5 ms·

It takes millions of pounds and several years to develop military systems. The computers running the systems (everything from heating/cooling, to engine managem

It takes millions of pounds and several years to develop military systems. The computers running the systems (everything from heating/cooling, to engine management) are integral parts of these systems, and explicitly configured to do these specific tasks. These task-orientated units would have be designed down to the nth degree, complete with extensive operating/troubleshooting manuals and config guides, including approved 'gold images' to rebuild them easily if required. Swapping out the base OS needlessly (if it's still capable of performing its duties) would require an extensive rebuild of the system concerned, again taking years to get through all the admin, testing, and sign off hoops. I very much doubt when it says 'running XP' it means the general purpose computers for end-users to use. Obviously, if these XP machines are not air-gapped, or behind hardware firewalls (with very restrictive rulesets) away from the general internet, then that's insane. Cynical as I am, I still have a hard time believing that these XP machines would be remotely accessible from outside the ship in question. Edit: I've zoomed in on the image in question. Yes that's a Windows XP lock screen (the header of the dialog is blue, if it was Windows Server 2003, it'd be grey) However it's in 'classic theme' mode. As it's on the lock screen, then that's a 'system wide' setting, which infers that the themes service is disabled. If they've disabled the themes service, then it's safe to assume that lots of other parts have been disabled or locked down also. This doesn't make XP safe, but it does at least a) mitigate the risk somewhat, and b) indicate that steps have been taken to secure the OS.

setq 9y ago
Doesn't mean the security or the quality is up to spec however. Most of the defence sector people I've worked with pretty much run on procedural knowledge developed independently rather than using their nut or consulting the rest of the industry. This whole thing has gone wrong before: https://www.wired.com/1998/07/sunk-by-windows-nt/ https://www.wired.com/1998/07/sunk-by-windows-nt/
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  Your link describes exactly the situation that boatloads of testing and a massive QA process are put in place to avoid. They slapped NT on something quickly and it broke. The result of extensive QA safeguards is that it takes time to roll out code and you get an outdated OS but with a far smaller chance of those sorts of failures.
  - setq 9y ago
    That only works if you have some level of determinism.
  - ben1040 9y ago
    >boatloads of testing In this case, quite literally so.
- andai 9y ago
  > The source of the problem on the Yorktown was that bad data was fed into an application running on one of the 16 computers on the LAN. The data contained a zero where it shouldn't have, and when the software attempted to divide by zero, a buffer overrun occurred – crashing the entire network and causing the ship to lose control of its propulsion system.
adrianN 9y ago
For the requirements you correctly identified - very long service times, very strict reliability requirements, etc, I think it's insane to rely on a closed source operating system in the first place. With open source you can always hire some programmers to fix bugs. With Windows you're at the mercy of Microsoft.
- Silhouette 9y ago
  If ever there were a situation where that argument didn't apply, surely this is it. This is a multi-billion project, in the defence sector, for a major US ally. So for one thing, it seems very likely that someone involved in the carrier project does have access to all the relevant Windows source and build infrastructure, one way or another. Relevant Microsoft staff have probably been checked as well. In any case, obviously you can't install some OSS and then just "hire some programmers" to fix bugs in this environment. Using Windows on naval vessels is not unprecedented. The US Navy "Windows for Warships" situation showed that it is already done, and sometimes problems are then found in trials, and those problems do then have to be fixed.
- eli 9y ago
  Microsoft makes the source of Windows available to partners and big customers. Just not for free.
  - adrianN 9y ago
    I doubt the terms of that agreement include fix-it-yourself maintenance.
    - ceejayoz 9y ago
      I'd imagine you're correct, but I'd also imagine critical military agreements include a "Microsoft will fix it, and fast" level of maintenance.
      - cududa 9y ago
        Correct. There multiple floors of multiple buildings in Redmond dedicated to this
0xfeba 9y ago
It is. They jokingly call it "Windows for Warships", because instead of taking the time to develop a more-or-less dedicated OS to run the entire ship, they used OTS software. It is and was a terrible idea.
- cududa 9y ago
  What are you suggesting? Building atop Unix or building a custom OS? Microsoft essentially does develop a custom version of Windows for mission critical state-backed infrastructure, which is most certainly not the "off the shelf" version.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
eutropia 9y ago
It's odd. We have so many government resources dedicated to offensive software weapons. Other comments mentioned Microsoft being more willing to support their OS long term than Redhat.. Why not build the capability within the military itself to build and maintain specialized *nix-based OS's for precisely this situation? Then you have indefinite support and on-site capabilities.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  "Why not build the capability within the military itself to build and maintain specialized *nix-based OS's " It's all outsourced to contractors making such an effort much more difficult.
- cududa 9y ago
  Having worked deep in the OS space in a past life, I could probably list 100 top people in the space. Of the first 20 that come to mind, I can't imagine a single one of them wanting to build for the military (at least as a permanent employer)

setq 9y ago

Doesn't mean the security or the quality is up to spec however. Most of the defence sector people I've worked with pretty much run on procedural knowledge developed independently rather than using their nut or consulting the rest of the industry. This whole thing has gone wrong before: https://www.wired.com/1998/07/sunk-by-windows-nt/ https://www.wired.com/1998/07/sunk-by-windows-nt/

dsfyu404ed 9y ago
Your link describes exactly the situation that boatloads of testing and a massive QA process are put in place to avoid. They slapped NT on something quickly and it broke. The result of extensive QA safeguards is that it takes time to roll out code and you get an outdated OS but with a far smaller chance of those sorts of failures.
- setq 9y ago
  That only works if you have some level of determinism.
- ben1040 9y ago
  >boatloads of testing In this case, quite literally so.
andai 9y ago
> The source of the problem on the Yorktown was that bad data was fed into an application running on one of the 16 computers on the LAN. The data contained a zero where it shouldn't have, and when the software attempted to divide by zero, a buffer overrun occurred – crashing the entire network and causing the ship to lose control of its propulsion system.

adrianN 9y ago

For the requirements you correctly identified - very long service times, very strict reliability requirements, etc, I think it's insane to rely on a closed source operating system in the first place. With open source you can always hire some programmers to fix bugs. With Windows you're at the mercy of Microsoft.

Silhouette 9y ago
If ever there were a situation where that argument didn't apply, surely this is it. This is a multi-billion project, in the defence sector, for a major US ally. So for one thing, it seems very likely that someone involved in the carrier project does have access to all the relevant Windows source and build infrastructure, one way or another. Relevant Microsoft staff have probably been checked as well. In any case, obviously you can't install some OSS and then just "hire some programmers" to fix bugs in this environment. Using Windows on naval vessels is not unprecedented. The US Navy "Windows for Warships" situation showed that it is already done, and sometimes problems are then found in trials, and those problems do then have to be fixed.
eli 9y ago
Microsoft makes the source of Windows available to partners and big customers. Just not for free.
- adrianN 9y ago
  I doubt the terms of that agreement include fix-it-yourself maintenance.
  - ceejayoz 9y ago
    I'd imagine you're correct, but I'd also imagine critical military agreements include a "Microsoft will fix it, and fast" level of maintenance.
    - cududa 9y ago
      Correct. There multiple floors of multiple buildings in Redmond dedicated to this

0xfeba 9y ago

It is. They jokingly call it "Windows for Warships", because instead of taking the time to develop a more-or-less dedicated OS to run the entire ship, they used OTS software. It is and was a terrible idea.

cududa 9y ago
What are you suggesting? Building atop Unix or building a custom OS? Microsoft essentially does develop a custom version of Windows for mission critical state-backed infrastructure, which is most certainly not the "off the shelf" version.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

eutropia 9y ago

It's odd. We have so many government resources dedicated to offensive software weapons. Other comments mentioned Microsoft being more willing to support their OS long term than Redhat.. Why not build the capability within the military itself to build and maintain specialized *nix-based OS's for precisely this situation? Then you have indefinite support and on-site capabilities.

maxxxxx 9y ago
"Why not build the capability within the military itself to build and maintain specialized *nix-based OS's " It's all outsourced to contractors making such an effort much more difficult.
cududa 9y ago
Having worked deep in the OS space in a past life, I could probably list 100 top people in the space. Of the first 20 that come to mind, I can't imagine a single one of them wanting to build for the military (at least as a permanent employer)