9 ms·

This again highlights the fact that source code is a vulnerability. Here it is suggesting that known and unknown flaws in the Iron Dome code can render the def

by daenz 7y ago

This again highlights the fact that source code is a vulnerability. Here it is suggesting that known and unknown flaws in the Iron Dome code can render the defense potentially useless. Our military is correct in not purchasing something that they cannot fully vet. The shocking part to me is that Israel truly thought they could make the deal work without providing something that could be vetted.

elif 7y ago
It could be more than simply obsecurity. Maybe they left a backdoor for themselves?
- DEADBEEFC0FFEE 7y ago
  Maybe they don't trust the US to keep it safe. That's not a dig at US, just the risk assessment any vendor has to deal with.
  - Aeolun 7y ago
    After recent stories on the F-35, maybe not entirely without reason.
- numpad0 7y ago
  Iron Dome is a guided SAM against (unguided) munitions for kill by kinetic hit or close proximity explosion. A ground radar track hostile munitions, fly the missile into its face to kill like a bullet actually hitting another midair. So they wouldn't like designers of its adversaries to know how to fly shells to avoid it.
  - elif 7y ago
    I don't think the US would benefit much from understanding iron dome, as you can likely beat the 14% success rate of Qassam with ramjets, multiple angles of attack, or more than 20 missiles... Not much of a stretch for the US.
walshemj 7y ago
Its rather funny that the US did this to the UK over the chinook fiasco years ago.
- DEADBEEFC0FFEE 7y ago
  Pretty sure the US did something similar to Australia. Pretty normal.
  - h9n 7y ago
    After selling Australia the F/A-18 Hornet, the US refused to give Australia access to its friend-or-foe identification system, making it essentially useless for its role as the country's front-line fighter. Australia had to resort to subterfuge to make it work. This was revealed by the then-defence minister, Kim Beazley, in his valedictory speech to Parliament[0]: > The radar of our Hornet could not identify most of the aircraft in this region as hostile—in other words, our front-line fighter could not shoot down people who would be the enemies in this region. > I went to the United States and, for five years, it was up hill, down dale and one knock-down drag-out after another with Cap Weinberger, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz. I tried to get the codes of that blasted radar out of them. In the end, we spied on them and we extracted the codes ourselves [0]: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2007-09-20%2F0074;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2007-09-20%2F0000%22 https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....
    - zaphirplane 7y ago
      So basically the conversation went we will sell you f18 so long as you use them against the Chinese or Russians, the Australians said no worries we will take 20 ? How strange
shripadk 7y ago
> Our military is correct in not purchasing something that they cannot fully vet. The shocking part to me is that Israel truly thought they could make the deal work without providing something that could be vetted. But US doesn't provide source code too. Many defense deals with India could not proceed because of US denying transfer of technology [1]. Especially with F-16s. Which is why India decided to buy Rafale. I am sure this is how every country would like to operate anyways. [1]: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2016/09/08/us-air-force-tech-transfer-issues-key-to-f-16-production-line-move-to-india/ https://www.defensenews.com/air/2016/09/08/us-air-force-tech... [2]: https://theprint.in/opinion/f-16-never-stood-a-chance-to-be-in-iaf-fleet-lockheed-martin-messed-it-up-so-much/269699/ https://theprint.in/opinion/f-16-never-stood-a-chance-to-be-...
- tpmx 7y ago
  > But US doesn't provide source code too. Many defense deals with India could not proceed because of US denying transfer of technology. SAAB understands this. They are offering source code with their Gripen deal for the upcoming India fighter jet procurement. I'm not 100% sure, but I'm assuming that neither Boeing nor Lockheed Martin are planning to offer that. I hear this was a key reason for why Brazil went with SAAB Gripen rather than Boeing F-18. (The "official reason" was that Snowden revealed US spying on Brazil, as if that was news to Brazil...)
  - xorcist 7y ago
    The price tag also likely also a factor.
    - tpmx 7y ago
      Certainly. Also, the Gripen is so much more economical to operate, just by the way it's designed...that it's stupid. (Basically, it's designed with that as a top goal. Be simple/cheap to work on.) Traditionally, I think the primary reason to buy US fighter jets at very high prices compared to the non-US competition has been that you also expect to get some amount of military protection back from the US worth much more (like 5-10x more) than that investment. Trump has turned this scheme upside down. We thank him for this. (I also happen to think it may end up being a good thing for the US. It's cutting off a lot of the money supply to the US military complex. Isn't that a good thing?)
serf 7y ago
>This again highlights the fact that source code is a vulnerability. it's a weapon. Even if the logic that was running it was flawless, you'd still want to see whether or not someone else has access to a function to give them control, or self destruct, or whatever. In other words : I don't think that it has to suggest a flawed system, it could also suggest other 'government subversion', like hidden functionalities.
- ahelwer 7y ago
  Nah. That puts you in "trusting trust" territory. Any such function would be easy to hide.
ljm 7y ago
To be fair, I'm more surprised that they shunned Israel when the US has been an incredibly staunch supporter and probably one of their strongest allies. I suppose they found their limit with this one.
arkades 7y ago
I am shocked by the shock. Israel depends on the Iron Dome, and doesn't trust our cybersecurity for shit. I wouldn't release life-or-death code to the US Gov't either, funding be damned.

by daenz 7y ago

elif 7y ago

It could be more than simply obsecurity. Maybe they left a backdoor for themselves?

DEADBEEFC0FFEE 7y ago
Maybe they don't trust the US to keep it safe. That's not a dig at US, just the risk assessment any vendor has to deal with.
- Aeolun 7y ago
  After recent stories on the F-35, maybe not entirely without reason.
numpad0 7y ago
Iron Dome is a guided SAM against (unguided) munitions for kill by kinetic hit or close proximity explosion. A ground radar track hostile munitions, fly the missile into its face to kill like a bullet actually hitting another midair. So they wouldn't like designers of its adversaries to know how to fly shells to avoid it.
- elif 7y ago
  I don't think the US would benefit much from understanding iron dome, as you can likely beat the 14% success rate of Qassam with ramjets, multiple angles of attack, or more than 20 missiles... Not much of a stretch for the US.

walshemj 7y ago

Its rather funny that the US did this to the UK over the chinook fiasco years ago.

DEADBEEFC0FFEE 7y ago
Pretty sure the US did something similar to Australia. Pretty normal.
- h9n 7y ago
  After selling Australia the F/A-18 Hornet, the US refused to give Australia access to its friend-or-foe identification system, making it essentially useless for its role as the country's front-line fighter. Australia had to resort to subterfuge to make it work. This was revealed by the then-defence minister, Kim Beazley, in his valedictory speech to Parliament[0]: > The radar of our Hornet could not identify most of the aircraft in this region as hostile—in other words, our front-line fighter could not shoot down people who would be the enemies in this region. > I went to the United States and, for five years, it was up hill, down dale and one knock-down drag-out after another with Cap Weinberger, Dick Cheney and Paul Wolfowitz. I tried to get the codes of that blasted radar out of them. In the end, we spied on them and we extracted the codes ourselves [0]: https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2007-09-20%2F0074;query=Id%3A%22chamber%2Fhansardr%2F2007-09-20%2F0000%22 https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display....
  - zaphirplane 7y ago
    So basically the conversation went we will sell you f18 so long as you use them against the Chinese or Russians, the Australians said no worries we will take 20 ? How strange

shripadk 7y ago

> Our military is correct in not purchasing something that they cannot fully vet. The shocking part to me is that Israel truly thought they could make the deal work without providing something that could be vetted. But US doesn't provide source code too. Many defense deals with India could not proceed because of US denying transfer of technology [1]. Especially with F-16s. Which is why India decided to buy Rafale. I am sure this is how every country would like to operate anyways. [1]: https://www.defensenews.com/air/2016/09/08/us-air-force-tech-transfer-issues-key-to-f-16-production-line-move-to-india/ https://www.defensenews.com/air/2016/09/08/us-air-force-tech... [2]: https://theprint.in/opinion/f-16-never-stood-a-chance-to-be-in-iaf-fleet-lockheed-martin-messed-it-up-so-much/269699/ https://theprint.in/opinion/f-16-never-stood-a-chance-to-be-...

tpmx 7y ago
> But US doesn't provide source code too. Many defense deals with India could not proceed because of US denying transfer of technology. SAAB understands this. They are offering source code with their Gripen deal for the upcoming India fighter jet procurement. I'm not 100% sure, but I'm assuming that neither Boeing nor Lockheed Martin are planning to offer that. I hear this was a key reason for why Brazil went with SAAB Gripen rather than Boeing F-18. (The "official reason" was that Snowden revealed US spying on Brazil, as if that was news to Brazil...)
- xorcist 7y ago
  The price tag also likely also a factor.
  - tpmx 7y ago
    Certainly. Also, the Gripen is so much more economical to operate, just by the way it's designed...that it's stupid. (Basically, it's designed with that as a top goal. Be simple/cheap to work on.) Traditionally, I think the primary reason to buy US fighter jets at very high prices compared to the non-US competition has been that you also expect to get some amount of military protection back from the US worth much more (like 5-10x more) than that investment. Trump has turned this scheme upside down. We thank him for this. (I also happen to think it may end up being a good thing for the US. It's cutting off a lot of the money supply to the US military complex. Isn't that a good thing?)

serf 7y ago

>This again highlights the fact that source code is a vulnerability. it's a weapon. Even if the logic that was running it was flawless, you'd still want to see whether or not someone else has access to a function to give them control, or self destruct, or whatever. In other words : I don't think that it has to suggest a flawed system, it could also suggest other 'government subversion', like hidden functionalities.

ahelwer 7y ago
Nah. That puts you in "trusting trust" territory. Any such function would be easy to hide.

ljm 7y ago

To be fair, I'm more surprised that they shunned Israel when the US has been an incredibly staunch supporter and probably one of their strongest allies. I suppose they found their limit with this one.

arkades 7y ago

I am shocked by the shock. Israel depends on the Iron Dome, and doesn't trust our cybersecurity for shit. I wouldn't release life-or-death code to the US Gov't either, funding be damned.