6 ms·

I would love to learn about the software development side of the US military/industrial complex. I read the Pentagon Wars [0] last year and it was fascinating.

by tra3 4y ago

I would love to learn about the software development side of the US military/industrial complex. I read the Pentagon Wars [0] last year and it was fascinating. Read Skunk Works a while back [1]. What I found really interesting about the Pentagon Wars, is how the incentives don't really parallel what I see in "normal businesses". I wonder if it's the same for software? Is there anything more recent with the focus on software? If not, I'd love to read more about the design/development/testing of hardware as well. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pentagon_Wars [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunk_Works#cite_note-16 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skunk_Works#cite_note-16

anewpersonality 4y ago
> I would love to learn about the software development side of the US military/industrial complex. I read the Pentagon Wars [0] last year and it was fascinating. Read Skunk Works a while back [1]. Judging by Ghidra, America's Army and BRL-CAD, it's amateur hour over there.
- make3 4y ago
  are these bad? asking as someone who knows nothing of any of them
  - ascagnel_ 4y ago
    America's Army is one of a few video games the DoD has put out as recruitment tools. They're a little weird (both sides always see themselves as US troops, fighting an unspecified opposing force), but I'm not sure how successful they've been over the years. Another interesting one is what Bohemia Interactive does -- they develop and commercially release simulation-style shooters in the ArmA series, and they developed the original Operation Flashpoint back in the early 00s. But Bohemia also has a product they sell to armed services around the globe. It's gotten them in trouble before -- a few developers were detained in Greece while gathering reference material for the fictional island of Altis in Arma 3.
    - KineticLensman 4y ago
      > Bohemia Interactive They develop Virtual Battlespace which is heavily used by the UK MOD amongst others. The underlying engine supports a wide range of tactical simulations and there is a huge array of available reusable assets (e.g. vehicle meshes, textures, and behaviour models) that create a good moat to new market entrants.
    - nullify88 4y ago
      I'm not sure how sucessful the games were as a recruiting tool, but Americas Army 2.x was a well received game. Pipeline and Bridge brings back some good memories. I believe theres still an active community for it. Its popularity tanked once Americas Army 3 was out.
    - jjoonathan 4y ago
      One time I found a bug that doubled the size of the America's Army download, back when downloads like this took a day (* retries) on a typical DSL connection. I reported it to them so they banned me for hacking (they banned me from the forums, mind you, not the game) and didn't fix the issue. Lol.
  - some_random 4y ago
    Ghidra is fantastic, it has some issues and is obviously missing some still-classified components but even still it's competitive with IDA and Binary Ninja.
    - derefr 4y ago
      Are the obvious omissions obvious enough to be able to name any of them? E.g. are there any languages that would be expected to have decompilation support, but don't? Or any static-analysis passes that are clearly relying on underpowered prebuilt datasets only supplied to make the pass function in a nominal sense, where there's clearly some much larger prebuilt dataset used in the classified version?
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - nibbleshifter 4y ago
        A lot of the "type libraries" are missing (you can make your own). Some specific processors are noticeably unsupported (you can fix this yourself by writing definitions). The extensions for analysis of mobile applications and debugging mobile targets are missing. Parts of the debugger are still missing (eg: syncing debugger with disassembly/decompiler). Some features are extremely poorly documented (eg: importing source code). A lot of bits that otherwise seem missing are likely proprietary scripts and extensions/tools that probably can't be released due to either being classified or owned by a defense contractor.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
- it_was_cool 4y ago
  I thought people were generally pleased with Ghidra. Is this not the case?
  - jjoonathan 4y ago
    I am enormously happy that Ghidra exists and usually can be made to do the job, but it is still quite rough around the edges. Polished with 10 grit sandpaper, as the saying goes.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- CuriousCosmic 4y ago
  Ghidra and BRL-CAD are absolutely high quality pieces of software. They just don't have time put into shiny UI. The UX isn't really that bad once you learn them though. Also BRL-CAD's continued existence really should speak for it's quality considering it's the one of the oldest VCS tracked pieces of software and is the oldest public one. It's leagues ahead of a lot of gov and corporate tooling I've seen on both sides of the fence. But otherwise yes, the mil-industrial complex often leaves something to be desired with development practices. The money all goes towards feeding systems engineers, mechs, mats, and sparkies. Software is usually the last consideration and is for holding together all the stuff the teams couldn't figure out how to do without it. Things are getting better but it's a slow process and it almost entirely depends on software engineers sticking around long enough to get into leadership rather than leaving for better paying corporate or research jobs. While I'm on my way out now for a number of reasons, the industry is finally starting to get good at software practices and where it absolutely mattered they for a long time have tended to get it right.
- mshockwave 4y ago
  I don't get it, Ghidra is one of best RE tools, what's the problem?
thereddaikon 4y ago
You should be warned, Pentagon Wars is mostly fiction and written by a guy who had a serious bone to pick. He's a member of a troublesome ground known as the reformers who get an outsized share of the attention in popular media while being pariahs in the defense industry. Source, I used to work in the defense industry and people like Burton and Sprey are loathed.
- tra3 4y ago
  I did not know that. I thought the book was mostly factual, as far as these things go. The program he references though, are real programs. The budgets and overspending were also correct (where I checked). Do you have a link to any rebuttals? I will google myself, but if you have something that you find convincing I'd love to read it.
  - onepointsixC 4y ago
    > The budgets and overspending were also correct (where I checked) I haven't read the book, but in the movie, it claims that the army had spent $14 Bn at the time of the Congressional Committy on April 24th, 1987 where as it had only spent $8Bn out of the $12Bn allocated.[1] Beyond that simple fact check, sure the programs did exist but there are numerous other issues. The most significant were the subjects of the destructive tests, in which Col. James Burton insisted on destroying many fully functioning combat loaded Bradleys by firing RPG's at them from multiple different angles. The Army thought it would be worth while to do some tests but not to the extent which Burton demanded. The Army filled the ammo shells with sand and the fuel tanks with water as to be bale to measure damage done to them from sharp metal. That way you could actually account for the damage done. According to the Col, this was a bad faith cover up that the Bradley wouldn't survive and instead be a flaming wreck. A Bradley would indeed blow up and be turned into a flaming pile of melted aluminum from an AT weapon hit, but that was always known - it wasn't designed to be able to resist such weapons. Neither did the previous troop carrier it was replacing. Nor did the Russian equivalents do so either. [1]: Capability of the Bradley fighting vehicle : hearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One hundredth Congress, first session, April 24, 1987 (EBook version): https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=6VhyQC11xEAC&pg=GBS.PP4&hl=en https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=6VhyQC11xEAC&pg=GBS....
viggity 4y ago
there is an old made-for-HBO movie called The Pentagon Wars... I presume it is accurate enough, although it was turned into a comedy so I'm sure they took some artistic license with it. Highly recommended. It's available for free on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir0FAa8P2MU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir0FAa8P2MU
- some_random 4y ago
  Both the movie and the book are complete BS, they're funny but not accurate reflections of reality.
- WrtCdEvrydy 4y ago
  Yeah, that was a book adaptation.

by tra3 4y ago

anewpersonality 4y ago

> I would love to learn about the software development side of the US military/industrial complex. I read the Pentagon Wars [0] last year and it was fascinating. Read Skunk Works a while back [1]. Judging by Ghidra, America's Army and BRL-CAD, it's amateur hour over there.

make3 4y ago
are these bad? asking as someone who knows nothing of any of them
- ascagnel_ 4y ago
  America's Army is one of a few video games the DoD has put out as recruitment tools. They're a little weird (both sides always see themselves as US troops, fighting an unspecified opposing force), but I'm not sure how successful they've been over the years. Another interesting one is what Bohemia Interactive does -- they develop and commercially release simulation-style shooters in the ArmA series, and they developed the original Operation Flashpoint back in the early 00s. But Bohemia also has a product they sell to armed services around the globe. It's gotten them in trouble before -- a few developers were detained in Greece while gathering reference material for the fictional island of Altis in Arma 3.
  - KineticLensman 4y ago
    > Bohemia Interactive They develop Virtual Battlespace which is heavily used by the UK MOD amongst others. The underlying engine supports a wide range of tactical simulations and there is a huge array of available reusable assets (e.g. vehicle meshes, textures, and behaviour models) that create a good moat to new market entrants.
  - nullify88 4y ago
    I'm not sure how sucessful the games were as a recruiting tool, but Americas Army 2.x was a well received game. Pipeline and Bridge brings back some good memories. I believe theres still an active community for it. Its popularity tanked once Americas Army 3 was out.
  - jjoonathan 4y ago
    One time I found a bug that doubled the size of the America's Army download, back when downloads like this took a day (* retries) on a typical DSL connection. I reported it to them so they banned me for hacking (they banned me from the forums, mind you, not the game) and didn't fix the issue. Lol.
- some_random 4y ago
  Ghidra is fantastic, it has some issues and is obviously missing some still-classified components but even still it's competitive with IDA and Binary Ninja.
  - derefr 4y ago
    Are the obvious omissions obvious enough to be able to name any of them? E.g. are there any languages that would be expected to have decompilation support, but don't? Or any static-analysis passes that are clearly relying on underpowered prebuilt datasets only supplied to make the pass function in a nominal sense, where there's clearly some much larger prebuilt dataset used in the classified version?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - nibbleshifter 4y ago
      A lot of the "type libraries" are missing (you can make your own). Some specific processors are noticeably unsupported (you can fix this yourself by writing definitions). The extensions for analysis of mobile applications and debugging mobile targets are missing. Parts of the debugger are still missing (eg: syncing debugger with disassembly/decompiler). Some features are extremely poorly documented (eg: importing source code). A lot of bits that otherwise seem missing are likely proprietary scripts and extensions/tools that probably can't be released due to either being classified or owned by a defense contractor.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
it_was_cool 4y ago
I thought people were generally pleased with Ghidra. Is this not the case?
- jjoonathan 4y ago
  I am enormously happy that Ghidra exists and usually can be made to do the job, but it is still quite rough around the edges. Polished with 10 grit sandpaper, as the saying goes.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
CuriousCosmic 4y ago
Ghidra and BRL-CAD are absolutely high quality pieces of software. They just don't have time put into shiny UI. The UX isn't really that bad once you learn them though. Also BRL-CAD's continued existence really should speak for it's quality considering it's the one of the oldest VCS tracked pieces of software and is the oldest public one. It's leagues ahead of a lot of gov and corporate tooling I've seen on both sides of the fence. But otherwise yes, the mil-industrial complex often leaves something to be desired with development practices. The money all goes towards feeding systems engineers, mechs, mats, and sparkies. Software is usually the last consideration and is for holding together all the stuff the teams couldn't figure out how to do without it. Things are getting better but it's a slow process and it almost entirely depends on software engineers sticking around long enough to get into leadership rather than leaving for better paying corporate or research jobs. While I'm on my way out now for a number of reasons, the industry is finally starting to get good at software practices and where it absolutely mattered they for a long time have tended to get it right.
mshockwave 4y ago
I don't get it, Ghidra is one of best RE tools, what's the problem?

thereddaikon 4y ago

You should be warned, Pentagon Wars is mostly fiction and written by a guy who had a serious bone to pick. He's a member of a troublesome ground known as the reformers who get an outsized share of the attention in popular media while being pariahs in the defense industry. Source, I used to work in the defense industry and people like Burton and Sprey are loathed.

tra3 4y ago
I did not know that. I thought the book was mostly factual, as far as these things go. The program he references though, are real programs. The budgets and overspending were also correct (where I checked). Do you have a link to any rebuttals? I will google myself, but if you have something that you find convincing I'd love to read it.
- onepointsixC 4y ago
  > The budgets and overspending were also correct (where I checked) I haven't read the book, but in the movie, it claims that the army had spent $14 Bn at the time of the Congressional Committy on April 24th, 1987 where as it had only spent $8Bn out of the $12Bn allocated.[1] Beyond that simple fact check, sure the programs did exist but there are numerous other issues. The most significant were the subjects of the destructive tests, in which Col. James Burton insisted on destroying many fully functioning combat loaded Bradleys by firing RPG's at them from multiple different angles. The Army thought it would be worth while to do some tests but not to the extent which Burton demanded. The Army filled the ammo shells with sand and the fuel tanks with water as to be bale to measure damage done to them from sharp metal. That way you could actually account for the damage done. According to the Col, this was a bad faith cover up that the Bradley wouldn't survive and instead be a flaming wreck. A Bradley would indeed blow up and be turned into a flaming pile of melted aluminum from an AT weapon hit, but that was always known - it wasn't designed to be able to resist such weapons. Neither did the previous troop carrier it was replacing. Nor did the Russian equivalents do so either. [1]: Capability of the Bradley fighting vehicle : hearing before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, One hundredth Congress, first session, April 24, 1987 (EBook version): https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=6VhyQC11xEAC&pg=GBS.PP4&hl=en https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=6VhyQC11xEAC&pg=GBS....

viggity 4y ago

there is an old made-for-HBO movie called The Pentagon Wars... I presume it is accurate enough, although it was turned into a comedy so I'm sure they took some artistic license with it. Highly recommended. It's available for free on youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir0FAa8P2MU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ir0FAa8P2MU

some_random 4y ago
Both the movie and the book are complete BS, they're funny but not accurate reflections of reality.
WrtCdEvrydy 4y ago
Yeah, that was a book adaptation.