4 ms·

An aircraft carrier also has the benefit of being operated under a vastly different framework than a regular IT system: military vs. civilian. This means any in

An aircraft carrier also has the benefit of being operated under a vastly different framework than a regular IT system: military vs. civilian. This means any inconvenience of using the system only matters if it leads to clear operational risks. But I've seen plenty of companies implementing solid (real) security measures only to see employees looking to bypass them themselves due to the inconvenience they caused, thus leaving doors open for attack. The defense in depths / layered defense principle is probably well known in most companies but a strong defense is usually more expensive (in every single metric) than a strong offense, and it only has to fail once. A budget to cover this is easier to justify in a military setup for the reason you mentioned: lives. A trained soldier is expensive to replace, and so it a warship. This justifies a huge budget. In the corporate world the balance is "can we expect to lose more money (image, etc.) from the projected number of hacks than we save by not implementing specific measures?". And lastly, companies like to say how they employed "software engineers" but the reality is that they employed mostly "coders". Coders are no more software engineers than bricklayers are civil engineers. A lot of the infrastructure and software architecture is left to people who don't have the broader picture because it's assumed that the particular system is inconsequential. Turns out almost no link in a chain is inconsequential when you're faced with a very determined, very well funded attacker.

KineticLensman 6y ago
> military vs. civilian. This means any inconvenience of using the system only matters if it leads to clear operational risks. The military are not immune to this either. Case study, the 2006 Nimrod crash in Afghanistan [0], which killed all 14 of its crew. This plane was the flying equivalent of an unsecured server whose root password was 'password'. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Royal_Air_Force_Nimrod_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Royal_Air_Force_Nimrod_cr...
- buran77 6y ago
  Nobody is "immune" to mistakes but the framework under which the military operates raises the bar for any kind of attack or mistake simply by forcing the personnel to more consistently adhere to stricter rules regardless of the sector (in front of a keyboard or a trigger). And coming back to the particular Nimrod crash, the findings of the inquiry suggest a chain of issues slightly more complex than your analogy suggests. Setting a root password of "password" goes way beyond poor maintenance, it's designing the plane with a crack in the wing.
  - KineticLensman 6y ago
    > the findings of the inquiry suggest a chain of issues slightly more complex than your analogy suggests I agree that my analogy is an oversimplification. But I think my point stands - the plane had a massive set of issues that were tolerated because up to that point the operators had got away with it by sheer luck - there hadn't been an operational disaster, just a mass of technical and maintenance issues over the years. In this case, the flight crew as military personnel were acting at a high standard but were fatally let down by the wider organisation that allowed them to fly. The military owned safety case was fundamentally flawed and evidence that suggested otherwise had been actively suppressed, as revealed by the Haddon Cave enquiry which found fault with a range of military and contractor organisations and individuals.
jimbokun 6y ago
> But I've seen plenty of companies implementing solid (real) security measures only to see employees looking to bypass them themselves due to the inconvenience they caused, thus leaving doors open for attack. The New York Times had an article recently discussing how measures to prevent Covid have to take human nature into account in order to be effective. In other words, people only have so much capacity for adhering to strict measures, so it's important to stress the really important factors (avoid prolonged indoor exposure with large groups of people) and to allow for some relatively low risk behaviors (outdoor exercise with appropriate social distancing). Also cited HIV and teen pregnancy as similar public health problems (saying "don't have sex ever" vs "limit sex to these less risky behaviors"). So, coming back to security, I think any effective security policy will have to allow employees to get their work done efficiently without undue strain. Avoid "security theatre" while still mitigating against the most severe threats through training, compartmentalization, etc. Otherwise, you risk people going around the security measures so they can actually get their work done.
bootsup 6y ago
Last I was paying attention, all the legacy aircraft carriers hadn't been upgraded from windows xp, and had no upgrade path. That's only one of the platform's many vulnerabilities. Their purpose seems to have more to do with capital extraction than warfighting.
- buran77 6y ago
  I was mostly thinking of the physical design of the ships (and their operation) as brought up by OP and GP. But even when it comes to IT, I can understand having a hard time fully validating a new OS on those ships. And still they take much better measures for securing those carriers overall than your average supermarket with XP cash registers. The point, as I said below, is that the framework under which the military operate does a far better job at forcing the people to more consistently adhere to stricter rules. Which means under similar circumstances there's a good chance the military can keep a system safer than most companies.

KineticLensman 6y ago

> military vs. civilian. This means any inconvenience of using the system only matters if it leads to clear operational risks. The military are not immune to this either. Case study, the 2006 Nimrod crash in Afghanistan [0], which killed all 14 of its crew. This plane was the flying equivalent of an unsecured server whose root password was 'password'. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Royal_Air_Force_Nimrod_crash https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Royal_Air_Force_Nimrod_cr...

buran77 6y ago
Nobody is "immune" to mistakes but the framework under which the military operates raises the bar for any kind of attack or mistake simply by forcing the personnel to more consistently adhere to stricter rules regardless of the sector (in front of a keyboard or a trigger). And coming back to the particular Nimrod crash, the findings of the inquiry suggest a chain of issues slightly more complex than your analogy suggests. Setting a root password of "password" goes way beyond poor maintenance, it's designing the plane with a crack in the wing.
- KineticLensman 6y ago
  > the findings of the inquiry suggest a chain of issues slightly more complex than your analogy suggests I agree that my analogy is an oversimplification. But I think my point stands - the plane had a massive set of issues that were tolerated because up to that point the operators had got away with it by sheer luck - there hadn't been an operational disaster, just a mass of technical and maintenance issues over the years. In this case, the flight crew as military personnel were acting at a high standard but were fatally let down by the wider organisation that allowed them to fly. The military owned safety case was fundamentally flawed and evidence that suggested otherwise had been actively suppressed, as revealed by the Haddon Cave enquiry which found fault with a range of military and contractor organisations and individuals.

jimbokun 6y ago

> But I've seen plenty of companies implementing solid (real) security measures only to see employees looking to bypass them themselves due to the inconvenience they caused, thus leaving doors open for attack. The New York Times had an article recently discussing how measures to prevent Covid have to take human nature into account in order to be effective. In other words, people only have so much capacity for adhering to strict measures, so it's important to stress the really important factors (avoid prolonged indoor exposure with large groups of people) and to allow for some relatively low risk behaviors (outdoor exercise with appropriate social distancing). Also cited HIV and teen pregnancy as similar public health problems (saying "don't have sex ever" vs "limit sex to these less risky behaviors"). So, coming back to security, I think any effective security policy will have to allow employees to get their work done efficiently without undue strain. Avoid "security theatre" while still mitigating against the most severe threats through training, compartmentalization, etc. Otherwise, you risk people going around the security measures so they can actually get their work done.

bootsup 6y ago

Last I was paying attention, all the legacy aircraft carriers hadn't been upgraded from windows xp, and had no upgrade path. That's only one of the platform's many vulnerabilities. Their purpose seems to have more to do with capital extraction than warfighting.

buran77 6y ago
I was mostly thinking of the physical design of the ships (and their operation) as brought up by OP and GP. But even when it comes to IT, I can understand having a hard time fully validating a new OS on those ships. And still they take much better measures for securing those carriers overall than your average supermarket with XP cash registers. The point, as I said below, is that the framework under which the military operate does a far better job at forcing the people to more consistently adhere to stricter rules. Which means under similar circumstances there's a good chance the military can keep a system safer than most companies.