7 ms·
Anduril and Palantir battlefield communication system has flaws, Army memo says
- dmix 1y ago> The assessment, seen by Reuters and first reported by Breaking Defense, comes just months after defense drone and software maker Anduril was awarded a $100 million to create a prototype of NGC2 with partners including Palantir, Microsoft and several smaller contractors. > Army chief information officer and Chiulli’s supervisor, said in a statement to Reuters that the report was part of a process that helped in “triaging cybersecurity vulnerabilities” and mitigating them. So it's a brand new prototype and this is a run of the mill cybersecurity review while it undergoes some internal testing?
- rohan_ 1y agoyeah i don't understand - they spent a few months building a prototype... do people not understand what a prototype is? This sounds like a nothingburger.
- DaveZale 1y agoYup, that's the job of the folks at Fort Carson: find the flaws in the prototype. I often hear and feel the booms when they are testing. The percussive shocks travel many miles through the shale to under my house.
- TimorousBestie 1y agoBolting on security after the fact is not exactly the preferred strat. Especially when the cost of busted security in this context is “exceptionally grave damage.”
- zdragnar 1y agoI think btown's sibling comment has it right. It's not even a prototype if it isn't demonstrating some aspect of its core capabilities. Given this line from the article: Despite the early September memo’s scathing critique, Leonel Garciga, Army chief information officer and Chiulli’s supervisor, said in a statement to Reuters that the report was part of a process that helped in “triaging cybersecurity vulnerabilities” and mitigating them. and Other deficiencies highlighted in the memo include the hosting of third-party applications that have not undergone Army security assessments. One application revealed 25 high-severity code vulnerabilities. Three additional applications under review each contain over 200 vulnerabilities requiring assessment, according to the document. it seems like there was a SIGNIFICANT mismatch in expectations between the team delivering the prototype and the people receiving it. Everyone's time was wasted as a result.
- btown 1y ago> The report says the system allows any authorized user to access all applications and data regardless of their clearance level or operational need. As a result, “Any user can potentially access and misuse sensitive” classified information, the memo states, with no logging to track their actions. Given that segmentation of data access is a core part of the pitch (see e.g. https://www.palantir.com/docs/gotham https://www.palantir.com/docs/gotham) - if security controls were intentionally omitted from the prototype scope, that seems like a reckless scoping decision to make. And if security controls were unintentionally bypassed, this speaks to insufficient red-teaming of the prototype before launch. I couldn't be more pleased that this is coming to light, though. Perhaps it opens decisionmakers' eyes to the dangers of over-centralizing military operations on a system that simultaneously allows operators to diffuse accountability to a semi-autonomous target-calling system, and is foundationally connected to surveillance-state systems tracking U.S. citizens. Entire genres of movies posit the negative outcomes of this kind of system on civilians and military personnel alike; they are cautionary tales to Not Create The Torment Nexus. Sometimes decentralized, human-in-the-loop, need-to-look-the-target-in-the-eyes operational coordination is a feature, not a bug.
- mrtnmrtn 1y ago« Enterprise security We reject the notion of gating, pay-walling, or upselling core security controls like audit logging, single sign-on, and multi-factor authentication. Whether you’re a small business or a federal agency, you get access to every core enterprise security feature in our standard offering: Mandatory encryption of all data, both in transit and at rest, that uses robust, modern cryptography standards. Strong authentication and identity protection controls, including single sign-on and multi-factor authentication. Strong authorization controls, including mandatory and discretionary access controls. Robust security audit logging for detecting and investigating potential abuse. Highly extensible information governance, management, and privacy controls to meet the needs of any use case. »
- Spooky23 1y agoThe real question is: did the product manager shave his beard?
- 1y ago
- derektank 1y agoI was sort of inclined to agree coming into reading this (my understanding is that this is a prototype round, and other contractors have received awards, prior to a downselect round where one contractor will be selected for full production) but if it's true that, "We cannot control who sees what, we cannot see what users are doing," that seems like a bearish signal. Access control and user level logging seem like kind of basic feature requirements for a military C2 system? And Lattice isn't a completely immature product either IIRC.
- Seattle3503 1y agoDoes anyone have a link to the memo?
- jpace121 1y agoI would be very surprised if it was publicly available.
- moron4hire 1y agoYeah, there's no way anyone would ask or it'd get approved for public release. Not because it's necessarily controlled information (though suspect it probably is), but what would be the point? Things get released to the public only when there is a particular need to tell the public something and everything else defaults to sitting on some janky ass SharePoint site until everyone forgets about it.
- wbl 1y agoFOIA is a law for a reason
- DonHopkins 1y agoGiven these blustering charlatans' track record with security, I would be very surprised if it was NOT publicly leaked, sitting somewhere on an open cloud server, put there by some petulant incel child who calls himself Big Balls.
- kspacewalk2 1y agoA prototype doesn't have fine-grained access control. Is that pretty much the story here?
- asadotzler 1y agoSecurity as a later add-on is failure.
- lysace 1y agoBuild one to throw away.
- Quarrelsome 1y agothat would be best practice but that wouldn't be what I often see happen.
- relaxing 1y agoIn fact, build one to throw away is the default in the defense space. Odds are this one will join the scrap heap of projects that never make it to operation, like thousands of systems before it.
- kspacewalk2 1y agoLike all excessively categorical one liners, yours is of little use in practice.
- jandrewrogers 1y agoWhat's the issue? Everything about this is normal and expected when prototyping new capabilities for DoD. DoD intentionally pushes hard to get testable capabilities as early as possible to shorten feedback loops, understanding that features ancillary to the capability will be limited, stubbed out, or implemented using a stopgap that you would never use in production. This will all be cleaned up in the production implementation once everyone is happy with how the capability works. Basically an agile customer development approach, similar to what is used in startups. In my experience, the fine-grained control and security features are never implemented in the prototypes. This can be extremely fussy and slow development that isn't needed to evaluate capability. It also requires a lot of customer involvement, so they usually aren't willing to invest the time until they are satisfied that they want to move forward with the capability. The security architecture is demonstrably the kind of thing that can be mechanically added later so DoD takes the view that there is no development risk by not implementing it in the prototype. There may be fair criticisms of the system but it looks like the article is going out of its way to mislead and misrepresent.
- ranadomo 1y agoThis is an absurd statement to make about a DOD program. Securing communication is communication in the most adversarial environment imaginable. There are thousands of problems that only emerge once cryptographic authentication and authorization are enabled. This isn't a b2b sass app where you can just add an "auth layer" once the api is built out. It's passing mission-critical messages through signal-jamming and unimaginably hostile imitation scenarios. Many DOD programs are built as prototypes that don't ever factor security in the architecture, and then have massive problems and delays trying to implement it later. DOD cyber acquisition is run by the most incompetent clowns on earth. The only reason they don't know how terrible their software is, is because they're not capable of detecting how fundamentally compromised their systems are, and China and Russia are not exactly white-hats looking for a bounty.
- wyldberry 1y agoIt is not absurd, this is the standard for rapid prototyping in the DoD. Given that Palantir already has a strong track record for authn/z inside their systems used across the DoD, LEO, and Intelligence Agencies. It's not an untread, uncharted path for these organizations.
- 1-more 1y agoIs NGC2 meant to replace JTRS? Did JTRS ever actually ship broadly and replace SINCGARS? Wow holy calamity lol JTRS never shipped. Paid a lot of mortgages though.
- Jtsummers 1y agoJTRS had so many problems. It was spectacularly badly managed by its program office. I'll repeat what I've written perhaps too many times here on HN: DOD program offices are not capable of handling IT (software-centric) acquisitions efforts. They reliably fail.
- mandevil 1y agoThe reason that Rumsfeld's second term as SecDef marks him as the worst to ever hold the position (1) is that at least the other guy who oversaw the US getting into a decades long morass (McNamara) delivered some effective weapons. Forcing the USAF to buy the F4H, the USAF half of the 'vark, Nimitz class carrier, Spruance class destroyer, etc. were all reasonably successful weapons systems that McNamara was largely responsible for, in bureaucratic terms. Donald Rumsfeld's term managed to get the US into a decades long morass and basically all of his procurement plans failed (FCS, JTRS, EMALS, LCS, EFV, DDG-1000). Rumsfeld's best program outcome (LCS) was still worse than McNamara's worst (F-111). 1: Not counting the current occupant where we can't fully judge him yet, but he's not doing well.
- SJC_Hacker 1y agoWere those programs really on Rumsfeld, or was it the Congress/Senate ?
- mandevil 1y agoThe consistent emphasis on the value of speed and mobility over the other parts of the combat triangle (mobility-firepower-survivability)- to the detriment of them as weapons systems- is a sign that there was a coherent influence and direction being put on those programs, to their detriment, by the SecDef's office. Basically, Rummie's approach was to emphasize speed and mobility over all other aspects of fighting, and it created ships with high speed and little sustainability or effective mission packages (LCS) and ground vehicles which were hideously expensive and way too vulnerable (EFV, FCS). Some things that happened under him (like the F-22 line being closed permanently) were more due to Congress' than him, but those programs were closely associated with him and his office at the time, and were gigantic CF's that, in the best case, ended without a single production unit ever reaching service. I say this as someone who worked in Army procurement doing FCS things. In my opinion as someone who was there, it was Rumsfeld's baby, and it was such a disaster both Presidential candidates in 2008 promised to kill it. And it deserved that killing.
- mmaunder 1y agoIf mandatory access control (MAC)is the expectation and these guys haven’t built that in from the ground up, they’re going to find it very hard to bolt on later.
- terminalshort 1y agoEvery prototype I've ever built has been a throwaway POC. So nothing to bolt on later because the production version is built from scratch. I write a very different type of software, though, so not 100% sure if applicable here.
- catlifeonmars 1y agoThat’s a sane, disciplined approach. Not every organization has the discipline to do that though. I’ve seen plenty of prototypes end up as the final product with a bunch of patches bolted on.
- microdrum 1y agoThese are forcememed companies, unfortunately. Neither Palantir nor Anduril make a single thing that China doesn't, and neither one makes a single thing at attractive cost that would intimidate China in a conflict. They could disappear tomorrow with no impact to US military lethality.
- terminalshort 1y agoSource?
- aerostable_slug 1y agoBased on my direct personal experience, this is a counterfactual statement. It's sad when partisan politics so overwhelms discourse that people just make up nonsense because they don't like the CEO of a company.
- aegypti 1y ago“I personally don’t think that’s true, and it upsets me you believe it’s true” isn’t really an argument though. What are they making that would intimidate China, that China doesn’t already?
- aerostable_slug 1y agoCombat-proven software that helps put warheads on foreheads in compressed timescales. I'm not talking about development projects or what could happen, I'm referring to applications that are being used right now. There's a massive difference between something in a lab or in a paper presentation and code that is running in production and provably works. There are lots of individuals pushing up daisies that would attest to the effectiveness of Palantir's applications if they could still speak.
- relaxing 1y agoDude, gross. You don’t have to talk like that.
- mhb_eng 1y agoSomewhat old news, as a more recent article highlights that those issues have since been resolved. https://breakingdefense.com/2025/10/army-says-its-mitigated-critical-cybersecurity-deficiencies-in-early-ngc2-prototype/ https://breakingdefense.com/2025/10/army-says-its-mitigated-...
- aelaguiz 1y agoWhoever didn't get those contracts must be unhappy. That's how I read this type of story.
- stephc_int13 1y agoI don't think that anyone with first hand intel would be in the position to safely leak what is happening at those companies or their contractors, but I have the intuition that their founders are larping more than anything else. Nice toys. Not sure the tech has anything substantial or innovative under the hood.
- anondawg67 1y ago[dead]
- _whiteCaps_ 1y agoNaming military technology after things in LOTR completely misses the point of the stories. Tolkien is spinning in his grave.
- dlivingston 1y agoCan you expand on this?
- _whiteCaps_ 1y agoAndúril is Aragorn's sword. Palantíri are the seeing stones. I think this article has a good summary of Tolkien's experiences in the war: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_War_and_Middle-earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_War_and_Middle-earth
- rout39574 1y agoOne of the important roles of the Palantir was that they were scrying devices. Sauron gained some influence over them warped the impressions of those who used them, by affecting what they could and couldn't see. It was part of the subtle misinformation he used to twist people into alliance with him.
- roywiggins 1y agoit's at least a little funny to name your company in the business of secure communication products after a fictional communication device with a famous security flaw
- SJC_Hacker 1y agoThe novels, and movies to some extent hint heavily that industry/technology was used for evil far more than good, and in general the "forces of good" were more "attune with nature" than their opponents Example - Saruman clear cutting a good portion of Fangorn forest in order to strip mine it and produce weapons. Paywalled article in the Atlantic on this subject https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/fall-mortality-and-the-machine-tolkien-and-technology/260412/ https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/07/fall-... Brief exerpt: 'So it makes sense, then, that the chief exponents of technology in The Lord of the Rings are a demonic figure bent on world domination (Sauron) and a wizard (Saruman). Treebeard, the Ent or tree-shepherd, says of Saruman, "He is plotting to become a Power. He has a mind of metal and wheels; and he does not care for growing things, except as far as they serve him for the moment." '
- bpodgursky 1y agoRaising a PR disaster for problems with iterative prototypes is how you end up with traditional defense contractors with decade-long waterfall development cycles designed for neurotic ass-covering rather than effective feature delivery. Please don't sabotage national defense just for cheap shots at Palantir. This is the right way to develop defense tech. Make a prototype, see what works, iterate. Come on.
- sauercrowd 1y agoThis. Criticising a prototype that it doesn't do all the things of a finished product is... interesting
- indemnity 1y agoTactics straight out of the Simple Sabotage field manual. You’d think the audience of this website understood modern fast feedback loop iterative development to explore the problem space.
- jakedata 1y agoI thought the Department of WAR was switching over to a hacked version of Telegram Messenger for all its secure communications. If you see someone you don't know in the chat, don't worry it's probably just a journalist. Probably... (edited to add that this is based on actual events, not snark)
- mway 1y agoThis is admittedly petty, but I'm getting tired of bad actors reappropriating nerd lore (LotR) for nefarious products.
- snickerbockers 1y agoBut thats the palantir.
- RatchetWerks 1y agoI’ve directly worked in this space. This article is pure tabloid-style reporting. It sounds like they are testing prototypes, and it’s not ready for mass fielding. Nothing new here. Access/permissions control in military applications is VERY different when compared to the consumer or B2B space. It takes real field testing to figure what is best for the customer needs.
- bluelightning2k 1y agoAdmittedly my experience of what a battlefield comms system would look like comes only from games, but I think it needs emotes, flashy red low health indicator, and microtransactions.
- fishmicrowaver 1y agoDoesn't matter. Go to DC and get a tour of the Pentagon. You have a 50/50 chance of seeing Palantir/DOD counterparts physically hugging and talking about eachothers personal lives. Congratulations to them, they've won the game. And congrats SV, the rest of you hang up your phones when you might be the only plausible competitor for the next bid, because you think staying away from gov protects your values. All you're doing is letting the absolute worst of companies win.
- snickerbockers 1y agoAre you under the impression that silicon valley is some bastion of ethics and protector of liberty?
- fishmicrowaver 1y agoNo and I'm being unfair in my super hot take. However, many companies turn down opportunities, and were left with ...Palantir.
- newfriend 1y agoEverything has flaws. This smells like a hit piece.
- avazhi 1y ago‘May have flaws’ would be the accurate title but that wouldn’t get CNBC the clicks. Crying about being unable to audit a propriety system isn’t the same thing as demonstrating that the system itself is flawed.
- AfterHIA 1y agoLord Of The Rings obsessed computer dorks shouldn't be designing equipment as civilians that is life-and-death critical for Marines and soldiers. Prove me wrong. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_in_the_Game_(book) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_in_the_Game_(book)
- nikolay 1y agoI'm eager to see how Barracuda fails to make any difference in attacking Russia directly! Luckey needs to be grounded, literally - just like all arrogant assholes!
- photochemsyn 1y agoOh this is just the Israeli back door. What did you expect really? > "The Army should treat the NGC2 prototype version as “very high risk” because of the “likelihood of an adversary gaining persistent undetectable access," wrote Gabrielle Chiulli, the Army chief technology officer authorizing official."
- zombiwoof 1y ago[dead]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- realaaa 1y agojust give them Teams - problems solved ! :)