4 ms·

Well, this is just standard Aerospace grade software. I would be surprised if you could find a single controller in an airplane without some trivial login crede

Well, this is just standard Aerospace grade software. I would be surprised if you could find a single controller in an airplane without some trivial login credentials. Exposing software like that to the internet is of course a completely insane step.

Jtsummers 11mo ago
> Well, this is just standard Aerospace grade software. This is a groundside problem, and perhaps it is insane to have it exposed to the open internet but it's not on the aircraft. It needs to be exposed to some network because the intent is that fleet controllers (airlines, or in this case Navy) use it to reach out to their aircraft wherever they may be. That said, it absolutely fits the quality I've come to expect from IT systems developed by aerospace and defense companies.
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 11mo ago
  It meets all requirements! /s
  - deleted 11mo ago
    [deleted]
  - zppln 11mo ago
    Aerospace have been dealing with /safety/ for a long time, /security/ is another matter...
deepsun 11mo ago
Nowadays it's actually hard to not connect anything to internet. Better (and easier) to assume it's connected.
sumnole 11mo ago
> Well, this is just standard Aerospace grade software Can't be further from the truth. DOD software is given huge budgets where it's not surprising to see 3 separate teams performing QA for one software milestone. It's one of the few sectors that still plan software upfront waterfall style and implement strict procedures for traceability, change management, etc. Who else is using formal methods or safety critical stacks like ADA/Spark?
- Jtsummers 11mo ago
  > Who else is using formal methods or safety critical stacks like ADA/Spark? This is not actually as common as many people seem to believe. The mandate died almost two decades ago. DOD aircraft fly on Fortran, JOVIAL, C, and C++ more than Ada. And DOD IT systems are a clusterfuck. > It's one of the few sectors that still plan software upfront waterfall style That's not the good thing you seem to think it is. Also, why do you call it ADA? It's not an acronym. Amusingly, SPARK is, or was, and you write it as "Spark". It originally stood for "SPADE Ada Kernel" and the language continues to be stylized as SPARK.
  - sumnole 11mo ago
    Pedantics aside, not much reasoning against quality. Perhaps I've lucked out, but I've worked in many sectors and do not at all agree with sentiment here about DOD software quality. There is significant formal investment/research in DOD to improve operations, including taking the best of practices in commercial. In my experience, the worst of software is written by teams with little experience improvising under Agile and taking on tech debt with no time/resources to get things done the right way.
    - Jtsummers 11mo ago
      Can you point to a successful Waterfall project? A multi-million or billion dollar, 3+ year software development effort where a team figured out all the requirements correctly before writing a single line of code. Where they wrote every line of code correctly before testing it. And where testing was so spectacularly successful that they didn't have to go back and renegotiate the project requirements or dates to get extensions or reduced project scope. If you can do this, then I might believe you about Waterfall being the best approach out there. Right now your counter example is "teams with little experience" which is not much of an argument. Teams with little experience fail all the time, because they are inexperienced. Give them a $100 million Waterfall project to plan and execute over 3+ years and their failure would be even more spectacular.
    - ghc 11mo ago
      I just attended a DoD "Scrum of Scrums" meeting. > In my experience, the worst of software is written by teams with little experience improvising under Agile and taking on tech debt with no time/resources to get things done the right way. Sounds like every DoD software project I've worked on for the past 5 years.
downrightmike 11mo ago
root:root

Jtsummers 11mo ago

> Well, this is just standard Aerospace grade software. This is a groundside problem, and perhaps it is insane to have it exposed to the open internet but it's not on the aircraft. It needs to be exposed to some network because the intent is that fleet controllers (airlines, or in this case Navy) use it to reach out to their aircraft wherever they may be. That said, it absolutely fits the quality I've come to expect from IT systems developed by aerospace and defense companies.

2OEH8eoCRo0 11mo ago
It meets all requirements! /s
- deleted 11mo ago
  [deleted]
- zppln 11mo ago
  Aerospace have been dealing with /safety/ for a long time, /security/ is another matter...

deepsun 11mo ago

Nowadays it's actually hard to not connect anything to internet. Better (and easier) to assume it's connected.

sumnole 11mo ago

> Well, this is just standard Aerospace grade software Can't be further from the truth. DOD software is given huge budgets where it's not surprising to see 3 separate teams performing QA for one software milestone. It's one of the few sectors that still plan software upfront waterfall style and implement strict procedures for traceability, change management, etc. Who else is using formal methods or safety critical stacks like ADA/Spark?

Jtsummers 11mo ago
> Who else is using formal methods or safety critical stacks like ADA/Spark? This is not actually as common as many people seem to believe. The mandate died almost two decades ago. DOD aircraft fly on Fortran, JOVIAL, C, and C++ more than Ada. And DOD IT systems are a clusterfuck. > It's one of the few sectors that still plan software upfront waterfall style That's not the good thing you seem to think it is. Also, why do you call it ADA? It's not an acronym. Amusingly, SPARK is, or was, and you write it as "Spark". It originally stood for "SPADE Ada Kernel" and the language continues to be stylized as SPARK.
- sumnole 11mo ago
  Pedantics aside, not much reasoning against quality. Perhaps I've lucked out, but I've worked in many sectors and do not at all agree with sentiment here about DOD software quality. There is significant formal investment/research in DOD to improve operations, including taking the best of practices in commercial. In my experience, the worst of software is written by teams with little experience improvising under Agile and taking on tech debt with no time/resources to get things done the right way.
  - Jtsummers 11mo ago
    Can you point to a successful Waterfall project? A multi-million or billion dollar, 3+ year software development effort where a team figured out all the requirements correctly before writing a single line of code. Where they wrote every line of code correctly before testing it. And where testing was so spectacularly successful that they didn't have to go back and renegotiate the project requirements or dates to get extensions or reduced project scope. If you can do this, then I might believe you about Waterfall being the best approach out there. Right now your counter example is "teams with little experience" which is not much of an argument. Teams with little experience fail all the time, because they are inexperienced. Give them a $100 million Waterfall project to plan and execute over 3+ years and their failure would be even more spectacular.
  - ghc 11mo ago
    I just attended a DoD "Scrum of Scrums" meeting. > In my experience, the worst of software is written by teams with little experience improvising under Agile and taking on tech debt with no time/resources to get things done the right way. Sounds like every DoD software project I've worked on for the past 5 years.

downrightmike 11mo ago

root:root