Canada Wants Armed Drones in the Air by 2025

On the same subject

• 

  December 7, 2018 | Local, Aerospace

  Senate committee outlines recommendations for Canadian SAR

  by Ken Pole As the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) gears up for the late 2019 arrival of the first of 16 new Airbus CC-295 fixed-wing search and rescue (FWSAR) aircraft, a Senate committee said the government should consider the deployment of even more search and rescue (SAR) aircraft. “This would be a multi-year, mega-government dollar capital procurement project,” the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans acknowledged in an exhaustive new report, When Every Minute Counts: Maritime Search and Rescue. “Repositioning current aeronautical SAR assets is not feasible . . . at this time because the fleet is fully utilized.” The November 2018 report is based on more than two years of study and hearings, which wrapped up in October. While most witnesses were heard in Ottawa — including senior RCAF, Canadian Coast Guard (CCG) and Transport Canada officials, as well as representatives of several industries — the committee also travelled to bases across the country as well as visiting officials and SAR facilities in England, Ireland, Norway and Denmark. RCAF fixed- and rotary-wing assets are a key element in covering nearly 18 million square kilometres of land and sea. In 2017, the Joint Rescue Coordination Centres in Victoria, Trenton and Halifax responded to 10,003 SAR calls, 62 per cent of them maritime. The committee predicts that the number of calls in the Arctic will increase as global warming results in a longer ice-free navigation period. Accordingly, the report recommends that the CCG establish additional primary search and rescue stations in the Canadian Arctic, where no SAR aircraft are currently based. It also calls on the Department of National Defence (DND) to authorize a pilot project which would see private civilian helicopters provide coverage in the North as well as in Newfoundland and Labrador, where the committee says “a disproportionately high number” of SAR incidents occur. In addition to the possible privatization of some missions (CHC Helicopter and Cougar Helicopters Inc. appeared before the committee), the committee also said the CCG should be an independent agency. “The Canadian Coast Guard . . . is hampered by its position within Fisheries and Oceans Canada, which leaves it at the mercy of the department for funding and prevents it from receiving long-term sustainable capital funding.” SAR reaction times were also an issue for the committee. It was told that the CCG's official time is 30 minutes from when a helicopter or ship is tasked until it departs, but that it usually takes less than 15 minutes in the case of a surface vessel, because they are probably on the water already. In comparison, the RCAF has a reaction time of 30 minutes during a typical eight-hour working day five days a week, and two hours at all other times. “Like the CCG vessels, the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) crews are often airborne sooner than the targeted reaction time, around 20 minutes during working hours and one hour outside of working hours,” the committee notes. “However, there was considerable discussion regarding what witnesses called the CAF's ‘two-tier reaction time.' It was stressed that the two-hour reaction time guaranteed outside of working hours had . . . resulted in missions becoming recovery-oriented instead of rescue-oriented. In their view, the CAF should have a reaction time of 30 minutes, 24/7/365, like the CCG.” DND witnesses told the committee the concern had been addressed “to the extent possible” and it was the responsibility of SAR commanders in the three regions to align the 30-minute reaction time to coincide with the observed periods of greatest maritime SAR activity. “Overall, the committee was told that shifting the regular weekly schedules without increasing the total number of hours worked has improved readiness.” It also was told it was impossible for the RCAF to maintain 30-minute readiness at all times because “pilots and SAR aircrew members have a limit on how long they can engage in flying operations.” Sustaining a 30-minute target would require crews to remain poised on flight lines. “The two-hour reaction time allows the pilots and aircrews to be ‘fresh' and able to deliver a SAR response for up to 14, 16, 18 hours, which allows them to then go longer, further distances. Moreover, the increased level of readiness would require more aircraft, add more maintenance and necessitate infrastructure upgrades.” The committee says that despite improvements, Canada's SAR reaction time is “not at par” with other countries. “Aeronautical SAR assets operated in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Denmark respond within 15 minutes during the day and between 30 and 45 minutes at night.” The committee says that given current shortfalls in the RCAF's pilot, flight engineer and SAR Technician cadres, it isn't possible to impose similar reaction times on RCAF crews. But it says it hopes the RCAF will reconsider its reaction time targets once personnel shortages are addressed. https://www.skiesmag.com/news/senate-committee-outlines-recommendations-for-canadian-sar

• 

  August 5, 2019 | Local, Security

  Hacker Community to Take on DARPA Hardware Defenses at DEF CON 2019

  This month, DARPA will bring a demonstration version of a secure voting ballot box equipped with hardware defenses in development on the System Security Integrated Through Hardware and Firmware (SSITH) program to the DEF CON 2019 Voting Machine Hacking Village (Voting Village). The SSITH program is developing methodologies and design tools that enable the use of hardware advances to protect systems against software exploitation of hardware vulnerabilities. To evaluate progress on the program, DARPA is incorporating the secure processors researchers are developing into a secure voting ballot box and turning the system loose for public assessment by thousands of hackers and DEF CON community members. Many of today's hardware defenses cover very specific instances or vulnerabilities, leaving much open to attack or compromise. Instead of tackling individual instances, SSITH researchers are building defenses that address classes of vulnerabilities. In particular, SSITH is tackling seven vulnerabilities classes identified by the NIST Common Weakness Enumeration Specification (CWE), which span exploitation of permissions and privilege in the system architectures, memory errors, information leakage, and code injection. “There are a whole set of cyber vulnerabilities that happen in electronic systems that are at their core due to hardware vulnerabilities – or vulnerabilities that hardware could block,” said Dr. Linton Salmon, the program manager leading SSITH. “Current efforts to provide electronic security largely rely on robust software development and integration, utilizing an endless cycle of developing and deploying patches to the software firewall without addressing the underlying hardware vulnerability. The basic concept around SSITH is to make hardware a more significant participant in cybersecurity, rather than relegating system security only to software.” Under the SSITH program, researchers are exploring a number of different design approaches that go well beyond patching. These include using metadata tagging to detect unauthorized system access; employing formal methods to reason about integrated circuit systems and guarantee the accuracy of security characteristics; and combining hardware performance counters (HPCs) with machine learning to detect attacks and establish protective fences within the hardware. One team from the University of Michigan is developing a novel security approach that changes the unspecified semantics of a system every 50 milliseconds. Currently, attackers continuously probe a system to locate these undefined sections and, over time, are able to create a system map to identify possible hacks. By changing the construct every 50 milliseconds, attackers do not have enough time to find those weaknesses or develop an accurate representation of the system as a whole. To evaluate the hardware security concepts in development on the SSITH program, DARPA – working with Galois – is pursuing a voting system evaluation effort to provide a demonstration system that facilitates open challenges. The program elected to use a voting system as its demonstration platform to provide researchers with an accessible application that can be evaluated in an open forum. Further, the topic of election system security has become an increasingly critical area of concern for the hacker and security community, as well as the United States more broadly. “DARPA focuses on creating technologies to enhance national defense, and election system security falls within that remit. Eroding trust in the election process is a threat to the very fabric of our democracy,” noted Salmon. While protecting democracy is a critical national defense issue, SSITH is not trying to solve all issues with election system security nor is it working to provide a specific solution to use during elections. “We expect the voting booth demonstrator to provide tools, concepts, and ideas that the election enterprise can use to increase security, however, our true aim is to improve security for all electronic systems. This includes election equipment, but also defense systems, commercial devices, and beyond,” said Salmon. During DEF CON 2019, the SSITH voting system demonstrator will consist of a set of RISC-V processors that the research teams will modify to include their SSITH security features. These processors will be mounted on field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs) and incorporated into a secure ballot box. Hackers will have access to the system via an Ethernet port as well as a USB port, through which they can load software or other attacks to challenge the SSITH hardware. Since SSITH's research is still in the early stages, only two prototype versions of the 15 processors in development will be available for evaluation. “At this year's Voting Village, hackers may find issues with the processors and quite frankly we would consider that a success. We want to be transparent about the technologies we are creating and find any problems in these venues before the technology is placed in another venue where a compromise could be more dangerous,” said Salmon. Following DEF CON 2019, the voting system evaluation effort will go on a university roadshow where additional cybersecurity experts will have an opportunity to further analyze and hack the technology. In 2020, DARPA plans to return to DEF CON with an entire voting system, which will incorporate fixes to the issues discovered during the previous year's evaluation efforts. The 2020 demonstrator will use the STAR-Vote system architecture, which is a documented, open source architecture that includes a system of microprocessors for the voting booth, ballot box, and other components. It also includes a verifiable paper ballot, providing both digital and physical representations of the votes cast within the booth. “While the 2020 demonstrator will provide a better representation of the full attack surface, the exercise will not result in a deployable voting system. To aid in the advancement of secure election equipment as well as electronic systems more broadly, the hardware design approaches and techniques developed during the SSITH program will be made available to the community as open-source items,” concluded Salmon. https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2019-08-01

• 

  April 9, 2020 | Local, Land, Security

  Why Canadians and Americans are buying guns during the coronavirus pandemic

  The COVID-19 pandemic has caused a surge in gun sales. Estimates based on background checks show that an estimated 2.6 million guns were sold in the United States in March. That is an 85 per cent increase over the same period last year. While there are no official numbers, gun stores in Canada have also reported increased sales. This has spurred some news media to draw comparisons between the two nations' gun-sales spikes, potentially stoking the fears of the Canadian public. This angst has been echoed by gun control groups in Canada that have expressed concerns regarding the impact of “increased access to guns” on public health. But few have noted the three key differences between the American and Canadian COVID-19 gun-sales spike. No. 1: Why are they buying? Canadians and Americans buy guns for different reasons. Over the past few decades, the United States has witnessed a transformation in its civilian gun culture. While in the past, gun ownership was mainly related to hunting and sports shooting, changes in laws and gun advertising have led to a rise in gun ownership for self-defence. In the 1970s, only 20 per cent of gun owners indicated self-defence as their primary reason for gun ownership. In the 1990s, following the explosion of laws that allowed Americans to carry guns outside the home, 46 per cent listed self-protection. More recent studies have shown that 76 per cent of gun owners now report protection as their primary motivation for gun ownership. The surge in first-time buyers suggests that many Americans buying guns during the pandemic are doing so due to concerns about self-defence, given fears of looting, violence and the government's capacity to deal with the crisis. With the absence of a gun-carry movement in Canada, this same shift has not taken place. The conditions under which guns can be used for self-defence in Canada are narrow, and the government stringently regulates not only firearms ownership, but the discourse surrounding guns. Self-defence is not a legal reason to acquire a firearm in Canada, and cannot be listed as a reason for firearms ownership on a Possession and Acquisition License (PAL) application. Though no research exists at this time, owners of gun stores who were interviewed by the media noted that Canadians are likely panic-buying due to a fear of shortages rather than a fear of violence, since the Canadian supply chain is heavily dependent on the United States. That means gun owners who might have waited to buy firearms and ammunition for target shooting over the summer or hunting this fall are buying them now. No. 2: How are they buying them? Another key difference between the bump in sales in Canada versus the U.S. is the requirements to purchase guns and ammunition. South of the border, most firearms legislation is made at the state level, with big differences in gun laws across the country. In many states, the only requirement to purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer is a federal background check, though states like California and Massachusetts have much stricter laws. In Canada, the bump in sales is limited to those who have already passed through the RCMP's extensive licensing regime. This process often takes up to six months and includes a weekend-long course, passing a written and practical test and reference checks. Canadian gun owners are subject to continuous automatic background checks as long as they hold the licence. So if somebody is legally purchasing a gun in Canada, it means the RCMP could find “no reasons why, in the interest of public safety, they should not possess a firearm.” No. 3: Who is buying what? Many of the people buying guns in the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic reported that it was their first time purchasing a gun. Furthermore, the majority of guns sold during the current boom have been handguns rather than long guns. Though it's a bit early to speculate, this could very well lead to even less support for gun control in the U.S., given that gun owners are unsurprisingly the least likely group to support gun control. In Canada, on the other hand, it is likely that only a small minority of gun purchases during the Canadian spike were first-time buyers given the time frame required to acquire a firearm licence in Canada. Statistics on the breakdown of handguns versus long gun purchases during the Canadian pandemic spike don't exist, but we can guess that most of the new guns purchased in Canada were long guns being used for hunting or sports shooting. That's because gun owners wishing to own handguns must have a special Restricted Possession and Acquisition License (RPAL) and maintain a membership at a shooting club, which can cost hundreds of dollars per year and limits handgun ownership to serious target shooters. Of Canada's 2.2 million licensed gun owners, only about a quarter have licences that allow them to purchase handguns. And so it's clear there are major differences between the gun purchase spikes in Canada and the U.S. during the COVID-19 pandemic. This will hopefully set anxious Canadian minds at ease and let everyone get back to focusing on more pressing problems. https://theconversation.com/why-canadians-and-americans-are-buying-guns-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic-135409