December 7, 2018 | International, Naval, C4ISR
BY PATRICK TUCKER
The Pentagon is also looking at living camouflage, self-healing paint, and a variety of other applications of engineered organisms, but the basic science remains a challenge.
How do you detect submarines in an expanse as large as the ocean? The U.S. military hopes that common marine microorganisms might be genetically engineered into living tripwires to signal the passage of enemy subs, underwater vessels, or even divers.
It's one of many potential military applications for so-called engineered organisms, a field that promises living camouflage that reacts to its surroundings to better avoid detection, new drugs and medicines to help deployed forces survive in harsh conditions, and more. But the research is in its very early stages, military officials said.
The Naval Research Laboratory, or NRL, is supporting the research. Here's how it would work: You take an abundant sea organism, like Marinobacter, and change its genetic makeup to react to certain substances left by enemy vessels, divers, or equipment. These could be metals, fuel exhaust, human DNA, or some molecule that's not found naturally in the ocean but is associated with, say, diesel-powered submarines. The reaction could take the form of electron loss, which could be detectable to friendly sub drones.
Full article: https://www.defenseone.com/technology/2018/12/us-military-genetically-engineering-new-life-forms-detect-enemy-subs/153200/
June 9, 2021 | International, Aerospace, C4ISR, Security
EASA provides industry with the first concrete guidance on certification requirements for AI in safety-critical applications.
February 25, 2020 | International, Aerospace, C4ISR, Security
For years, the first time the Department of Defense's cyber forces faced high-end digital attacks was not in practice or in a classroom, but in actual operations. For the cyber teams that focused on offense, a playbook developed from years of National Security Agency operations guided their work. But on the defensive side, standards and processes needed to be created from scratch meaning, in part, there was a lack of uniformity and little tradecraft to follow. Because cyber leaders had focused on staffing, training opportunities for defensive cyber operators had been sparse. To help solve that problem, the Department of Defense is expected to award a contract worth roughly $1 billion later this year for a global cyber training environment. But in the meantime, some units across the joint force have gone so far as to create their own small-scale training events and exercises to keep their forces' skill sets sharp. Perhaps the best example of these efforts are the 567th Cyberspace Operations Group's “Hunt Event,” which has quickly grown to become one of the largest cyber exercises across the department. The bi-monthly exercise pits teams against each other in a competition for the coveted Goblet of Cyber trophy and bragging rights. The group aims to better train defensive hunters, improve defensive tactics, techniques and procedures and develop defensive tradecraft. “The point of this was that we didn't really have a good range space to play on that had an active and live adversary so we could, in theory, replay traffic and we could go in and generate some easy kill, low hanging fruit signatures for detection,” Capt. Reid Hottel, training flight commander at the 837th Cyber Operations Squadron, told Fifth Domain. “If we are supposed to be the primary counter to advanced persistent threats, the way that we were training was not like how we were fighting.” The exercises started roughly a year ago to teach operators how to hunt on networks. It's now evolved to where participants also work on leadership skills and build custom exploits on a large range with multiple stakeholders. In addition to the Air Force CPTs — the defensive cyber teams each service provides to U.S. Cyber Command — members from the Air Force Office of Special Investigations and Mission Defense Teams, specialized defensive cyber teams that will protect critical Air Force missions and local installations, also take part. At the most recent exercise in January, a representative from NASA participated. Now, the exercises have become so popular Hottel said other services are interested in participating in the future. This includes a Marine Corps CPT at Scott Air Force Base. Building better leaders and hunters To be the best, cyber leaders recognized their teams would have to beat the best and that meant training against the world's most advanced cyber threats. Some other forms of training — such as the popular capture the flag game, which involve teams trying to find “flags” such as files or scripts inside a network — are not always the most realistic form of training. “When we were fighting, we're up against advanced adversaries. We're up against adversaries that are using tactics, techniques and procedures that are just above and beyond what simple little [scripts] ... we were using in the past,” Hottel said. “This hunt exercise allows us to do that, whereas in the past, particularly in other flag exercises, we are not training at the APT level. We [were] training at the script kiddie kind of level and here we're training at a much higher difficulty, which stretches and grows our operators into being true hunters.” He added that the exercises are also helping develop tradecraft. “That's one thing that nobody really teaches, there's no commercial course that you can go buy that teaches tradecraft, that teaches the military away, that teaches the way that we use to find the APT, which in theory, should be ever evolving because our adversary is as well,” Hottel said. “These exercises have been really eye-opening to provide tradecraft development, to become hunters, to understand what it means to be a cyber protection team.” The exercise has evolved to include custom exploits, custom root kits, custom attacks and zero-day exploits within a real-world mission where in some cases hunters don't have any indictors of compromise that exist in the public domain. This means that there is no public reporting available on the exploits or tactics the adversary is using. Participants can hone their skills, by actively hunting on a network in order to find anomalies that could lead to trouble. “As hunters,” he said, “we don't necessarily have singular methodology, we don't necessarily have a unique way that we can go about finding advanced threats mostly because we haven't really been training like that.” The training is also helpful for new mission defense teams, which are just being officially resourced within the Air Force around local installations. By having those teams sit next to CPTs, who are using generally the same tools, they can learn about tradecraft and what to look for at the local level. During the most recent exercise, officials said it was the first time they intentionally tried to trip up participants. Organizers created fake attack chains to see how the players scoped an investigation into a network and deducted points for the amount of time they wasted following that lead. This technique helps teach teams how to scope investigations without going down “rabbit holes,” and not adequately planning, Lt. Christopher Trusnik, chief of training at the 835th Cyberspace Operations Squadron, told Fifth Domain. Beyond the technical hunting, this approach helped team leader to flex leadership muscles. “It was more of teaching that leadership technique of you plan for this, how do you investigate quickly and how do you triage your investigation,” Trusnik, whose unit ran the January exercise, said. Hottel explained that following this most recent event, teams focused on leadership and organization. At one point, someone on his team previously had been coached on what they needed to include such as specific indictors that might be valuable to their mission partners to understand. At this exercise, they included those indicators. In another instance, one team member who had never run a hunt mission struggled at first. Hottel stepped in and with just a little guidance, the leader became more disciplined and was able to find things much better in the last three days. Benefits of cyberspace in training Training in cyberspace has benefits that other domains don't offer. For one, forces don't need a dedicated battlespace such as the Army's National Training Center or the range used at Nellis Air Force Base for the Air Force's Red Flag. With cyber, a custom range can be built and forces from all across the world can come in and participate. The range used for the hunt exercises stays up weeks after the formal event so individuals or teams can try their hand, though they obviously won't be eligible for the Goblet of Cyber trophy. All of this could change with the Persistent Cyber Training Environment (PCTE). PCTE is a major program being run by the Army on behalf of Cyber Command and the joint force to provide a web-based cyber training environment where cyber warriors can remotely plug in around the world and conduct individual training, collective team training or even mission rehearsal — all of which does not exist on a large scale currently. Hottel said that his forces haven't been limited thus far without PCTE. Though, once the platform is online, they can upload the range they used for a competition and it can be accessed by anyone across the joint cyber mission force. Testing new concepts But in the meantime, smaller, unit level exercises like those run by the 567th allow forces to test concepts and learn from others. Unlike larger exercises that have requirements and stated objectives, smaller exercises can serve as a proving ground for staying sharp and pushing the envelope. This allows local units more control over what their personnel do but can also allow teams to test new concepts in a relatively risk-free environment. “Let's say that a national [cyber protection] team wants to test out ... whatever they're currently using because they feel like it would provide them an advantage so they want to test out something,” Hottel said. “We can throw that on the range as well and they can utilize an entirely defensive tool set. We're not trying to make people tool experts, we're trying to make them tradecraft, defensive hunters.” Hottel also said that personnel playing on the archived range can bring new ideas, which can then be tested during the next exercise. In some cases, they may come up with an idea on their own and bring it to the next exercise to see if it actually works. Ultimately, the event is designed to create better cyber warriors. “We're not trying to make people tool experts, we're trying to make them tradecraft, defensive hunters,” Hottel said. https://www.fifthdomain.com/dod/air-force/2020/02/21/the-largest-cyber-exercise-youve-never-heard-of/
September 20, 2018 | International, Aerospace, Naval, Land, C4ISR, Security
John M. Donnelly The Pentagon will soon have received about $2.3 billion in the last nine years — money the military never requested — for a special fund intended to help replace earmarks after Congress banned them, our analysis shows. Buried deep inside the $674.4 billion Defense spending measure for fiscal 2019 that the Senate is expected to vote on this week is a chart with one line showing a $250 million appropriation for the Defense Rapid Innovation Fund, the latest installment of sizable funding for a largely unknown program that quietly disburses scores of contracts every year. To supporters, the fund is a way to bankroll innovative systems that the military may not yet know it needs. To critics, the fund is just earmarking by another name. The kinds of systems that net contracts from the innovation fund run the gamut. In fiscal 2016, they included programs to demonstrate artificial intelligence systems for aerial drones, anti-lock brakes for Humvees and underwater communications systems for undersea drones. The systems may be technologies for which the military services have not yet established a requirement because they may not know what is technically possible. It is not clear how many of the systems actually become operational. The defense fund's eclipsing of the $2 billion mark comes as debate heats up in Washington over whether to revive earmarks. And the special account highlights key elements of that debate. Talk of earmarks 2.0 Earmarks have generally been defined as parochial spending, directed by lawmakers and received by people who have not competed for it. In 2011, after earmarks were tied to several scandals and spending projects seen as excess, Congress barred them — or at least a narrow definition of them, critics contend, noting that, among other loopholes, committees could still add money for parochial projects without spelling out who supports them. President Donald Trump suggested earlier this year that a return of earmarks, which were often used in horsetrading for votes, might be beneficial. Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer of Maryland, has suggested he would aim to bring back earmarks if his party takes control of the House next year. The senior Democrat on Senate Appropriations, Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, has also supported a comeback for the practice. Republican leaders are less vocal right now, but many of them also support a return to earmarks. “I don't doubt that the next organizing conference for the next Congress will probably wrestle with this issue,” outgoing House Speaker Paul D. Ryan told reporters earlier this month. Account quietly amasses funds The Defense Rapid Innovation Fund was launched in 2010 (first as the Rapid Innovation Program) in the fiscal 2011 defense authorization law. It was a way to capture what proponents called the innovative spirit of programs called earmarks that were clearly about to be banned. Unlike earmarks, the defense fund's money would be competitively awarded by the Pentagon, not directed by Congress, supporters of the idea pointed out. Democrat Norm Dicks, then a senior Defense appropriator, and other advocates of the program described it at the time as a way to capture the innovation among smaller companies, including many who had received earmarks. “We have not always had an adequate way of bringing these smaller firms and their innovation into the defense pipeline,” Dicks said in 2010. Each year since its creation, the fund has received another installment of funds, never less than $175 million or more than $439 million. The program has awarded several hundred contracts, averaging about $2 million each, mostly for small businesses with technologies that were relatively mature and that could address some military need, according to a fiscal 2017 Pentagon summary of the program's results. Full article: http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/obscure-pentagon-fund-nets-2-billion