Ask Slashdot: VPN Service For a Deployed US Navy Ship?

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ask Slashdot: VPN Service For a Deployed US Navy Ship?

Posted by Soulskill on Saturday June 30, 2012 @04:41AM from the helps-with-those-call-of-duty-tournaments dept.

shinjikun34 writes "I am currently stationed on a U.S. Navy ship deployed in a country with restrictive internet policies. We are currently in the process of setting up an entertainment internet connection for the crew to use in their downtime. I suggested (and was thereby tasked with finding) a VPN service that would support 100 to 500 devices, have an end point inside the continental United States, be reasonably priced, and secure/trustworthy. Something that is safe to use for banking and other financial affairs. Ideally, it would be fast enough to support several VoIP calls (Skype, Google Voice, etc) along side online gaming, with possible movie/music streaming. It will need an end point in the U.S. to allow for use of Google Books, Netflix, Hulu, and other services that restrict access based on region. I, in all honesty, have no idea where to begin searching, and I ask the good folks of Slashdot to aid me in my quest. One of the main requirements I was given is that the company has to be trustworthy. And it has to be a company — computer in someone's closet hosting a VPN isn't acceptable to the Navy. What services would Slashdot recommend? (I understand that our connection without a VN probably won't be able to handle the described load, but I would prefer a VN service that offers capacity above our need. That way when T/S'ing the connection, the VPN can be at least partially ruled out.)"

62 of 349 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Re:WTF by MachDelta · 2012-06-30 04:45 · Score: 4, Funny

You would prefer they asked the Geek Squad?
Pair by Frightened_Turtle · 2012-06-30 04:47 · Score: 4, Informative

Try Pair.com in Pittsburg, PA. I've been with them for over 16 years now and I've been very happy with their service and support.

--

Whew! This water sure is cold!
1. Re:Pair by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 05:36 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  %s/Pittsburg/Pittsburgh/g
2. Re:Pair by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 05:43 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  That'll change properly spelled instances to Pittsburghh. What you want is to add a word-terminator to the expression so it doesn't break the correctly spelled words. /nerding out
3. Re:Pair by Frightened_Turtle · 2012-07-01 01:52 · Score: 2
  
  I stand Korrekted! Dern them pescy spel kurrekturs lett'n them thar mispelin's git thru! Serves me right for not double-checking before I sent that out!
  :-D
  
  --
  
  Whew! This water sure is cold!
.mil? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 04:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

Doesn't the navy has its own Internet structure? Or may you not use that?
The end point should be run by the military by mrmeval · 2012-06-30 04:47 · Score: 5, Informative

The NSA is tasked with securing such communication and you should regardless of classification of data be using their equipment or at least an approved system. In that way you know that you at least are protected from your provider.
Your users shouldn't even know you'd doing jack to their connection except to show as a US IP address. There should be no identifying information that points that IP to any military activity.

--
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
1. Re:The end point should be run by the military by jo_ham · 2012-06-30 04:55 · Score: 2
  
  Honestly yes, I agree with the above poster.
  I'm amazed that the US Navy doesn't already run something like this themselves - they're the ones that know the communications capabilities and deployment of their ships better than anyone else. Surely given the number of ships and personnel outside the US at any one time it would be more effective to have an in-house team based in the US to handle this especially since many of the reasons listed are not exclusive problems of a "guest" country with an oppressive internet policy (google books, hulu etc that are geo-blocked for all other countries) .
2. Re:The end point should be run by the military by girlintraining · 2012-06-30 04:57 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The NSA is tasked with securing such communication and you should regardless of classification of data be using their equipment or at least an approved system. In that way you know that you at least are protected from your provider.Your users shouldn't even know you'd doing jack to their connection except to show as a US IP address. There should be no identifying information that points that IP to any military activity.
  If you read between the lines, the poster is saying that this is an entirely separate network where the crew can bring their personal (non work) systems, and it will have no access or visibility to any of the ships systems or network. As such, those requirements go away. The Navy of course wants a US-based company to approach so they can monitor use and make sure that if another Wikileaks happens, they are a phone call away from saying "It was this guy, at this time, on this terminal," and also because US-based company means US-based laws -- and it's harder for a foreign national to penetrate a domestic service than a foreign one, especially after it gets hardened, which falls under the purvue of the DHS, not the NSA, in this case -- since the company is private, not military. And it probably will have cameras in the rec area, as all meeting and confidential areas on the ship do. So let's just go ahead and assume that the security people have already reviewed this and have green-lit it with the appropriate restrictions. They are, afterall, highly trained professionals. -_-
  Remember that aircraft carriers have thousands of personnel, deployed for months at a time with no access to anything but the ship. Entertainment becomes incredibly important for crew morale, and the Navy recognizes the need to balance this; They want to give their crew access to everything you can do on the internet at home on their little slice of the United States afloat. And why shouldn't they?
  
  --
  #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
3. Re:The end point should be run by the military by truesaer · 2012-06-30 05:06 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  My guess is that the military DOES provide internet access. And it probably allows them to do basic web tasks, etc but does not allow streaming video, VOIP, etc. This is probably because they are on a limited satellite connection and have to guarantee performance for the actual military functions of the ship.
  They also probably have access to Armed Forces radio and television, DVD libraries, etc.
4. Re:The end point should be run by the military by Mr.+Freeman · 2012-06-30 05:10 · Score: 2
  
  I suspect this is the case. A VPN isn't going to help matters here because the real problem isn't routing, it's bandwidth. I think the OP has his priorities in the wrong order.
  
  --
  -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
5. Re:The end point should be run by the military by jittles · 2012-06-30 05:57 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  If you read between the lines, the poster is saying that this is an entirely separate network where the crew can bring their personal (non work) systems, and it will have no access or visibility to any of the ships systems or network. As such, those requirements go away.
  I just escaped from the world of contracting for the DoD and I can tell you that there is no such network on any military facility. Trust me. No boat, no ship, not even a storage shed. How do I know? Because I used to work on training simulations, and we wanted to set up things like a private WiFI network, to allow instructors to monitor simulations from a tablet device. Could we do so? No. It's against DoD rules. You can set up a private network, but only if it is wired, and only if it does not go out onto the net. Further, any machine on that network must comply with DoD Information Assurance (IA) rules. Those rules don't let you have USB enabled, you can't even have a USB port accessible on the device, without special authorization and hardening of the OS to disable the port, but allow charging.
  The poster above is absolutely correct. You do not want to be caught setting up this kind of network. You will get in huge trouble if the DoD finds out. All internet access should be going from the ship, to their home port and onto the internet from there. If I were in charge of this boat, I would not do this without an order in writing authorizing me to do so because he's going to get burned if he goes thru with this.
6. Re:The end point should be run by the military by icebike · 2012-06-30 06:21 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  I'm amazed that people really trust the OP is in a US Navy ship.
  He said he is using a local ISP for bandwidth. So clearly he is not talking about ON the ship while at sea.
  He is probably talking about dock side encrypted wifi (perhaps bridged to some place onboard).
  He's probably stationed on a tug or service boat, oilers, replenishment ships, repair ship, because it would be pointless to set up something like
  this on a war ship which doesn't spend all that much time in port.
  100 to 500 devices indicates (think cell phones and tablets and the occasional lap top) a crew of something much smaller than a Frigate.
  Even Coast Guard national security cutters tend to have a crew greater than 100.
  
  --
  Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
7. Re:The end point should be run by the military by ILongForDarkness · 2012-06-30 06:36 · Score: 2
  
  The high number of "In the Navy" views on YouTube originating from the IP will give them away.
8. Re:The end point should be run by the military by ILongForDarkness · 2012-06-30 06:41 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  What ever happened to taking turns dressing up as women and having dances?
9. Re:The end point should be run by the military by whoever57 · 2012-06-30 06:43 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I suspect this is the case. A VPN isn't going to help matters here because the real problem isn't routing, it's bandwidth. I think the OP has his priorities in the wrong order.
  
  Either the submitter has no clue or you have wrongly guessed abut his situation. Consider the comment about being stationed on a ship that is deployed in a country with restrictive Internet policies. If the US Navy were providing the Internet connection that they hoped to used, why would the country's Internet policies be relevant to the question? I assume that there is an Internet connection being provided via a shore-based ISP and it is snooping and restrictions on the use of the shore-based ISP that they would like to bypass using a VPN.
  
  --
  The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
10. Re:The end point should be run by the military by jo_ham · 2012-06-30 06:50 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Likely you've never left CONUS for any length of your life at all.
  Amusing. I was born and live in the UK.
  I think that's outside "CONUS" as far as I remember? I mean, we have universal healthcare and everything.
11. Re:The end point should be run by the military by jbolden · 2012-06-30 06:53 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Do you think the Roman Legionnaires followed local laws they disagreed with in the many lands they conquered? Of course not,
  Actually in general they did. The Roman legions set up all sorts of barriers to prevent Roman troops from offending local custom. It also slowed down the rate at which Roman soldiers "went native" and ended up with mixed loyalties. Which is essentially the policy and model the US follows today.
12. Re:The end point should be run by the military by David-D2 · 2012-06-30 07:04 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  DoD policies on military quarters should apply to quarters on a Navy ship as well. I am not in COM or anything like that, but I live on an Air Force base and I know the DoD does allow private internet connections. The restrictions you are talking about only apply to DoD information systems. If you are creating a network independent of the installation's connectivity and use it for hosting any technical data or as a subsystem to supplement a DoD system, the rules you stated apply. If it is for personal reasons and nothing to do with DoD information technology, the Information Assurance guidelines do not apply.
13. Re:The end point should be run by the military by Hognoxious · 2012-06-30 07:52 · Score: 2
  
  The British navy has ships that aren't ships at all - they're actually buildings ashore. "Stone Frigates" is the jocular term.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
14. Re:The end point should be run by the military by Capt.+Skinny · 2012-06-30 08:23 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  My brother and the other guys in his shop ran their own CAT5 throughout several shops on his carrier so they could game on their personal PCs -- some of them even brought desktops on board.
15. Re:The end point should be run by the military by jbolden · 2012-06-30 09:35 · Score: 2
  
  why would your soldiers "go native" if you encouraged them to rape and pillage as much as they wanted?
  Romans didn't rape and pillage generally. Pillaging reduced the economic output of a region long term, which reduced the possibilities for tax revenue. As for rape, it depended on the slave strategy. Frequently homosexual rape was used to break down resistance in captives thus making future male slaves more maintainable. Heterosexual rape frequently reduced the value of female captives as slaves or as wives, so it was generally discouraged. I'd say Rome probably suffered from 20 rapes for everyone they committed. Barbarian tribes used to rape to humiliate and thus make passive female captives for slave trading and pillaging was the whole point of their sacking of border communities.
  I think you have a totally fallacious idea about how Romans conducted war. The mongols absolutely used rape and pillage. But they didn't maintain the sorts of long term facilities the United States uses so your analogy breaks down there.
16. Re:The end point should be run by the military by belmolis · 2012-06-30 10:11 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  The Romans and the Mongols generally operated on different models. The Mongol approach was to overcome resistance by terror. In the absence of some prior dispute, when they came to a city they asked that it submit to them. If it did not, and they succeeded in capturing it, as they usually did, they were brutal: they would generally kill all of the men of military age and the elderly. Younger women and children would often be enslaved and if not, killed. The city would be looted. If, however, the city capitulated, they were actually pretty nice. They would take control but otherwise largely leave things as they were.
  The Mongols were tough and prepared to be brutal, but they were not mere bandits, and they were not a mob. The Mongol Empire was well organized, with an excellent courier system and the rule of law. Unlike contemporary European countries, they were religiously tolerant (except for the Ilkhans, in Persia, after 1295 when they converted to Islam.) The Mongol legal code, the Yassa, was, from what survives of it, pretty reasonable for its time.
Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 04:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Oh don't worry they aren't going to take your word for it.
But as far as doing their homework, gathering opinions and collating data for review, they're asking in one of the right places.
Sonic.net by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 04:48 · Score: 2, Informative

I know Sonic.net offers their customers VPN service, and have a great track record and are a pleasure to work with. I'd call their business/enterprise department and see what kind of bandwidth they can give you in a VPN termination.
However, I hope you're aware of the dangers of having multiple secure and insecure internets in close proximity...I sincerely hope one moron with a patch cable can't bridge the "entertainment" network to anywhere else...frankly I'm surprised this isn't handled by the USN core networking folks already....?
q&a seems totally legit by djdanlib · 2012-06-30 04:48 · Score: 2, Insightful

You realize that some of the people reading Slashdot around the world are going to have a vested interest in getting a back door into your affairs, right?
This would be an excellent trap to catch foreign agents.
1. Re:q&a seems totally legit by Vegemeister · 2012-06-30 06:00 · Score: 2
  
  Or, rather than having to conceal non-standard equipment and leaving physical evidence and/or an RF trail, a spy could steganographically conceal encrypted secret documents in image macros, and post them to a public website such as 4chan.
Government systems? by nighthawk243 · 2012-06-30 04:50 · Score: 2

I would be very wary of doing such things on a government connection. Your C/O better have written off on it officially.
Build your own - not at someone's house though. by KingRobot · 2012-06-30 05:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

1) Lease a box at a site with reliable, low-cost bandwidth (Somewhere like PhoenixNAP, AtlantaNAP, Rackspace, etc.) - This should run you between $50 - $150/mo for a decent system with several terabytes/mo data transfer (More than enough for Hulu, Netflix, etc.). 2) Make some friends in the Navy IT dept. - Have them help you set up a hosted VPN service on the box in their off time. This will be the lowest cost, most secure, and most reliable service you can get.
Almost all VPN services are fly-by-night ops by Cthefuture · 2012-06-30 05:07 · Score: 2

Almost all VPN services are fly-by-night ops. Just don't do it. Seriously, they come and go like the wind. I'm sure there are legit and have been around for a long time but it's nigh impossible to vet any of these companies.
Instead find a good hosting providing and rent yourself a server with the amount of bandwidth you need and the location in the US you want (most providers have data centers in various places). For more security I would get a whole machine, not a VPS. Run OpenVPN or whatever on it and you're good to go. It wouldn't need much disk or RAM.

--
The ratio of people to cake is too big
IPv6? by jonsmirl · 2012-06-30 05:09 · Score: 2

Not a VPN, but what about a IPv6 tunnel to Hurricane Electric? Much of what you are interested in is IPv6 accessible. And the HE tunnel is free.
Might check and see where the IPv6 anycast address routes to from your location. Might be in a different country.
Don't by longk · 2012-06-30 05:10 · Score: 2

Anything other than a government controlled VPN would be a dumb move. One step back though, why do you need a VPN? I assume the Navy can get his hands on a decent US IP range and have it routed properly? Even with non-US IP's you can probably get access. Most entertainment companies have good relations with the military - they could provide access as a courtesy.
Re:WTF by homey+of+my+owney · 2012-06-30 05:14 · Score: 3, Insightful

But seriously... Are there no controls onboard a US Navy vessel that would prevent *anything* that's suggested here from being implemented?
What the... by Cimexus · 2012-06-30 05:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

OK I'm not American (I'm Australian), but this whole post elicits a massive "WTF" from me.
If this is a Navy ship, belonging to the world's most powerful military and run and administered by a branch of the US Government, then surely:
a) if this kind of usage of the connection is permitted, the Navy (or other government entity) would have its own infrastructure you could use for this; or
b) if not, there'd already be a clear policy that stated who your preferred providers of such a service would be (having been vetted and cleared for such use by the relevant IT people within the Navy)
I mean, I can't imagine any government department, let alone the Navy, giving some random guy the task of finding and setting up a VPN via whatever means he happened to think was good.
Also, um, doesn't the ship have its own internet connection? I'm surprised that the filtering practices of the country where you're based are affecting you ... surely you don't allow people on the ship to use random, untrusted connections provided by whatever place you happen to be in?
Anyway, as I said, I'm not American and wouldn't have a clue how the US military operates. But I can tell you this kind of thing would never fly in a government department here.
1. Re:What the... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 08:00 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  OK I'm not American (I'm Australian), but this whole post elicits a massive "WTF" from me.
  If this is a Navy ship, belonging to the world's most powerful military and run and administered by a branch of the US Government, then surely:
  a) if this kind of usage of the connection is permitted, the Navy (or other government entity) would have its own infrastructure you could use for this...
  Yes, they do have their own. It's called NIPRNET, which is pretty much exactly what the OP is requesting to have in the first place (trusted network and endpoints in the US, and a connection to the internet).
  The problem here is that they're on a ship, and likely not trusting in any other 3rd party network providers, are probably relying on satellite shots to connect to their networks, which puts a nice big fat 500ms delay in the path, which would choke streaming an animated gif to 500 users, let alone VoIP or movie streams. On top of all this, you have the fact that all official communications are of course, monitored, and all of the cool shit is filtered.
  Therefore, it shouldn't come as any surprise that what the OP actually wants to know here is how the hell to get a POP back in the US to get around the "restrictive" filters put in place by the local (and likely fast) ISP he's currently stealing a connection from so he can stream good ol' American HD porn from a network fast enough to provide it, proxied through a country free enough to allow it.
Re:When in Rome ... by ShanghaiBill · 2012-06-30 05:16 · Score: 5, Interesting

Then respect the laws of that country and don't try to bypass their Internet policies.
Foreign laws don't apply on an American warship, which are considered US territory. I learned this in a very practical sense many decades ago, when I was on an LPH in the South China Sea. We picked up a load of Vietnamese boat people, including a pregnant women. During the stress of the transfer she went into labor, and the baby was born on the deck of our ship. When we returned to Subic Bay, all the refugees were transferred to a refugee camp. Except the woman and her baby. They were taken to the US Naval Hospital, and then flown to the USA. Since the baby had been born on the deck of an American warship (US Territory) it was an American citizen, not a refugee.
NMCI / NGEN by BenJeremy · 2012-06-30 05:22 · Score: 2

Maybe you should call your support desk or talk to your commanding officer?
A LOT of money has been spent by the government to give you a secure environment, with thousands of pages of STIGs to comply with, encryption, and other safeguards.
It sounds like you want to do an end-run around the regulations and security imposed on your shipboard environment. The policies in place have been shaped over the last two decades.
Do you have the slightest idea of the issues involved? We got in trouble for pinging ONCE A REBOOT from PCs that were shipboard (to check to see if they had rejoined the land-side networks), as the Naval side saw it as an attack on their network. There are real bandwidth issues on board a ship, as well as a whole slew of security issues. Just tunneling through a VPN connection is not a solution at all.
Login, Inc. Tucson AZ by gavron · 2012-06-30 05:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

We are happy to provide you free VPN termination for your needs. You're welcome to have us
checked out. US owned, operated, our CEO is the son of a service person, and we support our
armed forces. Contact sales@login.com and we'll set up whatever GRE/IPSEC/other VPN you
want.
Thank you for your service.
Ehud Gavron
Login, Inc.
Tucson AZ US
What is the physical layer? by rogueippacket · 2012-06-30 05:36 · Score: 3, Insightful

Nearly a hundred posts, and neither the submitter and only one responder have asked. The presence of the word "ship" leads me to believe we're talking about wireless, combined with "restrictive Internet policies" drives me to the conclusion that this is terrestrial wireless to a local ISP. Submitter should clarify this, because it will directly impact their requirements for latency and bandwidth long before a discussion around VPN providers should occur.
Re:Dude, you're the military by girlintraining · 2012-06-30 05:37 · Score: 2

You are proposing a non-military access point onto a vessel vested with the task of protecting the interests of the United States.
It's the goddamned internet... You have to hook it up SOMEWHERE . If I could, I'd build a plinth and put this comment on the top and a faceplate under that said "Stupidest Person in IT Award (2012)". I'm gonna go take a shower now... I feel dirty.

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I know this one... birdstep by gl4ss · 2012-06-30 05:43 · Score: 2

http://www.birdstep.com/english/secure-mobility/safemove-mobile-vpn.aspx
dunno if it's expensive, it should provide a bridge though since that's what you need(apparently, so that your lan games don't route through to usa and back. where safemove is good is that you could install it on the machines and go to a cafe on shore and still be safe, with pretty much zero hassle).
what you want is a service with which you can locate the endpoint in a datacenter you choose, the military probably has some.
buying that endpoint service inside usa is probably going to be peanuts compared to buying the actual bandwidth for those 500-1000 users in some shithole country.
(some people on the thread don't seem to understand that this is the _entertainment_ network with machines separated from the military side, it's pretty much standard practice in any competent military).

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Dude, you're the military by girlintraining · 2012-06-30 05:55 · Score: 2

It's the goddamned SECURITY that is the issue here, dear genius IT person
I guess I just don't see how two computers that have no electrical or wireless connection to one another can intefere with one another in a malicious fashion. Perhaps you could enlighten me, oh Ye of Infinite Knowledge?

--
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
What an AWESOME TROLL by utkonos · 2012-06-30 05:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

This article has to be one of the best trolls to have even been done here on Slashdot. Not only did it get the editors to put it on the front page, but it also has most everyone actually taking it seriously.
Re:When in Rome ... by Vegemeister · 2012-06-30 06:03 · Score: 2

Laws are not deserving of respect.
Re:WTF by History's+Coming+To · 2012-06-30 06:06 · Score: 3, Informative

Yup, exactly. I'd be very surprised if there was a way to set it up so it was 100% guaranteed to be independent of military equipment (it's going to have to share the same satellite link for example), and unless there's a military networking specialist on /. who's happy to talk openly and publicly about their systems...?

The only people who should be setting this up are the people who admin the rest of the networking equipment on board.

--
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
Re:No internet for you! by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2012-06-30 06:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

Agreed. The US Navy does a lot of great things (some of their disaster work is first-rate, for example, and they also do anti-piracy work and help ensure free navigation), but our armed forces and military policy have also been responsible for a lot of really bad things (allying with armed forces that place zero value on human life, adding to demand for forced prostitution, propping up oppressive regimes).
It's not black and white, and talking points on both sides (insofar as there are only two) have some truth to them.

--
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
Re:Why doesn't the Navy already have one? by nurb432 · 2012-06-30 06:26 · Score: 2

I suspect the story is either a total fabrication, or he's trying to get around some local restriction and not get caught.
Either way, i'm suspicious.

--
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Do Not Pull A Skunkworks by Antique+Geekmeister · 2012-06-30 06:30 · Score: 2

It's completely reasonable for you, with orders, to investigate. But if you pull this behind the back of the existing infrastructure maintainers, you could be in a a great deal of trouble for violating security policies that no one here is equipped to help you follow. Contact the IT personnel at your main base, and find out what they've already got in place, and what policies you need to work with.
As a deployed ship, every communications should be encrypted: even casual email to your families about when you're coming back might be considered military intelligence, and I've seen commercial cases where personnel were not _allowed_ to pre-encrypt their communications before it hit the local proxies, precisely so it could be checked for confidential material. I've explained to clients and partners that this allows local monitoring to intercept the communications between their private machines and the proxy, and for anyone who cracks the proxy to read it all, and then they had to factor in _those_ issues.
You're also going to face potential issues with people taking "unsecured" machines for any "social" network and cross-connecting them to secure communications. That's just what the IT personnel at your home base should be able to help you assess. Even if you wind up doing most of the work, keeping them informed will mean that the pitfalls or incompatible tools can be recorded for anyone else who needs to do this.
Another group that might be able to help is the USO: They've been involved in helping communications for active military throughout their existence, and they might be aware of others who've faced just these questions and whom your normal chain of command might not be aware of.
Re:WTF by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 06:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

This VPN sounds like the perfect service for moles to transmit their findings.
Phish on! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 06:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

This post is a fishing trip. The poster is trying to get responses from people in the military that have already done what he seeks, and once he knows what unauthorized networks are being used, he can then locate them and attack them.
After numerous wikileaks excursions, there is no way the government is actually allowing this sort of network on-board ships. This might actually BE the government sniffing out potential leak sources. If any of you troops are considering answering this guy with factual information, think twice, then thrice.
Re:surprised they don't provide this already by Grishnakh · 2012-06-30 06:59 · Score: 2

This really needs to be done internally, under the control of the military, not farmed out.
One of the problems with the US military these days is that they farm out everything they can, usually to expensive no-bid contractors; they're even farming out security and combat work now to mercenaries. I'm really surprised they haven't gone ahead and farmed out even the postal service.
The whole situation is looking a lot like the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, where the empire spent so much money on their bloated military that it basically went broke. At one point, they even had to recruit Barbarians into the ranks of the Roman Army, just to defend against other Barbarian tribes. They also experienced massive inflation by reducing the value of their currency by cutting it with cheaper metals, making people move to the barter system. While during the Pax Romana period they had a highly prosperous economy thanks to an incredible trade network around the entire European and Mediterranean region and impressive (for the time) technological capabilities, during the decline, specialization of labor disappeared, the Empire stopped making any goods of real value and lived by conquering other places and looting them. Sound familiar?
Re:Pair -- good choice by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-30 08:07 · Score: 3, Informative

I've also been a Pair customer for many years. Their support is absolutely fantastic. Unlike many large companies who don't bother to read your questions and just reply with boilerplate, Pair responds quickly and accurately, and follow-ups are quick and easy (email). Sometimes, they've proactively fixed accounts that were at risk due to a security flaw or upgrade.
Re:Amazon Web Services? by LordLimecat · 2012-06-30 08:51 · Score: 2

I have bad news for you (and OP)-- no matter what solution you pick, at the end of the day its going to be a computer in someone's closet hosting a VPN.
The only question is whose closet, whose computer, and what type of computer.
Honestly, depending on where you are, getting a cage in a co-lo center like equinox or Hurricane Electric and throwing your own box in there may be the best solution. The "company" becomes "the navy" and "the colo provider", both of which are at the high end of "trust-worthy"-- reputable colos tend to have remarkably good security. Also, since its your cage, you can audit it to your heart's content: no nasty suprises about unpatched vulns or anything.
I was looking into something similar, and Hurricane Electric offers cages with really good connection (gbit plus) for really good pricing. Only limitations are the power (7amps, i think), but if you build your server right (like a xeon E3-1220Lv2 or E3-1260L) you can get a very performant appliance that can handle all the VPN you can throw at it. Personally, Id recommend pfSense if price is a factor, otherwise you could do somethin like a sonicwall or whatever (though they will be several times more expensive and handle several times less traffic than the xeon).
Re:When in Rome ... by PPH · 2012-06-30 09:04 · Score: 2

As any US citizen visiting a foreign country, yes. More so if that person has been granted special privileges as a diplomat or US official.
If a citizen of some country needs a VPN to bypass their own corrupt or unjust government, then I'm all for helping them. But its got to be a grass roots effort. None of this CIA sponsored change of government crap.

--
Have gnu, will travel.
Re:WTF by History's+Coming+To · 2012-06-30 11:16 · Score: 4, Insightful

Unless, of course, the OP has been pestering for this for a while and this is the CO's way of saying "I'm not explaining this again, go and find out 'why not' for yourself..."

--
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
Re:WTF by JWSmythe · 2012-06-30 11:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Even if it's not prevented by technological measures on the ship, you can be damned sure there are a more rules and regulations that he could spend the rest of his military career reading.
The DoD isn't particularly fond of people doing anything with information that they don't have control over.
Even if the DoD didn't like it, anyone with anything resembling security in mind wouldn't want to open up any sort of security risk. Opening an encrypted tunnel to circumvent packet inspection sounds like a wonderful way to bring in viruses, or send out classified materials. And fuck, potentially compromising any systems on a military vessel could be the difference between surviving and losing all hands.
I do have suggestions on good things to use, for civilians, in civilian environments, where it really doesn't matter if they get some malware, or otherwise hose their system. I won't touch this one. I'm allergic to prison, and more so to military prison.

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Re:WTF by JWSmythe · 2012-06-30 13:06 · Score: 3, Insightful

As others have mentioned, those decisions don't come down to a sailor on a ship. They come from the command. There are miles and miles of red tape,
Others have also mentioned that the military *does* have provisions for such things. In asking for another way around, he's basically saying that he wants to circumvent the security of the ship for undisclosed reasons.
Sure, there are technical ways that we can suggest to monitor the traffic on the ship side of the VPN. The problem here is that he most likely doesn't have the authority (or even real permission) to explore the options. He's most likely going to find himself in some very uncomfortable discussions with some strong penalties threatened.

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
no satellite link by r00t · 2012-06-30 15:40 · Score: 4, Interesting

it's going to have to share the same satellite link for example
The whole point of this is to avoid the satellite link. He's probably in port, where he can just toss a cable from the ship to the dock. At worst he's close enough to shore for a WiMax link. I'm betting he's in port. He probably also has temporary connections for power, water, and sewer. It's probably like an RV hook-up at an RV campground.
I'm betting this comes out of some morale/entertainment budget. They couldn't afford Madonna, they aren't allowed to use that budget for hookers or alcohol, and thus... the internet.
1. Re:no satellite link by shinjikun34 · 2012-07-01 02:27 · Score: 2
  
  OP here - wise words instead of a morale/entertainment budget the cost of it is being pushed to the users. Paying monthly to use the service. MWR is providing the networking gear and such. My question is rendered moot though. We are using batelco and they block vpn's, ssh, and proxies pretty aggressively
Re:WTF by jaymemaurice · 2012-06-30 16:15 · Score: 2

I'd be very surprised if there was a way to set it up so it was 100% guaranteed to be independent of military equipment (it's going to have to share the same satellite link for example)
If that were the case (sharing), why would they be concerned about the other countries internet laws?!

--
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
Re:WTF by jaymemaurice · 2012-06-30 17:04 · Score: 2

And why would anyone offer to help circumvent a country's restrictions and/or packet sniffing. Because you don't like the rules and regulations yourself?! It seems the OP is quite ignorant to rules in general. For what it's worth, most telecommunications will let you apply for an exemption to internet restrictions with appropriate justification. The use only by American citizens on a ship flying American flag might be enough.
Often, in other countries with new or government owned infrastructure, subsidize their internet costs/collect their taxes by international voice minutes/telecommunications company profit. Just like some argue the internet should be free - others say the same about water. There are distribution costs and there are some who will abuse the use of resources. In the middle east, international cables often run through unstable regions and shallow waters; cables are held for ransom and cut when the telecommunications companies do not pay. Boat anchors often take out cables accidently. The majority of content is tens of thousands of miles away and the infrastructure is new.
I would be surprised if this isn't modded "-1 I disagree" but sadly we are not yet technically able to share everything and not abuse what we have

--
120 characters ought to be enough for anyone
BTW, some corrections by r00t · 2012-06-30 22:03 · Score: 2

The USA is rank 24 (of 182) for corruption. Only 23 countries are better. Mexico is rank 100. You have no clue about Mexico. See for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index
Of course, Afghanistan ties for spot 180 or 181. It's not so much about government; it's a matter of culture. Check out the map. The good parts of the world share the culture of northwestern Europe, with just a few rare exceptions. (the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all have culture from northwestern Europe)
Chinese corporations are busy mining in Afghanistan, not US corporations. The US only benefits indirectly by lower prices on the world market; if the Chinese use Afghanistan then they might not compete so hard for resources in North America and South America.