Perhaps it began with Y2K, this realization that the unseen operational grid could come crashing down by the mere numerical click from one century to the next—but the threats to operational functionality in all areas of human-machine interface are very real. A cyber exercise conducted again this year will incorporate some changes to simulate new challenges.

In his article, “An Approaching Cyber Storm Includes New Threats,” Defense Editor Max Cacas examines the global cybersecurity exercise Cyber Storm in this issue of SIGNAL Magazine. The U.S.-led global event will sport a new look and format when it takes place later this year. The changes reflect the constantly deviating nature of threats posed daily to the world’s cyber infrastructure.

Cyber Storm exercises have been conducted almost every two years since 2006. All have been organized and conducted under the aegis of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) Office of Cybersecurity and Communications, National Cyber Security Division. These are primarily policy-driven tabletop exercises, and do not involve the injection of malicious digital code into a functioning network. Rather, participants rely on text messages or email as a means of communicating changes in the test scenario.

According to Brett Lambo, director of the Cybersecurity Exercise Program with the DHS’s National Cyber Security Division, cyberthreats are now being viewed in a much broader manner:

We’ve long since left the notion of a purely destructive hacker in our rear-view mirror. We’re all organizing, training and equipping to meet challenges that are sophisticated, and to do that, we’ve been developing capabilities of our own that are fairly sophisticated.

Lambo is planning the exercise’s fourth iteration, returning a second time in the role of chief architect and game master. After reviewing how much things have changed since Cyber Storm III, it was time for a new approach, he reports. The 2012 Cyber Storm format will feature an ongoing series of events, not just one main event, and the series of events will be broken up by different constituency groups.

Participants will include a wide-ranging group of representatives from private industry and local, state, federal and international government. Lambo says the broad spectrum of active participants is part of the “method to the madness” of the Cyber Storm exercise, especially in its new format.

Exercise details still are being developed and are heavily classified until after the exercise is completed. However, Lambo is clear when he says that change will be a centerpiece of this year’s program. Unlike the exercise two years ago, Cyber Storm IV will not have a formal beginning. Once planning is completed in the spring, Lambo explains:

We will start rolling out these exercises, small and large, but nothing like you saw in September of 2010.

The most important tool gleaned from these exercises, Lambo emphasizes, is the lessons learned. For the DHS, he says Cyber Storm also offers a unique way to rigorously test the National Cyber Incident Response Plan (NCIRP), which details how the nation will prepare for, and deal with, a cyber attack. It also addresses the roles and responsibilities of other cabinet-level agencies, as well as on how the federal government is expected to respond to the needs of citizens and private businesses, along with those of foreign governments that increasingly rely on the public Internet.

In reflecting on the outcome of Cyber Storm III and how it’s shaping his master plan for Cyber Storm IV, Lambo says he is satisfied that many of the core policies driving U.S. cybersecurity strategies have been verified, with some work still to be done.

Will Cyber Storm IV prove anything new or different that wasn’t already addressed in previous Cyber Storm exercises? What unique new technologies have been developed in the past two years that will help protect the wide-ranging, yet nearly invisible, domain of cyberspace? Share your thoughts and opinions here.

By the end of 2012, U.S. Marine Corps aviation experts plan to have the Corps equipped with a common command and control (C2) platform that not only will improve situational awareness and information assurance (IA), but also will ramp up mobility as well.

The technology behind this advance is the Marine Corps’ Common Aviation Command and Control System (CAC2S), which aims to provide closer coordination of the Marine ground and air C2 centers, allowing more speedy responses to changing battlefield conditions. Technology Editor George I. Seffers details the system and its goals in his article “360 Degrees to Afghanistan” in this issue of SIGNAL Magazine.

Possible system abilities include providing artillery fire, dispatching unmanned aircraft and launching or redirecting helicopters or fighter aircraft. It is a scalable, modular, flexible communications system with an open architecture design. The system can be deployed on a Humvee within 24 hours of receiving a movement order and can be transported via helicopter, airplane, amphibious ship and landing craft.

The CAC2S is designed to provide Marine Corps operators the ability to share mission-critical voice, video, sensor and C2 data to integrate aviation and ground combat planning and operations to support the Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTF).

The MAGTF commander should be able to employ the system in support of operational maneuvers from the sea, sustained operations ashore and other expeditionary operations. It also will enable command and control of assigned assets afloat and ashore in allied, joint or coalition operational environments by displaying a common tactical data picture. That picture will facilitate C² of friendly assets and the engagement of threat aircraft and missiles. It also will provide access to theater and national intelligence sources from a single, multifunction C² node.

The pending deployment into Afghanistan marks a major turn-around for a program that was restructured in 2009 because of numerous technical difficulties. The previous solution was proceeding toward an initial operating test but faced hurdles related to network stability, IA, implementation and other technical challenges.

The system was fielded to the Marine Corps Communications-Electronics School, Twentynine Palms, California, in December and began fielding in January to the Marine Air Support Squadron III, Camp Pendleton, California. The Marines expected to declare initial operational capability officially in February.

According to Capt. Pat Costello, USN, CAC2S program manager within the Marine Corps’ Program Executive Office for Land Systems, the idea was to aim for mature technologies and to integrate them together to meet requirements. The CAC2S also will substantially improve mobility, Costello insists:

We’re reducing the footprint of the system pretty significantly. We go from a system that’s in 10 x 20-foot shelters to a Humvee-based system.

The Marines plan to purchase a total of 50 systems, despite the ongoing austere budget environment. The CAC2S is fully funded, and the program’s first phase came in under budget, returning some money back to the Marine Corps.

Even as the nation’s oldest military service, the Marine Corps still looks to the future as it improves upon its capabilities, keeping itself relevant and interoperable. Will its most recent endeavor to date, the CAC2S, continue this tradition of excellence and commitment? Share your views and suggestions here.  

Given some of the most shocking emergency events of the past decade, whether on school campuses, severe weather conditions, or the overall climate of hyper-awareness in the United States following 9/11, the ability to provide real-time public warnings has become a huge priority.

The current Emergency Alert System (EAS), and its predecessor, the Emergency Broadcast System, or EBS, date back to 1951. But present-day capabilities, brought about by advanced satellite and other systems technologies—including the Internet and social media tools—provide the very capabilities necessary to deliver an alert with time enough to spare to enable proactive measures.

In this issue of  SIGNAL Magazine, Defense Editor Max Cacas focuses on the recent EAS test, its successes, failures, and recommendations for improvement in his article, “Emergency Alert Joins the Twitter Age.”

In 1997, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) replaced the EBS with the EAS, which for the first time employed early digital technology to trigger alerts on what was still a network of approximately 20,000 local radio and TV stations, plus participating cable TV systems.

The FCC is the lead agency operating the EAS, but the system also is used for other alerts, such as missing children “Amber Alerts” or for missing elderly in the form of “Silver Alerts.” The National Weather Service is one of the most prolific users of the EAS as well.

But to ensure that the system was “up to snuff” for today’s challenges, federal agencies gathered to conduct a test of its capabilities and map out the path for an improved system. Participating were the FCC, in partnership with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a component of the Department of Homeland Security; and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, part of the Department of Commerce and parent agency for the National Weather Service. This first-ever nationwide test took place on Wednesday, November 9, 2011, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. The goal was simple: to determine what worked and what didn’t when an EAS test was sent out across the country.

One of those supervising the test at one of the many participating radio stations was Dave Garner, director of engineering for the Washington, D.C., stations of Hubbard Broadcasting. In that role, Garner serves as chief engineer for radio stations WTOP-FM and WFED-AM. He shares his initial observations:

The tones that opened the stations to the message worked fine. The problem was the actual recorded test message was highly distorted, and there was some double audio—almost like an 8-second delay of audio on the message.

Garner also notes that the national EAS test broadcast to his stations was not transmitted to the popular news websites or other on-air media that complement his company’s radio programming. That, he notes, points out a critical need in the new social media era that must be addressed.

Heading up the FCC effort to develop a next-generation EAS is Jamie Barnett Jr., chief of the commission’s Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau. He says the FCC hopes to address the online shortcomings through an EAS-developed technology called the common alerting protocol, or CAP.

If you were part of the EAS test, or were aware of its outcome, what are your opinions about its performance and results? Read the full article and share your opinions and suggestions here.

Much like the three propeller blades on a wind turbine, three U.S. government agencies are spinning together a program to produce a microgrid that will provide power that is independent of external sources. The departments of Defense, Energy, and Homeland Security want to enable military bases and other installations to continue operations in the event of power failure due to enemy actions or other events.

A key element of this microgrid is network security, and it must be able to continue functions even in the face of cybermarauders, who could bring down an entire system. Requirements would call for providing secure network control that could interoperate with the public power grid but still remain immune to cyber threats that menace the larger network.

In his article “Military Energy Enters SPIDERS Web” in this issue of SIGNAL Magazine, Robert K. Ackerman discusses how this power grid effort already is underway with the Defense Department’s Smart Power Infrastructure Demonstration for Energy Reliability and Security (SPIDERS) joint capability technology demonstration. The initial location is at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Oahu, Hawaii, with later phases that will evaluate progressively sophisticated systems at other bases.

In what Melanie Johnson, an electrical engineer with the Army Corps of Engineers Construction Engineering Research Laboratory describes as the crawl, walk and run phases, this first location is categorized as the “crawl” phase in the system’s template for bringing microgrid technology to U.S. military installations. The “walk” phase will take place at Fort Carson, Colorado; the “run” phase will occur at Camp Smith, Hawaii, where the entire installation will be placed on the microgrid.

SPIDERS’ primary objectives are to protect task-critical assets from power loss due to cyber attack; integrate renewable and other distributed generational electricity to power task-critical assets in times of emergency; sustain critical operations during prolonged power outages; and manage electrical power consumption to reduce petroleum demand and carbon footprint.

So far, according to Dr. George Ka’iliwai III, director of resources and assessment (J-8), U.S. Pacific Command, efforts are maturing in key areas, and most of the experiments on the cyber side have generated positive results.

Johnson believes that successful SPIDERS development could be exploited by any physical campus or community that seeks to enhance its energy security. Any site that experiences power quality issues from a larger grid could find a SPIDERS approach useful, especially if it employs a range of different power generation assets.

The main objective is to enable various locations and organizations to continue operations in the aftermath of attacks or other disasters. Is this a realistic goal in the long run, given the progress thus far? Share you opinions, ideas and suggestions here.

How often have military service members been shuffled from one office to another—one organization to the next—before all of their records are pulled together and coordination of treatments or benefits can begin? The answer is too often.

But here is the good news: The U.S. Defense Department and Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have launched an effort to combine their two electronic health record systems into one. Known as the integrated Electronic Health Record, or iEHR, it aims to ensure that health care records will follow troops for their rest of their lives, beginning from the day they swear in to serve their country. The move will improve medical care for all military community members, including those wounded in combat or trying to process a VA claim.

According to News Editor Rita Boland in her article, “Two Government Organizations, One Health Information System,” in this issue of SIGNAL Magazine, the iEHR program is not merely a clearinghouse that stores all information, but rather, a continually evolving network that will use the newest technologies developed in order to provide the best care to U.S. troops.

Utilizing the latest and most useful technical tools means that leaders have not identified an end date for this project. Work began on the new system this past summer, but it’s a continuing process, through which capabilities will be added when they become available.

Roger Baker, VA assistant secretary for information and technology and chief information officer, explains that:

In an ideal world, [users] will wake up one day and find out that we have snuck it in on them. All of a sudden it’s become a single electronic health record system, and they never really notice that we did it.

The VA and Defense Department have agreed to use common data standards, and developers began by putting into place the enterprise service bus, which Beth McGrath, deputy chief management officer for the Defense Department calls the “very foundational piece.”

Project personnel also have learned what impacts both medical providers—including pharmacists—and patients, to better understand what they need. With that knowledge, project staff can define the capabilities to build into the iEHR.

The iEHR fits into the larger virtual lifetime electronic record, a business and technology initiative introduced by the president that includes a portfolio of health, benefits, personnel and administrative information sharing among government and private organizations. Baker notes that:

On the medical side, this is an important component of the virtual lifetime electronic record.

McGrath personalizes the integration issue, saying she would like for her doctors to have all the information they need to make the best choices for future care:

Right now, the doctor is relying on less information rather than more. With access to the iEHR, health care providers will have more data so they can make the best possible decisions with regard to treatment options.

What pitfalls or roadblocks may exist to reach the goal of a fully functional iEHR? How can the military, industry partners and other interested organizations help this process fully succeed? All info in one place, imagine that? Share you opinions here. 

Technology transfer—a big buzzword some decades ago—is where companies found commercial uses for military technologies. Over the years, military and industry continue to share new ideas, programs and systems, and just about any otherwise awesome products that benefit both arenas. It’s perhaps another anchor in the military-industrial complex.

But when military technology is found to possibly fight cancer—that is welcoming news, as reported by George I. Seffers in his article,”Mine-Hunting Technology Learns to Fight Cancer,” in this issue of SIGNAL Magazine. Seffers speaks to the Office of Naval Research‘s Jason Stack, program officer in charge of the effort.

The ONR is developing active-learning software for identifying undersea mines. The goal is to make underwater mine-hunting robots smarter, eliminating the need for divers to risk their lives, according to Stack:

Within the world of naval mine countermeasures, our overarching goals are to find mines faster and get the man out of the minefield. That’s what we try to do. The active learning algorithms work with humans to help identify mines.

Doctors also face a similar problem: identifying specific cells in human tissue. Physicians must view hundreds of microscopic images containing millions of cells, which can take weeks for a pathologist to manually pinpoint cells in 100 images.

To aid in identifying cells, doctors commonly use an open-source computer program known as Fluorescence Association Rules for Quantitative Insight (FARSIGHT). Developed with funding provided by the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the National Institutes of Health, FARSIGHT identifies cells based on a subset of examples initially labeled by a physician.

Doctors up until now, for example, have not been studying endothelial cells because of time constraints. With FARSIGHT’s integrated active learning, however, the process is now automated and “highly accurate.” The enhanced FARSIGHT can accomplish in a few hours what once would have taken days or weeks.

Badri Roysam is chairman of the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at the University of Houston in Texas. He is also the program investigator for FARSIGHT and says the technology also is being used to benefit the Defense Department’s research into neuroprosthetic devices—robotic arms and legs connected directly to the brain for more natural control and movement.

Right now, the state of the art in active-learning technology is software that asks simple questions requesting that the user label a piece of data, such as whether or not an image is a mine, Stack explains. The final version will feature a prototype that is able to ask many more questions and learn more quickly.

Can FARSIGHT be integrated seamlessly into the medical field, and what impact will this have on peoples’ lives and budgets? Share you opinions and suggestions here.

It’s an incredibly confusing world we now live in, with threats to the military and civilians posing vexing challenges that never truly existed before.

There really is no “traditional” battleground anymore, because it continues to morph into a field of asymmetric warfare, violent conflict between a formal military and an informal, poorly equipped, but elusive opponent.

According to Dr. Paul Monticciolo in his article, “Finding the Hidden Opportunities,” in this issue of SIGNAL Magazine, trying to locate isolated explosives within densely populated cities, for example, or to identify small insurgent groups hidden in a mountainous wilderness, is like looking for a specific needle in a stack of needles.

The never-ending roadblock to acquiring systems and technologies that are able to keep pace with and address new threats is, of course, budget containment and reduction. Radars must track faster; data must be delivered more quickly; systems have to reach the field immediately. But how will these items be funded?

“Memorandum for Acquisition Professionals,” published by Deputy Defense Secretary Ashton Carter in 2010, identifies procurement challenges, and it addresses 23 areas for acquisition reform designed to “deliver better value to the taxpayer and warfighter.”

The Defense Department’s focus on acquisition reform poses numerous difficulties that challenge the old way of doing business. But it also provides opportunities for those primes who can, in Deputy Defense Secretary Carter’s words, “do more, faster, with less.”

By adapting and partnering with companies that share risks and add business value, primes can profit in this new environment. Read the full article and share your opinions with us. We look forward to your input, criticisms and suggestions.

The worldwide budget crisis isn’t just an oft-repeated catch phrase—it’s the real deal—and it’s affecting how nations procure and oversee their security measures and infrastructure. In fact, the economy is recognized as one of the major concerns for security provision.

In “Aligning Acquisition Strategies With the Times” by Max Cacas in this issue of SIGNAL Magazine, Cacas gleans crucial insight into the effects of national fiscal woes and suggestions for the way forward from Dr. Jacques S. Gansler, a former U.S. undersecretary of defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics.

In future fiscal years, the U.S. Defense Department must make major changes to the way it deals with the competing forces of decreased financial resources and continually morphing security challenges. Gansler suggests that it increasingly includes global commercial firms. And, the Defense Department’s struggles are not much different than those at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). This, he says, is because the DHS taps into many of the same national security industrial base firms that sell goods and services to the Defense Department: According to Gansler:

The need to improve the acquisition process extends beyond just the defense arena. Technology has changed dramatically; geopolitics has changed dramatically; international economics has changed dramatically; and most importantly, national security has changed dramatically.

Gansler explains that both the Defense Department and the DHS have to cover a full spectrum of national security challenges at a time when government budgets are by necessity being drawn tighter. In characterizing increases in defense and homeland security spending over the past decade, Gansler explains:

We’re not talking about tank-on-tank from the Cold War. We’re talking about war among the people; we’re talking about everything from pirates to terrorists and unstable governments and even nuclear war. Since 9/11, we’ve lived in a rich man’s world.

He also references the late President Ronald Reagan’s signing of National Security Decision Directive-189, the National Policy on the Transfer of Scientific, Technical and Engineering Information, which says fundamental research can be done by anybody, anywhere, and published freely.

True acquisition reform can and will result from an overall cultural change in the Defense Department and the DHS, Gansler emphasizes. Officials in charge of contracting and acquisition must recognize the need for change.

Defense/DHS officials must be willing to take steps to improve security procurement. But are they? Are these decision makers ready to establish and reach appropriate milestones to determine if acquisition changes are working? Discuss your opinions and suggestions here.

…When the international mining community is aiming to shake off the absolute dominance held by the People’s Republic of China in the market for rare earths, which are a series of elements in the periodic table. These elements are critical for the U.S. military’s high-tech communications and weaponry, as well as those of other allied nations.

According to Michael A. Robinson in his article, “Rare Earths to Become Less Scarce,” in this issue of SIGNAL Magazine, new mines could be supplying U.S. military needs, along with those of other nations, in just a few years.

China controls 97 percent of the world’s rare earths supply, and it is further choking availability by closing some of its mines by deeming them “environmentally unsafe.” The result is severe cutbacks on exports, in what some experts believe is that country’s attempt to completely monopolize the rare earths market.

Rare earths are a vital element in information technology circuitry. They also are critical to communications equipment.

The U.S. military, however, does not obtain rare earths directly from China and is prohibited from doing so under federal law. The Defense Department instead buys components that include rare earths. They often come from Japan and are used in an array of hardware, from missile guidance systems to fiber optic links to avionics.

Peter Cashin, president and CEO of Quest Rare Minerals Limited, says that to understand this market, it’s important to draw a distinction between light and heavy rare earths. This latter category is more difficult to obtain, Cashin explains, partly because processing these materials is quite complex:

Military applications require 100 percent reliability. And heavies do that because they are more heat-resistant than the applications that use the light rare earths.

The Chinese are very impoverished in heavy rare earths, says Cashin, whose company owns property with a massive deposit of rare earths in northeastern Canada. When his company’s Strange Lake mine opens in 2015-2016, Cashin says he expects more restraints from China.

Despite their need for rare earths, the Europeans continue to resist moving factories to China to obtain more stable supplies. Mark Saxon is CEO of Canadian company Tasman Metals Limited. His company has a large rare earth mine in Sweden, and he notes that Europeans in particular hope to have domestic sources by 2015. This is related to the European Union’s (EU’s) commitment to fostering green technology. Wind turbines and hybrid cars require vast amounts—literally tons—of these substances, Saxon explains:

When you talk about Europe and the rare earths, you are really talking about Germany. Germany is by far the major consumer within the EU. And most of the manufacturing lines where significant intellectual property exists are still being done inside Germany.

Whether they’re U.S., European, Australian, Canadian or other nationalities, each country has a critical, vested interest in developing resources to mine its own rare earths.

Dependence on a restrictive nation like China for rare earths cannot bode well. Determined nations now are seeing to it that they will catch up and remain on the cutting edge. Are they doing all they can to sever their dependence on China, and will this be completely possible? Read the full article; please share your opinions here.

A recently released draft plan provides a road map for federal agencies and industry to navigate through the development of the cloud-computing model. In the January issue of SIGNAL Magazine, Technology Editor George I. Seffers explores the document in his article, “Hitting the Hard Spots on the Road to Cloud.”

In November 2011, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released two draft volumes of what will eventually become a three-volume plan to foster cloud-computing efforts among the United States government and private sector. While federal agencies will not be mandated to follow the road map, people want and need guidance in this area, says Dawn Leaf, NIST senior executive for cloud computing. As with any new or evolving technology, many questions exist:

“There’s a tendency to explore the same types of issues—interoperability, portability, security, maintainability and reliability. The primary question is: What are the hard spots for the U.S. government in cloud?”

The most pressing issue among those hard spots: security. Leaf notes that physical boundaries associated with traditional computing don’t necessarily apply to the cloud environment. The same aspects that make the cloud valuable, such as connecting cloud services from common devices, also create potential risks. Although many conferences and seminars cover these challenges, Leaf says discussions often lack concrete answers:

“What you tend to see over and over is that we talk about the subjects a lot, but we go round and round in circles.”

Therefore, the NIST hopes the document will specifically identify what is needed for agencies and industry to move forward. Of the two segments released, Volume I provides a general understanding and overview of the road map initiative and gives agencies a way to define what they need in order to communicate effectively with industry. According to Doug Chabot, vice president, principal solutions architect, QinetiQ North America, gaining clarity in this area will help agencies write more consistent requests for proposals with clear requirements.

Volume II includes more technical detail as a reference for those working on cloud computing initiatives. It summarizes work completed in this area to date and explains the findings.

Leaf emphasizes that creating this clear map will help the United States stay at the forefront of cloud computing on the international level. The NIST intends to release further guidance in 2012, including the third volume of the set, which tackles information for decision makers in the field, and a special publication on the challenges and security deployments of cloud.