ARMY AL&T
PROCESS FOR SUCCESS
DARPA’s Resilient Systems Portfolio consists of programs with a shared vision to increase the survivability of our military systems. This chart highlights examples of formal methods techniques based on maturity level (vertical axis) and ways to implement them (horizontal axis). (Graphic courtesy of Matthew Wilding, DARPA)
THE ARMY PREPARES FOR THE NEXT FIGHT In 2016, the HACMS “edge” case included a malign actor using a USB stick to hijack an Army system. At the beginning of the program, the HACMS red team could hack into the H-6U onboard flight-control computer and take control of the entire system. Ten, the HACMS blue team modified the H-6U using formal methods and gave the same red team six weeks of unfet- tered access to the H-6U. Tey couldn’t hack it. Te red team was then given access to a non-essential partition of the heli- copter as a way in, but the red team could not expand access or disrupt operations. In other words, the front door of the bank was open, but they did not have the combination to the vault. Perhaps more importantly, the safety pilots of the H-6U did not know the system was hacked as it maintained full functionality. To demonstrate durability of the solution, DARPA offered the same HACMS 2016 quadcopter to hackers at the premier defense hacking conference, DEF CON, for another go. Tey also failed.
Formal methods can secure DOD systems now. If inclined, the Army could proactively apply formal methods to the Autono- mous Resupply Vessel before it rolls off the production line, or the Navy could reinforce the 240-ton DARPA autonomous vessel called USX-1 Defiant (conducting sea trials in 2025). But the scope doesn’t have to be limited to just future systems; rather, formal methods can be applied to legacy systems warfighters rely on today.
Formal methods can minimize software updates for network- connected capabilities. Doing so would increase survivability by extending the time Army systems can operate in no-comms environments.
“Formal methods are the best route to shift security from a reac- tive practice to a proactive guarantee that we can build upon to
https://asc.ar my.mil
55
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100
