Slashdot Mirror


US Military Uses 8-Inch Floppy Disks To Coordinate Nuclear Force Operations (cnbc.com)

An anonymous reader writes from a report via CNBC: A new report reveals the U.S. Defense Department is still using 8-inch floppy disks in a computer system that coordinates the operational functions of the nation's nuclear forces. The Defense Department's 1970s-era IBM Series/1 Computer and long-outdated floppy disks handle functions related to intercontinental ballistic missiles, nuclear bombers and tanker support aircraft, according to the new Governmental Accountability Office report. The report shows how outdated IT systems are being used to handle important functions related to the nation's taxpayers, federal prisoners and military veterans, as well as to the America's nuclear umbrella. "Federal legacy IT systems are becoming increasingly obsolete: Many use outdated software languages and hardware parts that are unsupported," the report found. "Agencies reported using several systems that have components that are, in some cases, at least 50 years old." From the report: "GAO pointed out that aging systems include the Treasury Department's 'individual master file,' which is the authoritative data source for individual taxpayers. It's used to assess taxes and generates refunds. That file 'is written in assembly language code -- a low-level computer code that is difficult to write and maintain -- and operates on an IBM mainframe,' the report said." The report also mentioned that several other departments, such as the departments of Treasury, Commerce, Health and Human Services and the Veterans' Administration, "reported using 1980s and 1990s Microsoft operating systems that stopped being supported by the vendor more than a decade ago."

21 of 267 comments (clear)

  1. Well... by Arkh89 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I hope they don't click the red cross... or we are all fucked...

    1. Re:Well... by um...+Lucas · · Score: 3, Informative

      Click? Red? Surely you jest, I don't think IBM machines from that era had either Mice, GUI's or color displays with which to display red...

    2. Re:Well... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It was all pretty monochrome; but some surprisingly early GUIs existed. SAGE had them(with lightguns rather than mice, since it predated those by a fair bit); among various other flavors of 'it's actually pretty impressive what you can do with vacuum tubes if you have a lot of smart people and nigh-unlimited money' style tech.

  2. Security through obscurity, that might work... by crypTeX · · Score: 4, Interesting

    We really should applaud them. Imagine how hard it will be to figure out how to write code to hack this.

    1. Re:Security through obscurity, that might work... by Geoffrey.landis · · Score: 4, Funny

      The bad news is that it's not a very secure operating system. The good news is that the hackers are having trouble figuring out how to get the 2600 baud acoustic modems to ARPAnet to download the malware...

      --
      http://www.geoffreylandis.com
  3. It's hopeless by realmolo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This kind of "back-end" software is EXACTLY the kind of thing that contractors DREAM of. Nobody knows how it works, and the general public never has to see it, so they can't complain about it being a piece-of-shit that they paid for.

    It's just like the air traffic control system "upgrade" they've been working on for nearly 30 years. The contractors have ZERO incentive to ever provide a working product. Much better to keep in in development forever.

    I'm not one of those "government can't do anything right" people, but this is one of those things that is just a tailor-made pork-barrel disaster. I see why they don't want to even bother trying.

    1. Re:It's hopeless by holophrastic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seems like a good investment to me. Operational for fifty years, and never been hacked. Seems like your government did everything right -- oh how I wish that had continued to be true.

    2. Re:It's hopeless by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The contractors have ZERO incentive to ever provide a working product.

      I have worked on tech projects both as a government employee and as a contractor. Most projects were disasters for the reasons you list, but I have seen a few successes. Here is a quick checklist:

      1. Do NOT use a contractor. They have a vested interest in bloat and delay.
      2. Use your own subordinates so they have skin in the game, and their future raises and promotions depend on the success of the project.
      3. Make sure they are a small team that has worked together successfully in the past on similar projects.
      4. Starve them of resources, so they have no choice but to implement a clean and simple design, with only basic functionality.
      5. Avoid hyping or even announcing the project until you have something working. If you hype it early, you will get demands for every feature, including the kitchen sink, thrown at you, and you will get politically connected contractors forced on you.

    3. Re:It's hopeless by Kjella · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1. Do NOT use a contractor. They have a vested interest in bloat and delay.
      2. Use your own subordinates so they have skin in the game, and their future raises and promotions depend on the success of the project.

      1. Depends. Small contractors have often been the ones pushing to cut through the fluff and get real specs and deliverables on the table because they know the budget is fixed, not delivering makes them look bad and if they don't it'll just fizzle like so many projects we have that are ongoing but never really materialize. "Too big to fail" projects that'll be funded next year too unless hell freezes over are different, but then you're often screwed because you really don't have the skills or resources in-house. In fact big projects almost always fail because of the next one.
      2. For the most part, that simply can't happen. There's no authority to make incentive or performance-based pay, I have my pay grade and overtime pay. As for raises, if I were to get any significantly more pay than anyone with less education, experience and tenure it'd raise hell with unions and whatnot. And it's often the same with promotions, you'll get promoted when it's your turn because if they pass up a candidate that's better on paper there's actually a formal complaint process. Same with public procurement processes, nobody's free to do what they feel is best for the bottom line.

      As for 3-5. they're generally good ideas. If you give people too much time and money to try solving every problem forever, they'll sit around making grand plans and often dismissing the reasons why the current system has become such a mess as bad design, when in reality it's a messy world out there and kludges are our way to cope.

      5. Avoid (...) even announcing the project until you have something working.

      Sadly I've found this is the easiest way to get something done, particularly if it's the type of solution that's not great but less terrible than the one we have. They say learn to walk before you run, but nobody here seems to have heard it. Every time there's a project to get on our feet, somebody must come in and crush it because it's not good enough. Which usually means we're crawling around for a few more years while they argue about their master plan to simultaneously win the 100m dash and the marathon at the Olympics.

      I'm so tired of pie-in-the-sky plans that end up a mad dash to deliver the barest minimum because somebody finally put the foot down, basically throwing away 90% of the work because there was no time to even try implementing anything remotely like it. There should be like a shot clock, if you've spent 30% of your budget start implementing and figure out where the rubber meets the road. Anything else leads to meaningless exercises like trying to estimate a solution where we haven't even decided on the principle for the solution, much less made an actual design and broken it down into work that needs doing and could reasonably be estimated.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
  4. So What? by plopez · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They've been stable for decades. I'll take master files on floppy disks and programs written by people who cared over "eventually consistent" databases developed by "just good enough" monkeys any day.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
    1. Re:So What? by nuckfuts · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes and no. I would not advocate changing operating systems simply because they "stopped being supported by the vendor more than a decade ago". After all, if your needs have been met for decades by something like MS-DOS 6.1 or Windows 3.11, what "support" would you looking for from Microsoft today?

      Physical devices are a completely different issue, however. Floppy drives and floppy disks WILL wear out and fail. Maybe these agencies have a stockpile of spares, or maybe someone is still manufacturing 8" floppies to sell to the government for an arm and a leg, but barring that, good luck sourcing replacements for your antique computer hardware when it fails.

    2. Re:So What? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I work on similar systems, and while we don't have stuff quite that old, the US Military absolutely knows about the obsolescence, yes those floppy drive and floppy disks do wear out. However they knew that when they built the system, when they bought the drives back then they went out and bought a 50 year supply of drives and floppies. And today the still repair the systems, and the logistics guys know roughly when they will run out of parts, and they will replace those bits when they need to. With those old systems it's very much a plan of fix and replace only what needs to be fixed and replaced, they know the failure rates and the specs don't change.

  5. So if... by dfsmith · · Score: 5, Funny

    If I notice a quantity of 8" floppies dropped around a parking lot next to an inconspicuous government building, can I assume that some sort of Stuxnet cyber attack is under way?

  6. More like by fred911 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Security through obsolescence.

    --
    09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B - D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    1. Re:More like by bancho · · Score: 3, Funny

      More like: Security through Antiquity :)

  7. To what extent is this actually bad? by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 3

    I'd be curious to know how many of these seriously outdated systems are egregious piles of failure; and how many are utterly contrary to any fad of the week from the last three decades; but where done right the first time and actually compare pretty favorably to the results of (the so often horribly doomed) 'upgrade' efforts.

    Some flavors of outdated are fairly clearly bad; if you can't get replacement hardware without raiding a museum or reverse engineering and cloning/emulating quirky 80s gear all by yourself, keeping your systems running is going to be unpleasant and expensive. If you have a system whose security depends on an OS or other 3rd party components that have exciting known vulnerabilities and haven't had vendor support even under a thrillingly expensive special extended contract with the vendor in a decade, you have a problem.

    If you have a legacy system that is merely retro; but well built and supported by hardware you can still get without much trouble, you will certainly get your share of snide comments about its dreadfully antique design; but you are taking a real risk in trying to modernize it. Those sorts of 'upgrades' don't always fail; but agonizing, wildly expensive, upgrade attempts that languish in development so long that the upgrade is obsolete before you've finished deploying it are hardly uncommon.

    Sure, in an ideal world, we'd all get to implement from scratch with all the benefits of hindsight and absolutely no accrued technical debt; but we don't live in an ideal world. How many of these systems are old as in broken; and how many are old as in classic?

  8. Re:So it's air gapped. That's good, right? by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's probably more rationale here than many realize.

    I'd doubt it. More like,

    If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

  9. It ain't broke, is it? by WheezyJoe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sounds to me like tax-payer dollars well-spent on equipment that keeps on giving.

    Maybe your typical gamer has to upgrade every coupla years because the latest Doom doesn't run well on a 4-year old GeForce. Maybe Macy's needs to upgrade their mainframes because they have way more inventory to deal with and want to offer more sales online. And maybe we all need to upgrade off Windows XP (looking at you, banks, with your hackable ATM's) because it was a lousy, full-of-security-holes platform in the first place.

    But as Microsoft tries to force me off my perfectly workable Windows 7 for no damn reason, I wonder why a machine bought by a government department, that does the job and does it really well, needs to be upgraded or swapped out for something new that may or may not work because of something non-related to whether the damned thing does the job and does it really well. Replacing such a system is not easy, particularly when there are consultants circling overhead, hungry for a fat government contract so they can build a complete clusterfuck out of overpriced commodity hardware that does nothing approaching what the old system did. And needs to be upgraded all over again in 2-3 years.

    Yes, on the one hand, holy shit! those are old floppy drives. On the other hand, holy shit! they still work and do the job after all these years. Why have we grown so accustomed to throwing shit out every coupla years? Seems to me, government (state and federal) is one of those areas where shit oughta stay the same for a while so people can focus on getting the job done, rather than re-learning and re-tooling every few years just because some software vendor wants to sell another release of something.

    --
    Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
  10. And here's the full GAO report by Guy+Harris · · Score: 4, Informative

    Here's the actual Government Accounting Office report, if you want to read it instead of a Slashdot story about a news story about the report.

  11. Re:So it's air gapped. That's good, right? by tnk1 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    That's the major problem though. It's not that it is a bad thing, precisely, to have a system that works for 50 years. The problem is that logistics and support is horrendously complicated.

    Probably the only way that this is still even partially maintainable is because the government is single-handedly propping up production of 8-inch floppies, which probably now cost something like $20,000 a piece. Not only because they are low production runs, but because on top that, they probably have to be built to a particular government standard that no one has updated since 1970 to make them able to be trusted for controlling nuclear weapons while also being handled by barely trained 18 year olds.

  12. Re:Wasn't this on 60 Minutes? by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes. But the story was forwarded to Slashdot via UUCP/dialup with a 12 hop bang path. So we only just got it.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.