Back to news

February 3, 2020 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security

Pentagon finalizes first set of cyber standards for contractors

Mark Pomerleau

The Pentagon has finalized the long anticipated cybersecurity standards contractors will have to follow before winning contracts from the Department of Defense, a new process called the Cybersecurity Maturity Model Certification (CMMC) 1.0.

The model is a tiered cybersecurity framework that grades companies on a scale of one to five based on the level of classification and security that necessary for the work they are performing.

“The government and the contractor community must keep working together to address real and growing cybersecurity threats, and we need a robust response to protect our infrastructure, information, and supply chains,” said David Berteau, president and chief executive of the Professional Services Council, a trade association for federal contractors. “With today's announcement, DoD has achieved a significant milestone.

Here's what industry officials need to know about the version finalized Jan. 31.

Why it was needed

Previously, the Pentagon did not have unified standard for cybersecurity that businesses needed to follow when bidding for contracts. Companies could claim to meet certain industry standards for cybersecurity, but those assertions were not tested by auditors, nor did the standards take into account the type of work a company was bidding to complete. Since then, defense officials have said that cybersecurity is not a one size fits all approach.

In the meantime, adversaries have discovered it is easier to target unsuspecting down tier suppliers, rather than prime contractors.

“Adversaries know that in today's great power competition environment, information and technology are both key cornerstones and attacking a sub-tier supplier is far more appealing than a prime,” Ellen Lord, the under secretary of defense for acquisition and sustainment, told reporters in a briefing at the Pentagon Jan. 31.

Officials have said cyber theft by adversaries costs the United States about $600 billion a year.

What will change?

Contracts will mandate bidders reach a certain level of certification to win specific jobs. For example, if businesses aren't bidding on a contract that has extremely sensitive information, they must only achieve the first level of certification, which involves basic cybersecurity such as changing passwords and running antivirus software. More sensitive programs will require more stringent controls.

Smaller companies down the supply chain will not, however, have to have the same level of certification as primes, said Katie Arrington, chief information security officer for the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and the point person for the certification.

Another significant change with the new process is the creation of an accreditation board and assessors. The board is an outside entity, separate from DoD, that will be charged with approving assessors to certify companies in the process.

The accreditation body was formed earlier this month and officials are working on identifying and training the assessors, which will be called Certified Third-Party Assessment Organizations (C3PAO).

What's next?

Officials explained Jan. 31 that CMMC will follow a crawl, walk, run approach to ensure companies aren't unprepared for the change. The accreditation board is in the process of training the auditors that will oversee the certificaion. Once the requirements are met, a company's certification is good for 3 years.

In the meantime, DoD plans to release 10 requests for information and 10 requests for proposals that will include the new cyber standards this year. The first solicitation could come as early as June.

Arrington said earlier this week that she expects 1,500 companies to be certified by the end of 2021.

She added that all new contracts starting in fiscal year 2026 will contain the cybersecurity requirements, however, Lord noted that they will not be not retroactive to previous contracts.

https://www.fifthdomain.com/dod/2020/01/31/pentagon-finalizes-first-set-of-cyber-standards-for-contractors/

On the same subject

  • Britain’s shipbuilding strategy has not gone according to plan — and industry is noticing

    September 10, 2019 | International, Naval

    Britain’s shipbuilding strategy has not gone according to plan — and industry is noticing

    By: Andrew Chuter LONDON — Confronted with the dilemma of maintaining a naval industrial base after the completion of two 65,000-ton aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy, the British government two years ago launched a national shipbuilding strategy aimed at building an efficient sector, and thus keeping skills and capacity alive. But the strategy has failed to work out exactly as planned. Two yards closed this year and a third was rescued by nationalization. Meanwhile in the supply chain, the Ministry of Defence had to act quickly on ordering the motor for the Type 26 frigate to prevent the contractor from moving its capabilities to France. Former shipyard boss Peter Parker, who authored the original shipbuilding strategy, delivered a review of the strategy's status to the MoD, but the update remains under wraps, with no firm timing announced for its publication. One key element of the strategy included procurement of five general-purpose frigates for the Royal Navy to be competed for by local shipyards in an effort to end BAE Systems' maritime monopoly in Britain. Another included an international competition for up to three 40,000-ton fleet solid support ships. Both programs have subsequently run into stormy waters. Paul Everitt, the chief executive of ADS, the lobby group that represents British defense, aerospace and security companies, said it's important to continue to support the strategy, even as some of the impetus has been lost. “We need to stick with the national shipbuilding strategy. It marks a significant shift in the MoD's approach to procurement. The area that has been challenging, though, is that progress has been hindered by the political uncertainty around Brexit and the future size of MoD budgets,” Everitt said, referring to Britain's exit from the European Union. “Some of the decisions that would help to give industry the longer-term certainty they require to invest or hang in there aren't being made,” he added. “Where do we go next ? It is really about the MoD creating certainty around a pipeline of work from all the key programs, all of which should offer significant amounts of work to U.K. industry over the next 15 years.” Shipyard survival Not everyone remains signed up to the shipbuilding strategy, however. Defense commentator Howard Wheeldon, of Wheeldon Strategic Advisory, is unsure about the relevance of the strategy. “It's no longer fit for purpose. We have moved on. More shipyards have closed due to lack of work, and we should not kid ourselves that a commercial shipyard that has little or no expertise in building Navy ships can take on the responsibility and risk that the government requires,” Wheeldon said. “If the government has any belief in the strategy, it will ensure that contracts for the fleet [solid] support ships will be placed in U.K. shipyards. If it fails, then we must conclude that it has neither belief in its own strategy or in ensuring that we retain the sovereign capability that a nation such as the U.K. needs,” he added. An international competition to build two or three fleet solid support ships has been underway for months, with the bidders narrowed down to Navantia of Spain, Japan Marine United Corp., and a homemade consortium made up of BAE Systems, Babcock International, Cammell Laird and Rolls-Royce, known as Team UK. The MoD opened the deal to foreign bidders, reasoning that the vessels were not warships and therefore, under European Union regulations, the competition must be open to all. Now, though, the tide seems to be turning in favor of British yards taking a bigger share of the work than just the fitting of locally made sensitive kit. One senior industry executive, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the “current fleet solid support [ship] procurement plan is not really tenable with the current government team and a shipbuilding strategy which is in danger of becoming unstitched.” “The government will have come under huge pressure on this issue at every political level. You have a new procurement minister, [Marie-Anne Trevelyn], who only a couple of months ago put her name to a parliamentary report supporting building the ships in the U.K.; you have a Brexiter defense secretary in Ben Wallace; and [Prime Minister Boris] Johnson himself,” the industry executive said. “Is that trio likely to award a contract to a Spanish yard?” Whatever the outcome, it's too late for two of the yards. Babcock's Appledore yard in southwest England closed in early 2019 after the completion of an offshore patrol boat for the Irish Naval Service. Additionally, Harland & Wolff recently went into insolvency proceedings with its Belfast, Northern Ireland, yard that famously built the Titanic — although there remains a chance a buyer could be found for the facility. In Glasgow, shipbuilder Ferguson's nationalization by the Scottish government was announced Aug. 16 after the yard went over time and over budget with a commercial ferry contract it won. Harland & Wolff was the lead U.K. yard in a proposal by German-based Atlas Elektronik to build Type 31e frigates for the Royal Navy. The yard's demise could scuttle the German company's bid, although parent company Thyssenkrupp has a history of reviving cold yards. Atlas isn't the only company with Harland & Wolff on its team. Babcock also listed the Northern Ireland yard in its Type 31e proposal at one stage and also named Ferguson as a subcontractor. Britain has shortlisted three contenders for the Type 31e requirement: Atlas, Babcock and BAE Systems. A decision on a winner is expected this year, although there has been speculation it could come during or soon after the DSEI trade show in September. Second-order effects The supply chain has not been immune from difficulties either. GE Power, which provides power-conversion systems for Royal Navy warships, announced it was closing its Rugby site in Central England and relocating the work to France. In response, the MoD ordered motors for a second batch of Type 26s to prevent the move, even though BAE does not yet have a deal to build the warships. The industry executive said the GE Power episode highlighted a weakness in Britain's shipbuilding strategy. “GE proved the point: It [the strategy] didn't really address the criticality of the supply chain. It assumed the criticality was all about shipyards,” he said. “The other fundamental flaw with it was you were never going to keep all the U.K. yards in business if you were going to put the fleet solid support ship deal offshore.” The situation certainly isn't improved by the political turmoil at the MoD and in wider government. Defense and procurement leaders have been coming and going with alarming regularity for years , particularly since the government adopted the shipbuilding strategy in September 2017. Penny Mordaunt, the pro-Navy, pro-buy-British defense secretary, lasted just more than 60 days before she found herself backing the wrong candidate in a Conservative Party leadership contest, which resulted in Johnson becoming prime minister on July 24. Given the current political uncertainties, there is no guarantee how long the new administration will last. With the Brexit debate occupying the government nearly 24/7, defense has barely rated a mention by the Johnson government; that is, other than during the furor caused by the Royal Navy's inability to stop the seizure of a British-registered tanker by Iran on July 19. The uncertainties have come at a time of mixed fortunes for the British maritime sector. Yards may be closing, but set against that is the Type 26 anti-submarine frigate design scoring major export successes in Australia and Canada — successes that could put Britain back on the maritime export map in a big way. Neither of the export customers will have their frigates built in the U.K., but the deals open the door to potentially billions of pounds of orders for the British supply chain. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2019/09/08/britains-shipbuilding-strategy-has-not-gone-according-to-plan-and-industry-is-noticing/

  • Helsinki dispose de 11 milliards pour son nouvel avion

    October 15, 2019 | International, Aerospace

    Helsinki dispose de 11 milliards pour son nouvel avion

    Pascal Kümmerling Le gouvernement finlandais a fixé un plafond de 11 milliards de dollars américains pour l'achat du futur avion de combat a annoncé mercredi le ministère de la Défense. Le plafond financier comprendra le coût d'achat de nouveaux jets, de leurs armes et de divers systèmes au sol. Le projet vise à remplacer la flotte actuelle de 64 avions de combat F/A-18C/D « Hornet » achetés aux États-Unis au début des années 90. Le ministre finlandais de la Défense, Antti Kaikkonen, a déclaré que le nombre de nouveaux avions à acheter pourrait être supérieur ou égal au niveau actuel et espérait qu'il ne serait pas inférieur. Les bases du projet La Finlande ne veut pas sacrifier sa capacité d'engagement en temps de paix et doit pouvoir compter sur une dotation lui permettant un engagement sur de longs mois en cas de situation tendue au niveau international. Pour ce faire la Force aérienne veut un minimum de 64 nouveaux avions de combat multirôle, soit la même dotation qu'actuellement. Pour la Finlande il n'est pas question de sacrifier sa capacité d'action. L'avion doit pouvoir évoluer en réseau connecté avec les systèmes de défenses au sol et le reste de l'armée. A noter, que la Finlande estime que les coûts à l'heure de vol pourraient atteindre trois fois le montant du prix d'achat sur une période de 30 ans. Cette donnée sera prise en compte pour le choix final. Les aéronefs en compétition On retrouve une nouvelle fois les grands classiques du moment, avec le Lockheed-Martin F-35 «Lightning II», le Saab JAS-39 Gripen E MS21, l'Eurofighter «Typhoon II» T3A/B Block20 et le Dassault Rafale F3-R, ainsi que le Boeing F/A-18 E/F « Advanced Super Hornet ». Essais techniques La Finlande a observé avec intérêt les essais des quatre avions effectués ce printemps dans notre pays à Payerne. Le pays procédera également à des tests techniques qui seront effectués en Finlande cet hiver. Mais avant cela, le pays enverra des demandes d'offre plus détaillées aux candidats durant l'automne. Les dernières offres seront organisées en 2020. Le gouvernement finlandais fera son choix en 2021. Le Hornet en Finlande C'est en 1992 que la Finlande décida d'acquérir 64 F/A-18 C/D «Hornet» pour remplacer les bons vieux MiG-21 et Saab J-35 «Draken». A l'époque, les Hornet finlandais ne sont pas complètement équipés, notamment en matière de guerre électronique et d'avionique, ce qui avait permis à l'époque de faire baisser le prix d'achat. Mais dès le début des années 2000, la Finlande décida d'équiper ses « Hornet » des systèmes manquants. Depuis les « Hornet » finlandais ont reçu les missiles air-air à moyenne portée de type AIM-120 AMRAAM avec un système de système de visée plus performant et de doter ceux-ci, du système de guerre électronique AN/ALQ-67. Le groupe de travail du ministère de la Défense finlandais a recommandé que la flotte de F/A-18C/D puisse entrer en retraite durant la période 2025-2030. A signaler, que la Finlande considère que le coût d'un programme d'extension de vie des « Hornet » est à la fois risqué et prohibitif. https://blogs.letemps.ch/pascal-kuemmerling/2019/10/13/helsinki-dispose-de-11-milliards-pour-son-nouvel-avion/

  • Hanwha-led team launches Redback vehicle for Australian Army competition

    January 13, 2021 | International, Land

    Hanwha-led team launches Redback vehicle for Australian Army competition

    By: Mike Yeo MELBOURNE, Australia — Hanwha-led Team Redback officially launched its Redback infantry fighting vehicle on Tuesday ahead of delivering three for evaluation trials as part of a risk mitigation effort for the Australian Army. The infantry fighting vehicles are undergoing trials as part of Project Land 400 Phase 3, which is tasked to acquire about 450 tracked IFVs that will replace Australia's fleet of M113AS4 armored personnel carriers. The Redback, which is named after a venomous spider found in Australia, is up against Rheinmetall's Lynx KF41 for the program, which is due to announce a winner in 2022. The risk mitigation effort involves detailed test and evaluation of the vehicles throughout 2021 with the aim of providing objective quality evidence to support a government decision on the preferred platform. Team Redback is the group of companies led by Hanwha Defense Australia, and includes Electro Optic Systems, Elbit Systems and several other Australian companies. Protection for the Redback meets STANAG Level 6 requirements (a NATO standard), and is fitted with a range of active and passive protection systems in addition to survivable seats in the troop compartment, a floating floor to mitigate the effects of mines or improvised explosive devices, and Plasan-made add-on armor. The passive protection system includes Elbit laser warning devices providing all-around coverage, while active protection comes in the form of the Israeli company's Iron Fist active protection system. The Redback is based on South Korea's AS21 infantry fighting vehicle and is fitted with an EOS T2000 turret mounting a Mk44S Bushmaster II 30mm cannon and a 7.62mm coaxially mounted machine gun. An EOS R400 four-axis remote weapons station is also mounted on the turret roof and can be fitted with a range of weapons including machine guns or an automatic grenade launcher. Grant Sanderson, CEO of the Defense Systems division at Electro Optic Systems, told Defense News that the coronavirus pandemic has slowed efforts to integrate the turret, pointing out that having to fly engineers between Australia, Israel and South Korea has been a challenge. However, the lethality testing of the integrated turret is continuing and is expected to culminate in a live-fire demonstration of the turret with Australian optics and systems in August. The Redback is also designed with ride comfort in mind, with rubber tracks and independent suspension in lieu of more common metal running gear and torsion bar suspension. Hanwha added that noise reduction measures has also meant it is possible to conduct conversations in the troop compartment, even when the vehicle is moving. https://www.defensenews.com/industry/2021/01/12/hanwha-led-team-launches-redback-vehicle-for-australian-army-competition/

All news