SIGNAL Connections

Many government agencies are moving to an everything over Internet protocol (EoIP) environment to reduce costs and improve efficiencies. While the benefits of these initiatives can be substantial, transitioning to a converged EoIP infrastructure can be challenging, particularly for large organizations.

An EoIP environment not only ensures consistent accessibility to services and applications but also enables the quick deployment and scaling of both legacy and new services and applications, tailoring them to current missions. Experts agree that this architecture offers advantages, but they advise that it is not as easy as flipping a switch.

Among some of the issues that organizations’ chief technology officers should consider before moving to EoIP are how to provide services in an era of national security intelligence and e-government; how to preserve investments in existing systems; and how to deliver global network services. These and other topics will be discussed during the next free SIGNAL Magazine Webinar on August 21 at 2 p.m. EDT.

As new media and the phenomenon of Web 2.0 continue to evolve at lightning speed, one new term that seems to have some staying power is “social media.” And as social media becomes more popular with people of all ages, agencies must take a closer look at one-size-fits-all technology policies that create barriers to collaboration within these media spaces.

Advocates for open networks say the issue is one of effective leadership and training rather than technology, while critics point out the all-too-real security concerns that are of particular interest to defense workers and warfighters. That tension between collaboration and security will be part of the focus of next month’s AFCEA SOLUTIONS Series: Information Assurance and is part of an emerging conversation taking place on the blogosphere.

Bob Gourley, chief technology officer, Crucial Point LLC, uses Web 2.0 platforms regularly. He has written extensively about using social media in the collaborative space—with an eye on national security planning—on his blog.

Gourley acknowledges that the need to mitigate risk is a significant issue, but he emphasizes the unique nature of the collaboration that takes place on the Internet and how it “accelerates good ideas.” One advantage he mentions is the ability to outsource—or actually, “crowdsource”—the discovery of information to various individuals who bring new information to your attention. “These others can be crowds, random individuals, fields of experts or trusted friends,” Gourley says. “Which of these you leverage can vary from subject to subject or task to task.”

ATTENTION AFCEA CONTACTS: Time to Update Your Company's SIGNAL Source Book Listing

One of the benefits of AFCEA corporate membership is the free corporate profile that companies receive annually in the January issue of SIGNAL Magazine. Called the Source Book, the listing of leading technology companies also has an online version that can be accessed at www.afcea.org/sourcebook. To ensure that your business’s most current information is available to customers, your company’s AFCEA contact can now update the corporate profile through the AFCEA member portal or can connect to the portal from the Source Book online site. The deadline for updates to be included in the January 2009 print directory is September 24, 2008.

AFCEA is sending each corporate contact a letter that includes instructions on how to update the company’s profile online. Contacts can wait for the letter to arrive or go immediately to the site and follow the instructions on how to update. A user identification number and password are required, but password and identification help also is available online. All corporate contacts should review their company’s profile on the site to ensure it is correct. Write-ups that do not require changes should be reviewed and approved by clicking "okay for publication." Contacts also should be sure to add their firm’s areas of expertise to the Topical Guide.

NATO is transforming itself as it approaches its 60th birthday. While change is nothing unusual for the alliance, the scope and nature of its military commitments shift from simple defense to peacekeeping, so the national armies operating under NATO’s banner must be able to function together harmoniously in the field. While harmony is vital in the era of network-centric warfare, achieving it remains a challenge.

The agency responsible for planning and managing the alliance’s interoperability requirements is the NATO Consultation, Command and Control Agency (NC3A), based in Brussels, Belgium. The NC3A serves the alliance by providing scientific research, supporting acquisition efforts, and spearheading initiatives to develop and approve interoperable software and hardware standards. It also works with Allied Command Transformation (ACT) to formulate long-term capability requirements.

According to NC3A General Manager Dag Wilhelmsen, the agency’s other major role is as the architect for NATO interoperability standards, perhaps the agency’s most active responsibility. In this area, the NC3A works with agencies in NATO nations, national standardization bodies and private industry.

The NC3A operates in a spiral process to develop capabilities from their inception until they are deployed. Because the agency represents no individual nation or industry, it has the ability to serve as an unbiased adviser to NATO nations.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) Office of Emergency Communications (OEC) has developed the nation’s first National Emergency Communications Plan (NECP). The plan will be the center for future decisions concerning grant awards from the department. It outlines steps that will be taken at the federal, state and local levels to ensure communications across all disciplines as needed, on demand and as authorized. The NECP aims to address the gaps in capabilities identified by events such as the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and Hurricane Katrina.

Developed with input from all 56 states and U.S. territories, the NECP defines three strategic goals to establish a minimum level of interoperable communications over the next five years. By 2010, the plan calls for 90 percent of all high-risk urban areas, some 60 areas designated within the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI), to demonstrate response-level emergency communications within one hour for routine events that involve multiple jurisdictions and agencies. According to the NECP, by 2011, 75 percent of all non-UASI jurisdictions should be able to show this same level of response capabilities. Finally, by 2013, 75 percent of all jurisdictions should be able to demonstrate response-level emergency communications within three hours of a significant event as described in DHS’s national planning scenarios.

What looks like a phone and works like a phone but is really a computer? Pretty much any device classified as a “smartphone.” And while the devices do send and receive voice signals, the security necessary to keep them and the networks they connect to safe is more closely related to the personal computer than the telephone.

Tom Cross, a mobile security expert with IBM Internet Security Systems X-Force, is encouraging the users and organizational distributors of smartphones to take steps to secure their information and networks. He offers five recommendations for any company or agency that distributes the devices to its employees to allow them to connect into an enterprise. “Most of the advice that we have really relates to protecting your network from the phones if they are exploited,” Cross says.

The first recommendation is simple and direct: enforce strong passwords on smartphones. Cross explains that security personnel can use the software that comes with the platform or a third-party security measure to enforce password policy. Passwords are critical because they can prevent the disappearance of a $400 phone from becoming an invaluable loss in terms of personal e-mail and other private information. If users have to enter complicated passwords, organizations have a better chance of protecting corporate data.

Several years ago, in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War, U.S. political philosopher Francis Fukuyama penned a book titled The End of History and the Last Man. In it he offered that the clash of political ideologies that characterized the Cold War was at an end and that no alternative had emerged to democratic capitalism. Unfortunately, an alternative has arisen since in the form of violent religious extremism, and the democratic countries of the world once again have found themselves engaged in a struggle for national security. And, other nations that harbor imperialistic dreams counter to freedom wait their turn around the globe.

At the heart of the defense of civilization lies NATO. Founded amid the ashes of World War II and the onset of the Cold War, NATO has helped ensure peace in Europe and North America for more than six decades. Its collective security approach expressed in Article 5 of the North Atlantic Charter—an attack on one is an attack on all—helped deter any Cold War adversary from taking a divide-and-conquer approach to subjugating the Free World.

It is telling that the first—and so far, only—time that Article 5 was invoked by the alliance was in the wake of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. A foreign terrorist organization killed thousands of people on U.S. soil in what would prove to be the first of several attacks on Free World democracies. NATO is engaged in fighting that terrorist group on several fronts, particularly in Afghanistan.

Rear Adm. Robert C. Parker, USCG, is the new director of security and intelligence (DSI) at Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), located in Miami. He is the only person ever to hold that title because the position was created the day he reported for duty in April; he also is the only member of the Coast Guard to hold a director position in any U.S. Defense Department command.

The admiral shares that being the first Coast Guard officer to hold a directorship is personally exciting, especially because he is taking part in an organization as innovative as SOUTHCOM. “If you had asked me two years ago if this would ever happen, I think I would have said probably not in my wildest dreams,” he states.

The role is well suited for a Coast Guard officer because unlike some other combatant commands, SOUTHCOM undertakes few military operations and has no major armed forces peril in its area of responsibility. One example of how SOUTHCOM works differently than other commands is in its employment of two deputies—a military officer and a Senior Executive Service (SES) civilian.

SOUTHCOM solves problems through interaction from a variety of government agencies and even nongovernmental organizations. Adm. Parker explains that SOUTHCOM is a natural fit for the Coast Guard because of the regular interactions with international governments and interagency representatives. The Coast Guard works frequently with other agencies and the general populace during the course of its normal duty.

Say the words “security clearance” in a conversation with defense contractors, and the vast majority has a tale to tell of long waits and missed opportunities. Those two words have people in Washington, D.C., talking too. For two years, the organizations in charge of the security clearance process have worked hard to improve it. But for many, the time for revamping the old is over, and the time for creating a new process has begun.

Some experts who have followed promises of improvement for decades say talk is cheap and change costs money—the one element that has been missing from many of the plans. While the Security and Suitability Process Reform plan does not address this specific issue, it does focus on a number of problems that have been the downfall of patchwork solutions. The Joint Security and Suitability Reform Team, known as the Joint Reform Team, composed the plan in response to a presidential directive issued on February 5, 2008. The team comprised members of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the U.S. Defense Department, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Office of the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).

The U.S. Army’s LandWarNet program is reinventing itself as it progresses toward its goal of full connectivity from the command level down to the individual soldier. Technologies deployed in support of warfighters in Iraq and Afghanistan are leading to changes in the overarching program, and capabilities introduced by the private sector are adding a new flavor to the Army’s contribution to the Global Information Grid.

Numerous application and system advancements have been introduced into the theater of operations, and they are the focal point of many of the Army’s LandWarNet modifications. Lt. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sorenson, USA, Army Chief Information Officer (CIO)/G-6, states that these advances are changing the communications infrastructure for LandWarNet along with the type of data and applications it is providing.

Gen. Sorenson warrants that LandWarNet is how the Army is going to communicate in the future. From the standpoint of the warfighter in Iraq or Afghanistan, LandWarNet is all about improving situational awareness. The Army has introduced data and radio transport systems—such as Force 21 Battle Command Brigade and Below (FBCB2) and Blue Force Tracking—that have improved situational awareness.

Now, the Army is introducing the command post of the future, which addresses collaboration capabilities for soldiers from the tactical edge up to higher levels such as corps and above. The new capabilities are used to generate battle update briefs on a daily basis, the general reports. All levels of the force see the same picture.