Live data from Hacker News

DOD Just Beginning to Grapple with Scale of Weapon Systems Vulnerabilities

gao.gov

221–225 of 225 posts

Re: DOD Just Beginning to Grapple with Scale of Weapon Systems Vulnerabilities

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thankfully the answer is "If we are fighting another nuclear power such that they are trying to shootdown a Bomber that didn't invade their airspace or sink an aircraft carrier something has already gone horribly wrong." Pax Atomica is in effect and there is a very reason why all of the wars were proxy wars. Everybody knows that it can only end in everyone losing.

Let's hope it stays that way but I am not too optimistic.

I think partisans are the only ones who would dare and the only way that would be remotely deniable for intelligence agencies is if they don't have major unexplained resources - including training. Which I suppose is where cyber attacks could be useful in the sense of "remote chance of working without being utterly atomic suicidal" - if sensors go down long enough for low budget explosive attacks or their own weapons decide they must sink is their own ship. The later /really/ shouldn't happen if people are doing their jobs given the sheer number of at all given the munitions handling and design sins that would require to be possible makes juggling loaded guns look like the peak of caution.

Re: DOD Just Beginning to Grapple with Scale of Weapon Systems Vulnerabilities

#222

GDC4S (now General Dynamics Mission Systems) and NICTA have been working on seL4, and it at least seems that USDOD has something to build on, if they want to start providing assurances of some form on weapons systems. They'll really have to set the passwords properly though.

What's eyebrow-raising is that it's been used as para/virtualization platform for Linux. (Ordinarily, SELinux MLS/MCS is pretty good though.) If something like Minix 3 "NetBSD" in Rust ran on seL4, that would inspire more confidence.

> If something like Minix 3 "NetBSD" in Rust ran on seL4, that would inspire more confidence.

Yeah, I've been thinking about that for a while. There is Genode/seL4, but it's hard to say if it makes as much sense.

Re: DOD Just Beginning to Grapple with Scale of Weapon Systems Vulnerabilities

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meanwhile, the software companies capable of fixing these issues face internal revolt at the idea of defense contracts. Apparently inaccurate targeting systems and vulnerable firmware in equipment that is going to deployed (regardless of protest) is better for pacifism?

It's a conundrum. Do you not work on it, and have innocent people accidentally killed? Or do you work on it, and have innocent people purposefully killed?

I think it is reasonable to assume that the number of innocent people that the military is intentionally trying to kill is less than the number of innocent people accidentally killed by imprecise munitions, miscommunication, lack of verification/impulsivity, and bad sensors/intel (areas where technology helps).

For perspective, not too long ago during WW2 and following wars the best measures we had were napalm firebombs and binoculars. Civilian deaths were much higher, and friendly fire incidents were commonplace. Technology, despite dystopic appearances, has helped reduce the brutality of war.

Re: DOD Just Beginning to Grapple with Scale of Weapon Systems Vulnerabilities

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that reasonable to you?

Ok maybe assassinate is a bit of a hyperbole for USA but I wouldn’t be surprised if Russia did that

It's not that hyperbolic at all, actually.

But I was asking a question of ethics, not fact.

Re: DOD Just Beginning to Grapple with Scale of Weapon Systems Vulnerabilities

#225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok maybe assassinate is a bit of a hyperbole for USA but I wouldn’t be surprised if Russia did that

It's not that hyperbolic at all, actually. But I was asking a question of ethics, not fact.

no its not ethical, but in general war isn't ethical. it is a reality though until all of humanity can come together slowly over the next few centuries.
Post reply on HN