Back to news

September 30, 2020 | International, C4ISR, Security

The DoD needs data-centric security, and here’s why

Drew Schnabel

The U.S. Department of Defense is set to adopt an initial zero-trust architecture by the end of the calendar year, transitioning from a network-centric to a data-centric modern security model.

Zero trust means an organization does not inherently trust any user. Trust must be continually assessed and granted in a granular fashion. This allows defense agencies to create policies that provide secure access for users connecting from any device, in any location.

“This paradigm shift from a network-centric to a data-centric security model will affect every arena of our cyber domain, focusing first on how to protect our data and critical resources and then secondarily on our networks,” Vice Adm. Nancy Norton, director of the Defense Information Systems Agency and commander of the Joint Force Headquarters-Department of Defense Information Network, said at a virtual conference in July.

How does the Pentagon's AI center plan to give the military a battlefield advantage?

The Pentagon's artificial intelligence hub is working on tools to help in joint, all-domain operations as department leaders seek to use data to gain an advantage on the battlefield.

Andrew Eversden

To understand how the DoD will benefit from this new zero-trust security model, it's important to understand the department's current Joint Information Environment, or JIE, architecture; the initial intent of this model; and why the JIE can't fully protect modern networks, mobile users and advanced threats.

Evolving DoD information security

The JIE framework was developed to address inefficiencies of siloed architectures. The goal of developing a single security architecture, or SSA, with JIE was to collapse network security boundaries, reduce the department's external attack surface and standardize management operations. This framework helped ensure that defense agencies and mission partners could share information securely while reducing required maintenance and continued infrastructure expenditures.

Previously, there were more than 190 agency security stacks located at the base/post/camp/station around the globe. Now, with the JIE architecture, there are just 22 security stacks centrally managed by the Defense Information Systems Agency to provide consistent security for users, regardless of location.

“This paradigm shift from a network-centric to a data-centric security model will affect every arena of our cyber domain, focusing first on how to protect our data and critical resources and then secondarily on our networks,” Vice Adm. Nancy Norton, director of the Defense Information Systems Agency and commander of the Joint Force Headquarters-Department of Defense Information Network, said at a virtual conference in July.

To understand how the DoD will benefit from this new zero-trust security model, it's important to understand the department's current Joint Information Environment, or JIE, architecture; the initial intent of this model; and why the JIE can't fully protect modern networks, mobile users and advanced threats.

Evolving DoD information security

The JIE framework was developed to address inefficiencies of siloed architectures. The goal of developing a single security architecture, or SSA, with JIE was to collapse network security boundaries, reduce the department's external attack surface and standardize management operations. This framework helped ensure that defense agencies and mission partners could share information securely while reducing required maintenance and continued infrastructure expenditures.

Previously, there were more than 190 agency security stacks located at the base/post/camp/station around the globe. Now, with the JIE architecture, there are just 22 security stacks centrally managed by the Defense Information Systems Agency to provide consistent security for users, regardless of location.

Initially, the JIE was an innovative concept that took the DoD from a highly fragmented architecture, in which each agency managed its own cybersecurity strategy, to an architecture in which there is a unified SSA.

However, one of the early challenges identified for the JIE was managing cloud cybersecurity as part of the SSA. The components in the JIE — the Joint Regional Security Stacks family's internet access points and cloud access points — have traditionally focused on securing the network, rather than the data or user.

As more DoD employees and contractors work remotely and data volumes increase, hardware cannot scale to support them. This has created ongoing concerns with performance, reliability, latency and cost.

A cloud-first approach

In response, the DoD leverages authorized solutions from the Federal Risk and Authorization Management Program, and it references the Secure Cloud Computing Architecture guidance for a standard approach for boundary and application-level security for impact Level 4 and 5 data hosted in commercial cloud environments.

The purpose of the SCCA is to provide a barrier of protection between the DoD Information Services Network and the commercial cloud services that the DoD uses while optimizing the cost-performance trade in cybersecurity.

Defense agencies are now exploring enterprise-IT-as-a-service options to move to cloud, and reduce the need for constant updates and management of hardware. Through enterprise-IT-as-a-service models, defense agencies will be able to scale easily, reduce management costs and achieve a more competitive edge over their adversaries.

Before the pandemic hit, defense agencies were already moving to support a more mobile workforce, where employees can access data from anywhere on any device. However, a cyber-centric military requires security to be more deeply ingrained into employee culture rather than physical protection of the perimeter.

The next evolution to secure DISA and DoD networks is to embrace a secure access edge model with zero-trust capabilities. The SASE model moves essential security functions — such as web gateway firewalls, zero-trust capabilities, data loss prevention and secure network connectivity — all to the cloud. Then, federal employees have direct access to the cloud, while security is pushed as close to the user/data/device as possible.

SP 800-27, zero-trust guidance from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, provides a road map to migrate and deploy zero trust across the enterprise environment. This guidance outlines the necessary tenants of zero trust, including securing all communication regardless of network location, and granting access on a per-session basis. This creates a least-privilege-access model to ensure the right person, device and service have access to the data they need while protecting high-value assets.

As the DoD transforms the JIE architecture to an as-a-service model with zero-trust capabilities, defense agencies will experience cost savings, greater scalability, better performance for the end user and war fighter, improved visibility, and control across DoD networks — and ultimately a stronger and more holistic cybersecurity capability moving forward.

https://www.c4isrnet.com/opinion/2020/09/29/the-dod-needs-data-centric-security-and-heres-why/

On the same subject

  • L'Inde commence l'assemblage du prototype de l'AMCA, son avion de combat multi rôle de 5ème génération

    March 18, 2022 | International, Aerospace

    L'Inde commence l'assemblage du prototype de l'AMCA, son avion de combat multi rôle de 5ème génération

    L'entreprise d'état indienne HAL (Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd) a annoncé la fabrication du premier bord d'attaque du prototype de l'avion de combat multi rôle indien 5ème génération AMCA (Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft). Le premier vol est prévu « pour 2024-2025 avec une mise en production début 2030 », selon Air & Cosmos. L'AMCA, d'une masse de 25 tonnes, aura une charge utile interne de 1.5 tonne et une charge utile externe de 5.5 tonnes en addition de 6.5 tonnes de carburant. Il sera disponible en version furtive et non furtive. Concernant ses deux moteurs, ses variantes connaîtront deux étapes : une version MK1 équipée des moteurs GE414 qui équipent le LCA Tejas (génération précédente d'avions de combats indiens), puis une version MK2 équipée d'une motorisation plus puissante (110kN, légèrement en dessous du NGF). « Un accord de collaboration devrait être signé prochainement avec Safran ou Rolls-Royce pour le développement de ce moteur », souligne Air & Cosmos, qui rappelle que Safran a déjà travaillé avec HAL sur le développement du moteur Shakti de son hélicoptère ALH. Air & Cosmos du 18 mars

  • Bulgaria details armoured vehicle procurement

    August 7, 2018 | International, Land

    Bulgaria details armoured vehicle procurement

    Igor Bozinovski The Bulgarian Ministry of Defence (MoD) on 25 July placed details online of the project to procure 150 armoured vehicles for the Bulgarian Land Forces (BuLF). The 17-page document was approved by Bulgaria's Council of Ministers on 16 May. The BGN1.224 billion (USD722 million) BuLF modernisation project calls for BGN810 million to be spent on the acquisition of at least 90 armoured combat vehicles, and BGN414 million on at least 60 special and support vehicles. In addition, BGN240 million is planned for the acquisition of related equipment, documentation, personnel training, training and simulation equipment, an automated fire control system for a self-propelled mortar battery, and related communication and information systems. Full Article: https://www.janes.com/article/82190/bulgaria-details-armoured-vehicle-procurement

  • F-35 Propulsion Upgrade Moves Forward Despite Uncertainty

    July 22, 2020 | International, Aerospace

    F-35 Propulsion Upgrade Moves Forward Despite Uncertainty

    Steve Trimble July 21, 2020 An F-35B completed the first landing at sea on the USS Wasp in 2013. The Joint Program Office is considering thrust upgrades to increase the F-35B's “bring-back” payload to a carrier. Credit: MCSN Michael T. Forbes II/U.S. Navy Stabilizing the production system and securing a funded, long-term upgrade plan are now the main objectives for Pratt & Whitney's F135 propulsion system for the Lockheed Martin F-35. Although first delivered for ground--testing 17 years ago, the F135 remains a lifeline in Pratt's combat aircraft engines portfolio for new-development funding. The U.S. military engines market is entering an era of transition with great uncertainty for the timing of the next major combat aircraft program. Enhancement Package replaces “Growth Option” New F-35 propulsion road map due in six months The transition era begins with the likely pending delivery of Pratt's most secretive development project. In 2016, the U.S. Air Force named Pratt as one of seven major suppliers for the Northrop Grumman B-21 bomber. The Air Force also has set the first flight of the B-21 for around December 2021. That timing means Pratt is likely to have delivered the first engine for ground-testing. At some point within the next year, Pratt should be planning to deliver the first flight-worthy engine to Northrop's final assembly line in Palmdale, California, to support the Air Force's first B-21 flight schedule. As the bomber engine development project winds down, the propulsion system for the next fighter aircraft continues to be developed, but without a clear schedule for transitioning to an operational system. The Air Force Research Laboratory's Adaptive Engine Transition Program (AETP) is sponsoring a competition to develop an adaptive engine that can modulate the airflow into and around the core to improve fuel efficiency and increase range. The AETP competition is between Pratt's XA101 and GE's XA100 designs, with the first engines set to be delivered for ground-testing by the end of this year or early next year. As 45,000-lb.-thrust-class engines, the first AETP designs are optimized for repowering the single-engine F-35, but the F-35 Joint Program Office (JPO) has established no requirement to replace the F135 for at least another five years. A follow-on effort within the AETP is developing a similar engine for a next-generation fighter, but neither the Air Force nor the Navy have committed to a schedule for transitioning the technology into an aircraft-development program. That leaves Pratt's F135 as the only feasible application for inserting new propulsion technology for a decade more. After spending the last decade focused on completing development of the F-35 and upgrading the software, electronics and mission systems, the JPO is developing a road map to improve the propulsion system through 2035. As the road map is being developed, program officials also are seeking to stabilize the engine production system. Pratt delivered about 600 F135s to Lockheed through the end of last year, including 150—or about 25%—in 2019 alone. The JPO signed a $7.3 billion contract with Pratt last year to deliver another 509 engines in 2020-22, or about 170 a year. Although Pratt exceeded the delivery goal in 2019 by three engines, each shipment came an average of 10-15 days behind the schedule in the contract. The fan, low-pressure turbine and nozzle hardware drove the delivery delays, according to the Defense Department's latest annual Selected Acquisition Report on the F-35. Lockheed's production schedule allows more than two weeks before the engine is needed for the final assembly line, so Pratt's late deliveries did not hold up the overall F-35 schedule, says Matthew Bromberg, president of Pratt's Military Engines business. F135 deliveries finally caught up to the contract delivery dates in the first quarter of this year, but the supply chain and productivity disruptions caused by the COVID-19 pandemic have set the program back. About five engines scheduled for delivery in the second quarter fell behind the contractual delivery date, Bromberg says. The pressure will grow as a loaded delivery schedule in the second half of the year adds pressure on deliveries, but Pratt's supply chain managers expect to be back within the contract dates in the first quarter of next year, he says. The F-35 program's political nature also has caused program disruptions. The Defense Department's expulsion of Turkey from the F-35 program last year also banished the country's supply chain, which contributed 188 parts to the F135. In particular, Alp Aviation produces the Stage 2, 3, 4 and 5 integrally bladed rotors (IBR) for the F135. As of early July, about 128 parts now made in Turkey are ready to transition to other suppliers, of which about 80% are based in the U.S., according to Bromberg. The new suppliers should be requalified to produce those parts in the first quarter of 2021 and ready to meet production rate targets for Lot 15 aircraft, which will begin deliveries in 2023. “The overriding objective was to move with speed and diligence along the transition plan and ensure we are ready to be fully out of Turkey by about Lot 15,” Bromberg explains. “And we are on track for that.” As Pratt transfers suppliers, the company also has to manage the effect on potential upgrade options. Alp Aviation, for example, had announced a research and development program to convert the finished titanium IBRs to a more resilient nickel material. For several years, Pratt has sought to improve the performance of the F135 above the baseline level. In 2017, the company unveiled the Growth Option 1.0 upgrade, which is aimed at delivering modular improvements that would lead to a 5% or 6% fuel-burn improvement and a 6-10% increase in thrust across the flight envelope. The Marine Corps, in particular, was seeking additional thrust to increase payload mass for a vertical landing, but the proposed package did not go far enough to attract the JPO's interest. “It missed the mark because we didn't focus our technologies on power and thermal management,” Bromberg says. A year later, Pratt unveiled the Growth Option 2.0. In addition to providing more thrust at less fuel burn, the new package offered to generate more electrical power to support planned advances in the aircraft's electronics and sensors, with the ability to manage the additional heat without compromising the F-35's signature in the infrared spectrum. Last fall, the JPO's propulsion management office teamed up with the Advanced Design Group at Naval Air Systems Command to analyze how planned F-35 mission systems upgrades will increase the load on the engine's thrust levels and power generation and thermal management capacity. In May, the JPO commissioned studies by Lockheed and Pratt to inform a 15-year technology-insertion road map for the propulsion system. The road map is due later this year or in early 2021, with the goal of informing the spending plan submitted with the Pentagon's fiscal 2023 budget request. As the studies continue, a name change to Pratt's upgrade proposals reveals a fundamental shift in philosophy. Pratt's earlier “Growth Option” terminology is gone. The proposals are now called Engine Enhancement Packages (EEP). The goal of the rebranding is to show the upgrades no longer are optional for F-35 customers. “As the engine provider and the [sustainment] provider, I'm very interested in keeping everything common,” Bromberg says. “The idea behind the Engine Enhancement Packages is they will migrate into the engines or upgrade over time. We don't have to do them all at once. The [digital engine controls] will understand which configuration. That allows us again to be seamless in production, where I would presumably cut over entirely, but also to upgrade fleets at regularly scheduled maintenance visits.” Pratt has divided the capabilities from Growth Options 1 and 2 into a series of EEPs, with new capabilities packaged in increments of two years from 2025 to 2029. “If you go all the way to the right, you get all the benefits of Growth Option 2, plus some that we've been able to create,” Bromberg says. “But if you need less than that and you're shorter on time or money, then you can take a subset of it.” Meanwhile, the Air Force continues to fund AETP development as a potential F135 replacement. As the propulsion road map is finalized, the JPO will decide whether Pratt's F135 upgrade proposals support the requirement or if a new engine core is needed to support the F-35's thrust and power-generation needs over the long term. Previously, Bromberg questioned the business case for reengining the F-35 by pointing out that a split fleet of F135- and AETP-powered jets erodes commonality and increases sustainment costs. Bromberg also noted it is not clear the third-stream technology required for the AETP can be accommodated within the roughly 4-ft.-dia. engine bay of the F-35B. Now Bromberg says he is willing to support the JPO's decision if the road map determines a reengining is necessary. “If the road map indicates that they need significantly more out of the engine than the Engine Enhancement Packages can provide, we would be the first to say an AETP motor would be required,” Bromberg says. “But we think a lot of the AETP technologies will make those Engines Enhancement Packages viable.” https://aviationweek.com/ad-week/f-35-propulsion-upgrade-moves-forward-despite-uncertainty

All news