18 novembre 2022 | International, Aérospatial
F-35 costs have been declining. Thatâs about to change.
Inside Air Force Plant 4, where Lockheed Martin builds F-35 fighters and tries to recover from the pandemic.
21 novembre 2018 | International, C4ISR
Disruptive technologies show why government needs data security standards now
By: Justin Lynch
Telepathy. Data uploading to the brain. Even humanoid sex robots. These are among the ideas that exist on a periodic table of disruptive technologies, a new visual guide that predicts what will alter human existence in the coming years.
Created by Imperial College London, the table identifies what is set to change societies in the short term (smart controls and appliances), as well as fringe ideas that are decades away from existence, if they will exist at all (think force fields.)
Yet the disruption could turn disastrous without proper data-security standards, according to one of the chart's creators, Richard Watson, the futurist in residence at Imperial College London.
“There is very little here that is not in some way digital and connected, which makes it vulnerable,” Watson said.
“Any kind of internet-of-everything device doesn't really work if you haven't got common standards — if Apple isn't sharing with Google and the French aren't sharing with the Germans.”
Experts have long expressed concern about the lack of data standards for internet-connected devices. There is no international standard for data security. And U.S. government oversight of internet-connected devices is spread across at least 11 different federal agencies, according to a 2017 Government Accountability Office report.
“As new and more ‘things' become connected, they increase not only the opportunities for security and privacy breaches, but also the scale and scope of any resulting consequences,” the report said.
And there has been a flurry of cyberattacks using internet-connected devices. Some hackers are exploiting smart devices as an intermediary to attack computer networks, the FBI warned Aug. 2. Ninety-three percent of respondents told Armis, a security platform, in an August survey that they expected governments to exploit connected devices during a cyberattack.
The Imperial College London chart offers a further glimpse at how important it may be to create these common regulations by imagining a wealth of potential breach points. Watson listed some of the table's future technologies that could be hacked.
“Smart controls and appliances.”
Hackable.
“Autonomous robotic surgery.”
Hackable.
“Autonomous ships and submarines.”
Hackable.
“One of the issues with the stuff on here is that it relies on extremely good data security,” Watson said.
The problem with having a developing ecosystem without global standards is that a single vulnerability could allow access to more than one network, and government officials and businesses are currently taking a strategy of letting the private sector debate how, or if, to regulate itself when it comes to internet-connected devices.
One piece of bipartisan federal legislation, the 2017 Internet of Things Cybersecurity Improvement Act, mandates that “devices purchased by the U.S. government meet certain minimum security requirements," but it has stalled in Congress.
As a first step, manufacturers should collaborate to establish device security baselines, Jing de Jong-Chen, general manager for global cybersecurity at Microsoft, said during a June conference hosted by the Woodrow Wilson Center, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank.
One private solution is a set of common guidelines developed by the IEEE Standards Association, an industry trade organization. The trade association's voluntary standards is evidence of a fear of government regulation that the private sector is openly hostile to. During the June event, the idea of government regulation of smart devices was laughed at by private sector officials in the room. But that laughter may have been premature.
In September 2018, California Governor Jerry Brown approved a bill that requires companies to install connected devices with “a reasonable security feature” protecting it against unauthorized access. The bill means that the periodic table of disruptive technologies may eventually be impacted by a modicum of public regulation, although it is not clear if that will be effective.
Not making it any easier is that no amount of planning can compensate for every technological innovation. For example, when it comes to the most disruptive future technology, the chart is secretive. In position 100, predicted to be the most innovative idea, the chart says it is too dangerous to publish. “We can't talk about this one,” it reads.
In this instance, however, a potential security risk is averted. When asked if this technology is the one that will literally “break the internet,” Watson is forced to make a confession: “It's a joke. It's just us dodging the ball because we couldn't think of what to put there.”
Sur le même sujet
-
-
7 octobre 2019 | International, Terrestre
Lynx 41 disqualified from Bradley replacement competition
By: Jen Judson WASHINGTON — The Army has disqualified Raytheon and Rheinmetall's bid for the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle prototype competition, Defense News has learned. The OMFV is meant to replace the service's Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle. The Army's plan was to take the bid samples submitted this week, evaluate them over a period of time and then choose two companies to deliver 14 prototypes each and then would pick a single winner after further evaluation. The Army's goal was to begin replacing Bradleys in 2026. The Army would not comment on the disqualification and said in a statement sent to Defense News that the solicitation for the OMFV prototyping effort closed on Oct. 1 and “we are now in the competition sensitive Source Selection Evaluation process.” The service noted in the statement that it “remains committed to rapidly execute the Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle program,” its number two modernization priority. But multiple sources have confirmed that the bid — Rheinmetall's Lynx 41 Infantry Fighting Vehicle — was disqualified and the bid sample, the only one in existence, remains in Germany at the company's facility in Unterluss. The Army required the competitors to deliver a single bid sample — a full-up working vehicle — to Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, by Oct. 1. The Lynx has left the Rheinmetall compound several times before, notably to travel to be unveiled in Paris at Eurosatory in June 2018 and again at the Association of the U.S. Army's annual conference last fall. Raytheon and the Rheinmetall announced at AUSA that they would partner on the OMFV program and submit Lynx as its offering. The disqualification of the team means that General Dynamics Land Systems' offering is the only vehicle remaining in the competition. According to sources, no other company submitted. Hanwha, a South Korean defense company, was interested in competing but chose not to participate, multiple sources claim. Industry sources have said that several companies who wanted to compete or submitted bids had asked for extensions, roughly 90 days in the case of Rheinmetall, to meet requirements. According to multiple sources, potential bidders expressed concern to the service that meeting the requirements, the timeline and a combination of the two wasn't possible. What snarled Rheinmetall, for instance, according to sources, was the timeline it needed to get approvals from the local municipal government to transport the vehicle by tractor trailer or rail and then via air. Sources said that the company had requested a four-week extension to deliver the vehicle to Aberdeen and also offered to hand over the vehicle to the Army under lock and bond in Germany by the Oct. 1 deadline and both were denied. But a larger issue, multiple sources conveyed, was the clear differences between what the Army acquisition community and what Army Futures Command wanted to do. Sources confirmed that the acquisition side of the house was willing to agree to extensions, for instance, but AFC, who is in charge of rapid requirements development and prototyping efforts ahead of programs of record, insisted the Army must adhere to the schedule. Industry also expressed concern to the Army over the roughly 100 mandatory requirements, with just six tradeable ones, expected to be met over 15 months using non-developmental vehicles. Brig. Gen. Ross Coffman, who is in charge of Next-Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) modernization efforts, said at the Defense News Conference in September that he was confident the requirements set for OMFV are appropriate and had no plans to change them. Presently, the OMFV competition is on hold due to a congressionally mandated continuing resolution that prevents the effort from kicking off. The Army had planned to begin the $378 million program in the first quarter after taking receipt of the bid samples at the start of the new fiscal year. As the Army enters its competition to build prototypes to replace the Bradley, Australia is running a similar effort and recently downselected to two competitors: Rheinmetall's Lynx and an offering from Hanwha. GDLS was competing but did not make the final cut. Australia laid out just five mandatory requirements for its competition. GDLS has not yet detailed its offering for OMFV but said it was “purpose built” for the U.S. Army. https://www.defensenews.com/land/2019/10/04/lynx-41-disqualified-from-bradley-replacement-competition/
-
17 août 2021 | International, Aérospatial
US Army endorses tactical drone contest to replace Shadow
The Army is embarking on a competitive prototyping effort to replace its Shadow unmanned aircraft with an advanced, runway-independent capability.