"There are plans to rely on Linux to control our most advanced future defense systems," writes Dan O'Dowd this morning, referring to systems such as the Army's Future Combat Systems (FCS), the Joint Tactical Radio System (JTRS), and the Global Information Grid (GIG).
But O'Dowd continues to argue - as LinuxWorld reported he already did last week at the Net-Centric Operations Industry Forum - that it is a mistake: "Until Linux achieves the same level of reliability and security required of commercial operating systems," he insists, "it should not be used in critical defense systems."
In a news release today, O'Dowd defends his position. Much of the reaction to his April 8 speech at the Forum, he argues, was based on the misconception that proprietary software could not be as reliable or secure as open source software.
"This stands the truth on its head," says O'Dowd, referencing an example from his own company. "Green Hills Software's INTEGRITY operating system has been used for years in safety-critical avionics displays, communications, navigation and flight control systems on numerous military and commercial aircraft including the B-1B, B-52, C-17, F-16, F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, Sikorsky S-92 helicopter, and Airbus A380. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has certified our operating system to DO-178B Level A, the FAA's highest safety standard for software design, development, documentation, and testing."
"The U.S. mandates DO-178B Level A safety certification for software on which airline passengers' lives depend," O"Dowd continues. "Should we accept a lower level of reliability for the defense systems on which the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines depend? Until Linux is certified to DO-178B Level A, we should not ask them to trust their lives to it."
O'Dowd also pointed out that an internationally recognized software security standard exists: the Common Criteria for IT Security Evaluation (ISO standard 15408). The Common Criteria defines seven Evaluation Assurance Levels (EAL), with EAL 7 being the highest level.
In his April 8 speech, O'Dowd sparked controversy when he said:
"The open source process violates every principle of security. Now that foreign intelligence agencies and terrorists know that Linux is being used to control military applications, they can contribute subversive software that will soon be incorporated into our most advanced defense systems."
In the white paper released today, titled "Linux Security Controversy," O'Dowd explains what he believes is the importance of Linux security certification.
"Verification of security under Common Criteria EAL 7 means that you must formally and mathematically prove that the software has not been compromised," he writes. "An EAL 7 security evaluation will prevent a saboteur working on the operating system development team from subverting the operating system."
He then more or less repeats his earlier allegations:
"Linux development and support are being outsourced to China, Russia, and other countries from which commercial defense software would never be purchased. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that Linux be subject to formal EAL 7 verification to determine if it has been subverted by foreign intelligence agents or terrorists before it is allowed to control our nation's critical defense systems such as FCS, JTRS, and the GIG."
Before turning the whole thing, again, into a major plug for his own company's solutions:
"Green Hills Software's INTEGRITY-178B operating system is being used in critical defense systems that require EAL 7 certification by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA)."
"Several other proprietary operating system vendors have also committed to certifying their operating systems to EAL 7," O'Dowd observes, "but Linux has only achieved EAL 2. Even Microsoft Windows has achieved EAL 4."
"We must not trust national security to Linux until someone is prepared to take responsibility to certify Linux to the same EAL 7 standard that commercial vendors are committed to meet," O'Dowd concludes.
He saves his most deliberate soundbite till the end: "We don't need cheaper security, we need better security."
His company Green Hills Software, he says, will publish a further white paper next week, with a similarly combative title. It's going to be called "Many Eyes - No Assurance Against Many Spies."
Subscribe to Virtualization Journal Email News Alerts
Subscribe via RSS
