he's currently playing tuxracer in his eyepiece.

Picky picky picky

[devphil]

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...

[4of12]

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

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

[quinto2000]

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

[FLAGGR]

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

Re:one problem of Open Source

[CamMac]

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

[GypC]

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

*eye roll*

Grow up.

Re:one problem of Open Source

[Marxist Hacker 42]

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.

Re:one problem of Open Source

[borroff]

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

Re:one problem of Open Source

[GypC]

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?

Re:one problem of Open Source

[fireweaver]

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.

Re:one problem of Open Source

[Triumph The Insult C]

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?

Re:one problem of Open Source

[lpontiac]

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.

Re:one problem of Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

You think that's bad? You have no idea how hard it is to stomach giving away money to welfare baby making machines, illegal aliens, social programs that target specific minorites, and to homosexuals who have HIV'd themselves up on purpose and now need money to pay for their medication.

Re:one problem of Open Source

[jbolden]

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.

Re:one problem of Open Source

[ndogg]

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.

Re:one problem of Open Source

[Anonymous Coward]

heh, typical ms user, you don't want to kill just 1 terrorists, you killall terrorists :)

Re:one problem of Open Source

[quinto2000]

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.

Ours vs theirs

[chris_mahan]

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.

Re:Ours vs theirs

[ajrs]

I'm still using Slackwar, you insentitive clod!

Re:Ours vs theirs

[Methlin]

+5, Funny wish I had mod points today.

Re:Ours vs theirs

[Halfbaked Plan]

I'm still using Slackwar

It's been a long, long time since I saw the bounded (8.3) directory name that used to appear on the good ol' Slackware CD back in the day.

Slackware still rocks. (started running it back with Kernel 1.2.13)

System of Systems

[GuyMannDude]

...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. 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

Re:System of Systems

[4of12]

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:)

But , but...

[swillden]

... Dan O'Dowd says it's not secure enough.

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.

Re:But , but...

[gpierce11]

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...

[swillden]

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 criteria were used to assess the relative security of these OSs?

Oh, I'm sure it was Common Criteria, or something similar. And, really, it's no surprise that Windows has a higher certification; CC and related standards are built around assumptions of a closed-source development model, and that makes the standards very hard to apply to open source software.

The seven EAL certification levels defined by CC basically define different degrees of rigor in the specification, design and implementation processes. They assume a waterfall model where each step is completed before the next one is begun, and their goal is really to demonstrate that each step implements the previous steps faithfully, that is, that the design precisely meets the requirements, the implementation precisely implements the design, the testing precisely validates the requirements, etc. At the highest levels, semi-formal and even some formal proofs of correctness are required.

At the end of such a rigorous process, you have a high degree of certainty that the resulting product fully meets the stated requirements. Assuming that those requirements were written with security in mind, then there's a high probability that the product is secure. Oh, and there's also some stuff in CC about how access to the documentation and source is controlled and how the product delivery process has to work to ensure that no one can insert security-comprimising changes at any point in the process. And some stuff about how to vet the people involved in doing all of the work to make sure they're trustworthy.

This sort of development process is one good approach to developing a secure product, but it's not the only approach. Many of its requirements are only present because of the underlying assumption that the user of the product -- who relies on its security -- does not have access to the code. Most of the rest of it is an attempt to define a process that can produce secure code with limited human resources.

OSS, with it's "many eyes" philosophy takes a different tack. OSS relies on massive manpower and huge amounts of redundant effort to vet the code as it is, rather than trying to ensure that it is created as it should be. Instead of creating detailed requirements and design documents which can be checked with a low level of effort and then working hard to ensure that the code matches up with those, OSS developers just write the code (with an effort to make it secure) and then rely on "many eyes" to discover and close any weaknesses. The fact that the source is open eliminates the need for access controls used in high-security closed-source software.

It's really not clear that either approach is better, in general, than the other. Both have strengths and weaknesses and both do a good job, assuming the closed approach is executed properly by good people, and assuming the open approach attracts enough competent eyes.

What is clear, though, is that it's fiendishly difficult to apply the CC certification processes to open source code, or any code that is already written, but OSS source is even tougher. You have to essentially reverse engineer the code to produce design documentation, reverse engineer the design to produce requirements, vet the requirements for security, verify (to whatever level necessary, depending on the certification you want to achieve) that the design implements the requirements and the code implements the design. All very, very, difficult things to do. For

Re:But , but...

[jc42]

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 doing a thorough analysis of the whole thing. And making a few judicious changes here and there.

Obvious Choice?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

What other operating system can be recompiled to fit in the restricted memory space of a rifle?

Re:Obvious Choice?

[lotsToLearn]

What about Symbian OS? is it a clone/version of Linux too?

Re:Obvious Choice?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

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?

Re:Obvious Choice?

[Homology]

What other operating system can be recompiled to fit in the restricted memory space of a rifle?

NetBSD perhaps?

Re:Obvious Choice?

[Marxist Hacker 42]

True enough- any OSS would do for the time being. And it took me 13 seconds to type this reply- how the heck did you avoid the 20 second clock.

Re:Obvious Choice?

[Halfbaked Plan]

NetBSD is likely already seeing extensive use in the Military. It embeds without a trace.

There's no reason for anybody to even know if it is or not. Which some people consider cool, other people not.

Re:Obvious Choice?

[Anonymous Coward]

What other operating system can be recompiled to fit in the restricted memory of a soldier?

Re:Cool.... but wait

[dpilot]

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.

VDHanson on "70 ton tanks" -vs- "a lighter force"

[mosel-saar-ruwer]

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 occurrences -- resulting in 2,500 Allied casualties a day. In any average three-day period, more were killed, wounded, or missing than there have been in over a year in Iraq...

The army soon learned that their light Sherman tanks were no match for Nazi Panthers and Tigers. Hundreds of their "Ronson-lighters" -- crews and all -- went up in smoke. Indeed, 60 percent of all lost Shermans were torched by single shots from enemy Panzers. In contrast, only one in three of the Americans' salvos even penetrated German armor...

http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson071604.htm

http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp ?ref=/hanson/hanson200407160827.asp

Re:Cool.... but wait

[Spudley]

Does MS and SCO know about this?

"System of Systems Common Operating Environment"... Look really carefully at that acronym... :-o

Titanic?

[Spudley]

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

[Mork29]

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....

Re:Obvious Choice

[Triumph The Insult C]

whatever you guys develop on your own, be sure to put a good license on it and throw a .tar.gz of it up on some ftp server somewhere. after all, i'm paying for it

Windows war

[SmallFurryCreature]

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 extra control apps hidden all over the place edit the registry.
Windows: Do you want to download the latest version of Microsoft Airstrike TM?
Sgt Jenkins: Hell no just do it!
Windows: Windows Airstrike TM has crashed please submit a bug report.
Sgt Jenkins: Oh goddamn upgrade the damn thing.
Windows: installing latest updates that where released with MS knowing full well that in their own test 2 out of 5 machines did not survive.
Windows: please reboot.
Sgt Jenkins: Were screwed. Is there ever going to be an war in wich I will not get the weapons created by the company with the biggest bribes?

Very misleading title

[SmallFurryCreature]

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.

Re:Very misleading title

[GamingEngineer]

As someone who works in the industry I can tell you that that is correct. The army is migrating its emebedded systems software OS to linux from what it currently is. (In some cases, it currently is linux) I can't speak for every system the army uses, but in the work I do, historically the underlying OS has been Solaris, and has been moving towards Linux.

Re:Very misleading title

[GamingEngineer]

Sorry, I mistyped -- I meant VxWorks...

System of Systems Common Operating Environment?

[david.given]

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

[stanwirth]

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.

Boo Hoo

[DesScorp]

" 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....

Re:Boo Hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between the police and the military. It's the police you should run to if you're assaulted. It's the military you run to if you see a foreign troop carrier landed on your beach.

p.s. run shouting at a soldier and he will probably shoot you...

Re:Boo Hoo

[Anonymous Coward]

huh. I'd be far more worried about being attacked or assaulted by the brutal police of the current fascist government than "Teh Terrorists OMFG!".

Re:But, but...

[eyepeepackets]

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

Heh, English is _so_ cool! :)

Also misleading.

[Ayanami Rei]

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.

Probably a stupid question, but....

[liam_p]

If they adapt open source software won't that software remain open source and hence be available for download for the enemy?

Re:Probably a stupid question, but....

[weapon]

No, they only redistribut internaly and OS means that if i give you a binary i have to give you access to the source, so unless they sold it to other countries the enemy will not be able to download it

Re:Probably a stupid question, but....

[dakryx]

If you distribute within an organization (military) you don't have to release the source.

Re:Probably a stupid question, but....

[menace3society]

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 this as a justification for not doing it. "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...."

Re:Probably a stupid question, but....

[jc42]

"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 those exploits were demoed (and fixed) in Israel than in the US.

Cynical, maybe, but I'd bet that this argument is being made, and it's likely being listened to.

But there's something more important

[Stevyn]

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).

Re:But there's something more important

[darnok]

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 coordination system.

Desktops tend to do all sorts of things, many of which will interact with each other in ways beyond their designer's original expectation. Almost by necessity, these systems are going to be less robust - all sorts of weird things have to work together and sometimes stuff will go wrong. I imagine the DOD is going to have a majority of these systems in the hands of army-office type of people, running Word, Excel, small databases, Powerpoint, etc.

If so, the DOD will face exactly the same problem that every company has as they try to migrate off an MS desktop environment. Word docs with embedded Excel graphs, Access databases with macros, Excel VBA macros - it's a REALLY tough job unless you go in with the approach "We *will* do this, and we'll just have to deal with these issues as they turn up". Then it's still a really tough job, but at least you've got the mandate to do something about it.

If you go in with the approach "OpenOffice is a replacement for MS Office, so no problem", then you'll hit circumstances where it won't work, and you may be forced to keep MS Office for those users that use those documents. Then you run the longer term risk of ensuring the future documents they produce are in a form that can be used by non-OS tools. That's gotta be tough...

Anyway, back to my point - while the Army may standardise on Linux, I think it'll be a long time before the DOD does the same.

Army SIPRNET compromised by virus

[agacat]

http://www.fcw.com/fcw/articles/2004/0830/web-sipr net-08-31-04.asp 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.

Re:Army SIPRNET compromised by virus

[Minna Kirai]

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 files to be virus-scanned, but that's not enforced nearly as strenuously as stopping any data from walking out.

Good for you.

[oKtosiTe]

As it looks now, my government will be the last to implement open source software... :-(

Encryption

[Neo-Rio-101]

I would have figured that the Military would have been using Linux precisely because the open source tools and encryption possibilites are really well defined, and free of costs. With a bit of skill, a competant Linux sysadmin can make a RAID driven encrytped fileserver with ssh access and a solid firewall (and even Samba serving to windows clients) using current open source software, and without needing to pay for software. That, if anything, puts Linux ahead of just about any other commerical operating system out there, as far as the military's purposes are concerned.

Re:VDHanson on "70 ton tanks" -vs- "a lighter forc

[Minna Kirai]

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" against the F-15E equals "slow, fat targets".

Third, even back in WWII, the Sherman wasn't that bad. (The USA eventually won, after all) Yes, it was weaker than a German Panzer, but it was smaller and faster too. The Allies were conducting an amphibious invasion (on the Western Front), and didn't have the luxury of driving tanks from the factory to the battlefield. All their equipment had to fit on ships or planes. So because the tanks were lighter, they could have more of them. And they could move faster, because not only were the tanks quicker, but they had better mileage, improving logistics for the whole army. The USA decided that their tanks were meant for destroying enemy infantry, not tanks (for which aircraft or artillery could serve)

Note that the Russians on the Eastern front didn't have the same amphibious restriction on the size of tanks, so they built them to be even larger than Germany's. Yet they suffered many more casualties- not only amoung infantry, but tanks too (a single German tank, commanded by Michael Wittman, destroyed 70 Russian tanks!). Maybe a greater number of individually weaker tanks would've been better for them...?