Index


Battlefield Automation: Opportunities to Improve the Army's Information
Protection Effort (Letter Report, 08/11/1999, GAO/NSIAD-99-166).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Army's development
and acquisition plans for command and control systems that will be part
of future digitized battlefield units, focusing on the Army protection
plan to determine whether it ensures sufficient assessments to test and
develop the defensibility of the digitized battlefield against command
and control warfare attacks.

GAO noted that: (1) the Army has carried out a number of assessments to
test and develop the defensibility of digitized battlefield systems and
forces, but its protection plan does not ensure sufficient vulnerability
assessments; (2) while the Army's plan provides a general strategy for
implementing information protection into the design of the digitized
forces, it does not constitute a detailed implementation plan, one that
lays out the specific systems, networks, and infrastructures covered;
their information protection requirements or needs; the information
protection knowledge and knowledge gaps for those systems; and the tests
or other events that will be used to fill specific knowledge gaps and
address previously identified weaknesses; (3) without such a detailed
implementation plan, systems vulnerabilities that might otherwise be
identified may not be exposed and fixed and the substantial investment
made by the Army could be at risk; (4) additionally, without a plan that
identifies specific needed events, adequate funding may not be made
available for needed activities, and valuable test opportunities could
be lost; (5) furthermore, systems could be developed and tested under
requirements that are not aligned with the goals and needs of the Army's
protection plan; (6) for example, GAO found that a key digitization
effort does not have a minimum requirement for development of the
protection concept outlined in the Army's protection plan; (7) as a
result, systems could be developed without providing features needed to
achieve that concept; (8) GAO also found that the system that is the
centerpiece of the Army's digitization efforts has a key performance
requirement that is set for a non-jamming environment and is not
conducive to judging whether sufficient protection has been achieved;
and (9) while the Army has already undertaken a number of activities
laid out in its protection plan, much remains to be done as its
digitization efforts are to extend over the next decade and be
implemented through the development, production, and fielding of over
100 individual systems.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  NSIAD-99-166
     TITLE:  Battlefield Automation: Opportunities to Improve the
	     Army's Information Protection Effort
      DATE:  08/11/1999
   SUBJECT:  Defense capabilities
	     Military communication
	     Army procurement
	     Military systems analysis
	     Command control communications systems
	     Computer security
	     Information resources management
	     Strategic information systems planning
IDENTIFIER:  Army Force XXI Battle Command Brigade and Below Program
	     Army Protection Plan for Army XXI Information Systems
	     Army Enhanced Position Location Reporting System
	     Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System
	     Army Task Force XXI Advanced Warfighting Experiment
	     Differential Global Positioning System
	     Army Global Command and Control System
	     Army Combat Service Support Control System
	     Army Digitization Master Plan
	     Army Maneuver Control System
	     Army Warfighter Information Network

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  This text was extracted from a PDF file.        **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,      **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some   **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into          **
** body text in the adjacent column.  Graphic images have       **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included.       **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been   **
** preserved.                                                   **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                    <[email protected]>                        **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************
A Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense,
Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives

GAO/NSIAD-99-166

August 1999 BATTLEFIELD AUTOMATION

Opportunities to Improve the Army's Information Protection Effort

National Security and International Affairs Division

B-280565 Letter August 11, 1999 The Honorable Jerry Lewis
Chairman, Subcommittee on Defense Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman: Over the next decade, the Army's modernization
objectives include the integration of information technologies to
acquire, exchange, and employ timely information throughout the
battlespace. Information technology integration or digitization is
to be implemented throughout the Army through the development,
production, and fielding of over 100 individual systems. According
to the President's fiscal year 2000 budget request, the Army's
digitization efforts will cost $20.8 billion between fiscal year
2000

and 2005. The Army expects this investment to result in increased
survivability, lethality, and tempo of operations. However, it
also recognizes that reliance on digitization could make its
command and control systems more vulnerable to enemy activities
such as jamming and computer network attacks and has developed a
Protection Plan for Army

XXI Information Systems that lays out a general strategy for
implementing information protection into the design of the
digitized battlefield.

This report is in response to a Subcommittee request to evaluate
the Army's development and acquisition plans for command and
control systems that will be part of future digitized battlefield
units. Specifically, we evaluated the Army's protection plan to
determine whether it ensures sufficient assessments to test and
develop the defensibility of the digitized battlefield against
command and control warfare attacks.

Results in Brief The Army has carried out a number of assessments
to test and develop the defensibility of digitized battlefield
systems and forces, but its protection plan does not ensure
sufficient vulnerability assessments. While the Army's plan
provides a general strategy for implementing information
protection into the design of the digitized forces, it does not
constitute a detailed implementation plan, one that lays out  the
specific systems, networks, and infrastructures covered;

 their information protection requirements or needs;  the
information protection knowledge and knowledge gaps for those
systems; and  the tests or other events that will be used to fill
specific knowledge gaps and address previously identified
weaknesses. Without such a detailed implementation plan, systems
vulnerabilities that might otherwise be identified may not be
exposed and fixed and the substantial investment made by the Army
could be at risk. Additionally, without a plan that identifies
specific needed events, adequate funding may not be made available
for needed activities, and valuable test opportunities could be
lost. Furthermore, systems could be developed and tested under
requirements that are not aligned with the goals and needs of the
Army's protection plan. For example, we found that a key
digitization effort does not have a minimum requirement for
development of the protection concept outlined in the Army's
protection plan. As a result, systems could be developed without
providing features needed to achieve that concept. We also found
that the system that is the centerpiece of the Army's digitization
efforts has a key performance requirement that is set for a non-
jamming environment and is not conducive to judging whether
sufficient protection has been achieved. While the Army has
already undertaken a number of activities laid out in its
protection plan, much remains to be done as its digitization
efforts are to extend over the next

decade and be implemented through the development, production, and
fielding of over 100 individual systems. This report contains
recommendations to the Secretary of Defense regarding the
management of the Army's digitization- related information
protection activities. Background The Army plans to use
vulnerability assessments, including red team activities, to help
develop digitization systems and networks. Vulnerability

assessments are conducted to determine potential and exploitable
weaknesses; red teaming activities are a specialized type of
vulnerability assessment in which a group acting as an opposing
force conducts offensive actions to generate a reaction or expose
a weakness on the friendly side. The Army has defined 16 high-
priority systems that, at a minimum, are to be fielded to
accomplish its First Digitized Division. (The Army plans to field
its First Digitized Division by December 2000 and its First
Digitized Corps

by September 2004.) One of these 16 high- priority systems the
Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade and Below (FBCB2) system is the
centerpiece of the Army's digitization efforts because of its
potential to contribute significantly to achieving the Army's
digitization goals. 1 When fielded, FBCB2 is expected to provide
enhanced situational awareness to the lowest tactical level the
individual soldier and a seamless flow of command and control
information across the battlespace. FBCB2 will be composed of

 a computer that can display a variety of information, including a
common picture of the battlefield overlaid with graphical
depictions (known as icons) of friendly and enemy forces;
software that automatically integrates Global Positioning System
data, military intelligence data, combat identification data, and
platform data

(such as the status of fuel and ammunition); and  interfaces to
communications systems.

Battlefield data will be communicated to and received from users
of FBCB2 2 through the Tactical Internet a network of tactical
radios 3 for the transmission and receipt of data needed for
battlefield situational awareness and command and control
decisions. The FBCB2 system requires a functioning and protected
Tactical Internet to accomplish its mission.

Because the FBCB2 system and Tactical Internet are two of the
Army's most important digitization efforts, establishing their
ability to withstand attacks is critical. The Army's near- term
information protection efforts have been designed to capitalize on
FBCB2 and Tactical Internet development and test events
culminating in a no holds barred' electronic and computer attack
during the FBCB2 system's initial operational test and evaluation.
This test can serve as a proof- of- concept event to determine
whether the Army has achieved its intent of developing a level of
1 Nearly all of the other high- priority Army digitization systems
are dedicated to enhancing the Army Tactical Command and Control
System.

2 For further information on the FBCB2 program, please see Battlefield 
Automation: Acquisition Issues Facing the Army Battle Command, Brigade 
and Below Program (

GAO/NSIAD-98-140
, June 30, 1998). 3 The Internet's tactical radios are currently the 
Enhanced Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS) and Single Channel 
Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS).
2 For further information on the FBCB2 program, please see
Battlefield Automation: Acquisition Issues Facing the Army Battle
Command, Brigade and Below Program (  GAO/NSIAD-98-140 , June 30,
1998). 3 The Internet's tactical radios are currently the Enhanced
Position Location Reporting System (EPLRS) and Single Channel
Ground and Airborne Radio System (SINCGARS).

information systems protection sufficient to allow its critical
functions and operations to continue. Information Protection The
Army developed a plan to integrate information protection features
Plan Is Not Sufficiently and capabilities into its tactical
systems, networks, and infrastructure. It has also carried out a
number of assessment activities in keeping with that Detailed

plan. However, while that plan lays out a general strategy for
integrating information systems protection into the design of the
digitized battlefield, it is not a detailed implementation plan.
Without a detailed implementation plan, the Army is not as well
positioned as it could be to ensure that important test
opportunities are not lost, that needed information protection
activities are adequately funded, and that digitization systems
development and test requirements accurately reflect the Army's
protection needs and goals.

The Army's Protection Plan In September 1997 the Army Digitization
Office published the Army's Protection Plan for Army XXI
Information Systems. 4 The plan states that the objective of
information systems protection is to ensure that friendly command
and control capabilities are available to the commander and staff.
It then goes on to describe three types of command and control
warfare threats that are of concern: physical attacks, electronic
attacks, and computer attacks.  Physical attacks involve
destruction, damage, overrun, or capture of the

physical components of digitization. Overrunning and capture
facilitate an adversary's ability to employ computer attacks on
friendly forces.  Electronic attacks (also referred to as
electronic warfare) include

attacks against communications links and high energy attacks.
Attacks against communications links include (1) signal intercept
to effect compromise of data, (2) radio emitter direction finding
and geo- location to support signal analysis and attack, and (3)
radio jamming, which is usually intended to corrupt data or deny
service. High- energy attacks include those by electromagnetic
pulse generators (which destroy or damage electronic components
within an area by 4 Subsequently, responsibility for oversight and
coordination of the efforts outlined in that plan transitioned
from the Army Digitization Office to the Army's Director of
Information Systems for Command, Control, Communications, and
Computers (DISC4).

overloading them with energy) and directed energy weapons such as
high- energy lasers (which direct large amounts of energy onto a
specified target).  Computer attacks are generally (1) aimed at
software or data contained in either end- user or network
computers; (2) intended to range from unauthorized but unobtrusive
access to information and unauthorized modification of software or
data to total destruction of software and data; and (3) the least
well understood form of attack and may involve

the most difficult countermeasures to successfully implement. The
protection plan notes that computer attacks can occur in peacetime
and wartime and comments that the interconnected nature of the
digitization networks may present the opportunity to create
widespread service disruption. As a result, the Army plan
concludes that computer

attacks appear to pose the most serious potential threat to
digitization. The Army's plan lays out an information protection
strategy that reflects its belief that complete protection against
all known and future vulnerabilities is not feasible. In line with
that belief, the Army's intent is to field a

digitized force with a level of protection that is sufficient to
allow critical functions and operations to continue while under
computer attack. To accomplish this level of protection, the Army
has adopted a defense in depth protection concept consisting of
electronically guarded perimeters and active information
surveillance. The Army's defense in depth, depicted in figure 1,
is to include  an external digital perimeter composed of
communications security, firewalls, 5 security guards, and where
necessary, physical isolation serving as a barrier to outside
networks;  similar internal perimeters between echelons and/ or
functional communities;  a secure local workstation environment,
consisting of individual access controls, configuration audit
capability, command and control protect tools, and procedures;

 intrusion detection systems;  extensions to network management
capabilities to provide real- time network surveillance and
reaction to network intrusions; and

5 Firewalls are hardware and software components that protect one
set of systems resources (e. g., computers, networks) from attack
by outside network users by blocking and checking all incoming
network traffic. Firewalls permit authorized users to access and
transmit privileged information and

deny access to unauthorized users.

 a robust, survivable infrastructure designed to contain damage
from attacks and to be readily repairable in the event of an
attack.

Figure 1: Army's Defense in Depth Protection Concept

External Digital

networks perimeter

Network and security management/

Internal surveillance

perimeter Robust, survivable

Local infrastructure

workstation security

Source: U. S. Army, Protection Plan for Army XXI Information
Systems.

The Army's plan lays out a strategy to translate this defense in
depth protection concept into action by incorporating lessons
learned through vulnerability assessment activities into the
design and implementation of digitization systems, networks, and
infrastructures. These assessment activities are to be conducted
during experiments, training events, and development and test
events to

 determine the level of protection achieved;  identify
vulnerabilities; and  provide feedback to impact (1) architecture,
design and development efforts and (2) tactics, techniques, and
procedures development and training activities.

The Army's Assessment The protection plan describes three phases
of vulnerability assessments. Activities Phase I and phase II have
been completed.

Phase I used computer attacks focused on probing the network for
potential vulnerabilities, but did not involve active attacks.
During the first phase, electronic attack vulnerability
assessments were performed in laboratory and other controlled
facilities against individual systems, including EPLRS and
SINCGARS. These assessments were conducted as a part of the Task
Force XXI Advanced Warfighting Experiment (AWE). Table I. 1 in
appendix I lists the phase I Task Force XXI AWE Red Team

tasks, their objectives, and where and when they were conducted.
In one example of the Army's phase I activities, the Army's
Electronic Proving Ground performed position navigation
vulnerability experiments using an early version of FBCB2 software
and the Tactical Internet. In a

simulated Global Positioning System jamming environment, the
Electronic Proving Ground found that the FBCB2 software fluctuated
between displaying and reporting inaccurate Global Positioning
System and accurate EPLRS position navigation data. The jamming
resulted in not only a fluctuating display of inaccurate and
accurate positions for the unit's own location, but also the
transmission of both inaccurate and accurate position reporting
through the Tactical Internet to other units on the network. As a
result of this work, the Electronic Proving Ground concluded that
the early

version of FBCB2 software tested had a major software design
problem. The Electronic Proving Ground recommended that this
finding be considered by the system developer. Phase II involved
computer attacks focused on intrusions from both outside and
inside the network to detect exploitable vulnerabilities. The
attackers were allowed to leave markers 6 but were not authorized
to cause any physical impact or to disconnect computers from the
network. Electronic attacks were simulated or conducted
surgically. Table I. 2 in 6 The markers left were computer files
indicating that unauthorized access had been achieved.

appendix I lists the September 1997 Army protection plan's list of
phase II Division XXI AWE Red Team tasks, their objectives, and
where and when they were to be conducted. One example of red team
activities in the Division XXI AWE that is reported to have
occurred during phase II was an examination of the impact of
jamming the Army's Mobile Subscriber Equipment. 7 The Army
reported that it used progressive jamming against the Mobile
Subscriber Equipment of the 3 rd Brigade Tactical Operations
Center and learned that  as expected, the Mobile Subscriber
Equipment rerouted traffic around

jammed frequencies with no initial impact on situational
awareness;  jamming both of the operations center's main data
pipes at artificially high levels caused severe slowing of
rerouted data traffic; and

 jamming two frequencies with high power for a sustained time
would make the perpetrator vulnerable to detection and
counterattack by friendly air or artillery.

As a result, the Army concluded that jamming the Mobile Subscriber
Equipment would not be a high payoff opportunity for the enemy.
Overall, the Army reported that the red teaming efforts conducted
during the

Division XXI AWE provided valuable insights into strategies for
protection of information technologies on the battlefield and
reinforced the need for a defense in depth approach. The Army is
currently involved in phase III of the vulnerability assessments

outlined in its protection plan for Army XXI information systems.
The assessments conducted in this phase are to be progressively
more robust, more broadly based attacks intended to apply stress
to digitization systems, networks, and infrastructure. Ultimately,
this phase is to culminate in a no holds barred command and
control attack on its digitization systems. The Army, however, has
not yet defined the scope and nature of the attacks that are to
occur during that event.

The Army's protection plan calls for its phase III activities to
capitalize on the FBCB2 system's development and acquisition
program test and evaluation events. While the primary focus of its
efforts are to be test and 7 The Army's Mobile Subscriber
Equipment provides secure voice telephone and data transmission to
corps and below forces. All of its equipment is classified secret
and all personnel operating on the network must have a secret
security clearance.

evaluation events associated with FBCB2 and the Tactical Internet,
the Army also plans to take advantage of other events to assess
its information systems protection posture, including events
associated with the Army Global Command and Control System, the
Integrated Combat Service

Support System, and the Warfighter Information Network. To date,
however, the Army has not detailed the planned use of non- FBCB2
related development and test events. Table I. 3 in appendix I
lists the Army protection plan's phase III vulnerability
assessment tasks with objectives, events, and responsible
organizations. The Army has already carried out some phase III
activities. For example, information protection activities
occurred as a part of both the FBCB2

Field Test 1 and the FBCB2 Limited User Test. As a part of the
Field Test 1 held during May and June 1998, 8 the Army subjected
the FBCB2 and Tactical Internet to 2 nights of barrage jamming.
Additionally, during the

last 3 days of the field test, the Army's Program Manager for
Information Warfare with the Army's Communications and Electronics
Command conducted a Command and Control Protection Advanced
Technology Demonstration that consisted of localized jamming and
information warfare attacks. During the August 1998 FBCB2 Limited
User Test, the Army also carried out some red team tasks 9 mapping
10 the Tactical Internet to gain an understanding of its
architecture and possible weaknesses and analyzing digitized
forces' susceptibility to signals intelligence efforts. While the
Army has already undertaken a number of activities laid out in its
protection plan, much remains to be done as the Army's
digitization efforts

are to extend over the next decade and be implemented through the
development, production, and fielding of over 100 individual
systems. For 8 The FBCB2 Field Test 1 consisted of 61 FBCB2
systems spread across the Electronic Proving Ground's east range.
Fourteen of the systems were on mobile platforms. Among its other
limitations, the test did not involve as heavy a command and
control message load as had been planned. 9 Many of the Army's red
team tasks are other forms of vulnerability assessments, not red
teaming as has been defined. For example, in discussing the FBCB2
Limited User Test information protection efforts, the Army
official overseeing those efforts stated that it would be more
accurate to call them blue team activities (i. e., friendly force
efforts) because the individuals carrying them out were working to
identify vulnerabilities and point them out to the friendly
forces, not to exploit them. 10 Mapping involves sending out
requests for service to try to determine the structure of the
network; i. e., who can be identified as being on the Internet.
Enemies would use mapping to try to define the structure of
friendly networks and identify possible points of exploitation.
Friendly forces would use

mapping of their own networks to try to determine if unauthorized
equipment or connections (which can serve as back doors for
unauthorized access) are hooked up to the network.

example, the Army's report on its Field Test 1 information
protection activities stated that FBCB2 and the Tactical Internet
must undergo more extensive electronic and information warfare
testing during upcoming FBCB2 test events, including Field Test 2,
Force Development Test and Experimentation, and its Initial
Operational Test and Evaluation. The

report also stated that systematic electronic and information
warfare test and evaluation of the other First Digitized Division
systems and networks must be initiated and completed prior to
fielding. Detailed Implementation While the Army has developed a
general strategy for integrating

Plan Not Developed information systems protection and has
conducted a number of assessment activities, it lacks the
specificity that would be contained in a detailed implementation
plan. The Army's protection plan does not  define the more than
100 systems that are a part of its overall

digitization efforts;  detail their specific information
protection requirements, what is known or unknown about their
individual vulnerabilities, or the specific test or

other events to be used to fill identified knowledge gaps and
ensure satisfactory resolution of previously identified
weaknesses;  define specific information protection aspects or
issues to be tested during specific tests and events or who is
responsible for carrying out and funding those specific
activities; and  identify the cost of specific protection plan
activities or the parties responsible for funding those
activities. A detailed implementation plan that provides this
information could help the Army identify test opportunities,
address funding issues, and ensure that requirements are aligned
with the goals and needs of its protection plans. Identification
ofTest Because its protection plan lacks sufficient implementation
information, Opportunities and Funding

the Army could lose valuable testing opportunities. For example,
during Issues our review, we found that guidelines (in draft form
as a security annex to the Army Digitization Master Plan of
January 1999) that would charge

involved parties with specific tasks contained no more information
than the Army's overall protection plan itself. Specifically, the
September 1997 Protection Plan and the security annex both state
that follow- on assessments will be included in their next updates
and that those assessment plans will address test and evaluation
events such as the Maneuver Control System's Initial Operational
Test and Evaluation, the

M1A2 (Abrams Tank) System Enhancement Program Initial Operational
Test and Evaluation, the M2A3 (Bradley Fighting Vehicle) Initial
Operational Test and Evaluation, and other events as appropriate.
In June 1998 the Maneuver Control System 11 (MCS) Block III
software underwent an initial operational test and evaluation, but
that test was not used for protection plan activities. The
opportunity to use this test for protection

plan activities was lost because the Army's protection plan lacked
sufficient implementation information including specific
identification of activities to be carried out during that MCS
test and because no such details were subsequently developed. The
Army's protection plan is based on an assumption that sufficient
resources will be made available to implement a prudent amount of

information systems protection in the first digitized division and
beyond. As mentioned, however, the plan provides no funding
details. Development of a detailed implementation plan could help
the Army avoid funding shortfalls. For example, last year the
Army's Test and Evaluation Management Agency put in a funding
request for unfunded requirements of over $6 million in fiscal
year 1999 and $7 million in each of fiscal years 2000

through 2006 for the Army's Survivability/ Lethality Analysis
Directorate (SLAD) to perform information warfare vulnerability
assessments of digitized battlefield systems and related
activities. The Army was unable to locate funds for those
activities and included them on a list of unfunded requirements
sent to Congress. Congress subsequently increased the

SLAD's fiscal year 1999 budget for vulnerability assessments by $4
million. These funding issues have not disappeared, however, as
the unfunded requirement for fiscal year 2000 SLAD- led,
information warfare vulnerability assessments and related
activities has grown to $10.2 million. Ensuring Requirements Are

A detailed implementation plan could help the Army ensure that
digitized Aligned With Plan's Goals and battlefield systems have
requirements that are aligned with its protection Needs

plan's goals and needs. Two key components of the Army's
digitization efforts the FBCB2 system and the Tactical Internet
have requirements that are not in line with the goals and needs of
the Army's Protection Plan for Army XXI Information Systems.
Specifically, the Capstone

11 The MCS program is intended to develop and field a computer
system that provides automated critical battlefield assistance to
maneuver commanders and their battle staff at the corps- to-
battalion level. MCS a key component of the Army Tactical Command
and Control System is 1 of 16 systems considered to be critical
elements within the Army's digitization effort because of the
expected contribution they will make to achieve the required
capabilities of the digitized battlefield.

Requirements Document for the Tactical Internet 12 sets an
objective, not threshold, requirement for the defense in depth
protection concept envisioned in the Army's protection plan. The
capstone requirements

document states that a threshold value is the minimum acceptable
value necessary to satisfy an operational need and that an
objective value is the desired performance above that threshold.
13 To be able to judge whether sufficient protection has been
achieved, systems' performance criteria need to be set and systems
need to be judged for performance in the hostile environment in
which they may need to operate. The capstone requirements document
appropriately sets criteria

for performance in a tactical environment that includes radio
jamming, but the program most clearly tied to the Tactical
Internet FBCB2 has criteria set for performance in a non- jamming
environment. Specifically, a

key FBCB2 performance requirement, Information Exchange, has not
been set to demonstrate attainment of a minimal level of
performance in a jamming environment a type of threat that the
Army protection plan seeks to address. The FBCB2 operational
requirements document states that the requirement for Information
Exchange, listed as a Key Performance Parameter 14 for the system,
is to provide a capability for the timely and reliable exchange of
information between a sender and recipient. The document lists
four categories of messages by type and assigns speed of service
requirements for the transmission of those messages based on their
type. For example, as a threshold value, 90 percent of category
one messages sent defined as Alerts and Warnings are to be
successfully received within 6 seconds.

12 User requirements may be documented as capstone requirements,
which are common systems' requirements (such as overarching inter-
operability requirements or standards) that apply to a family of
systems. 13 Army Regulation 71- 9 states that the minimum
acceptable value (threshold) requirements will be truly essential
and minimum needs for successful operations and not desires or
artificial contract or acquisition values. 14 A key performance
parameter is that capability or characteristic so significant that
failure to meet the threshold can be cause for the concept or
system selection to be reevaluated or the program to be reassessed
or terminated.

It also includes, however, an assumption of no jamming for the
defined Information Exchange requirements. 15 Conclusions The
Army's digitization efforts hold the promise of providing its
fighting forces with operational improvements. However, they will
also provide potential enemies new avenues of attack and greater
opportunities to exploit existing vulnerabilities. Although, the
Army has developed a general strategy for implementing systems
protection into the design of the digitized battlefield, its plan
lacks sufficient detail. Given the substantial digitization work
that remains to be done (the integration of information
technologies into over 100 systems), we believe a detailed
implementation plan is needed to help ensure that the Army (a)
fields a digitized force that can carry out its critical functions
and operations and (b) is cognizant of any residual
vulnerabilities a factor than could prove important in recognizing
enemy information system attacks. Furthermore, we believe

such a plan could help ensure that sufficient funding, oversight,
and effort are applied to developing the needed information
protection. To be effective, the implementation plan should be a
living document that will extend beyond the First Digitized
Division and First Digitized Corps a plan that is continually
updated as circumstances dictate. We believe that the absence of
such a plan places the substantial investment the Army is making
in digitization at greater risk.

In addition to developing a detailed implementation plan, we
believe the Army has further opportunities to enhance its
information protection effort. The Army's successful
implementation of its defense in depth concept will depend, in
part, on how well that concept is reflected in requirements placed
on individual systems. In our opinion, the threshold Tactical
Internet information protection requirement should be aligned to
the Army protection plan concept, that is, Tactical Internet
related systems should be required to support the development of
the defense in depth called for in the Army protection plan. Also,
to help ensure that the digitized forces that are fielded provide
sufficient protection allowing critical functions and operations
to continue, the Army needs to set minimum performance criteria
for systems' performance in such an environment, including setting
minimum performance for FBCB2 in a

jamming environment. We believe that setting such performance
standards 15 The FBCB2 operational requirements document is not
entirely clear, and the assumption of a no jamming environment may
apply to other key performance parameters also.

will help ensure that systems that cannot carry out critical
functions and operations when under attack are not fielded.
Recommendations We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct
the Secretary of the

Army to:  Develop a detailed implementation plan for the Army's
protection efforts for Army XXI information systems to include
information such as a system by system breakout of tested and
untested (known and unknown) areas of vulnerabilities; the
specific test events to be used to look for systems
vulnerabilities or to confirm fixes to previously

identified, significant vulnerabilities; and responsible
performing and funding parties.  Require the Tactical Internet to
have threshold information protection

requirements consistent with the Army's defense in depth
protection concept.  Set performance requirements for and test
FBCB2 in a jamming

environment. Agency Comments DOD generally concurred with the
recommendations contained in a draft of this report. DOD concurred
with our first recommendation stating that the Army has already
initiated an effort to develop a detailed implementation plan for
its information protection activities. Regarding our second
recommendation on tactical internet security, DOD generally

concurred and stated that the Army will review requirements
documents for all First Digitized Division systems to determine
whether their security requirements are consistent with the Army's
defense in depth concept. DOD generally concurred with our third
recommendation, stating that the

Army will revise performance requirements for FBCB2 to reflect
performance in a jamming environment and will test in that
environment. We believe that the actions outlined in DOD's
response should enhance the Army's information protection efforts.
DOD's comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix II.
Scope and

To evaluate the Army's protection plans to determine whether they
ensure Methodology sufficient assessments to test and develop the
defensibility of the digitized battlefield, we reviewed the Army's
overall protection plans by analyzing

key Army information protection related documents (including the
Army's Protection Plan for Army XXI Information Systems and its
draft security annex for the Army Digitization Master Plan) and
considering them in the context of the Army's larger digitization
efforts. In evaluating the Army's near- term plans to develop and
test its defense in depth protection concept, we reviewed its
plans to use FBCB2 and Tactical Internet development and test
events and examined key development and test documents for those
efforts to determine whether their approach was in line with the
Army's protection plan. We obtained briefings from and

discussed issues with parties directly involved in the development
and oversight of Army information protection efforts, program
managers for high- priority digitization systems, and testers. In
the course of our work, we were briefed by and interviewed
officials responsible for management and oversight of the Army's
digitization- related information protection efforts; program
managers for high- priority digitization systems; officials
responsible for planning, carrying out, and overseeing system
vulnerability assessments; and other

Army and DOD representatives. We examined DOD and Army information
protection documents, system requirements, test plans, and other
program documents. We performed our work primarily with officials
from the Army Office of the Director of Information Systems for
Command, Control, Communications, and Computers. We also gathered
data from the Army

Communications- Electronics Command, Fort Monmouth, New Jersey;
the Office of the Director, Operational Test and Evaluation,
Alexandria, Virginia; the Army Training and Doctrine Command, Fort
Monroe and Fort Eustis, Virginia; the Army Operational Test and
Evaluation Command, Alexandria, Virginia; the Army National
Training Center, Fort Irwin, California; the Army's Electronic
Proving Ground, Fort Huachuca, Arizona; the Army Survivability/
Lethality Directorate, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Maryland; the
Defense Information Systems Agency, Falls Church, Virginia; the
Army Land Information Warfare Activity, Fort Belvoir, Virginia;
and the

4 th Infantry Division and 3 rd Corps, Fort Hood, Texas. We
performed our review from July 1998 to July 1999 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

We are sending copies of this report to Representative John P.
Murtha, Ranking Minority Member of the Subcommittee;
Representative C. W. Bill Young, Chairman, and Representative
David R. Obey, Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on
Appropriations; and other interested

congressional committees. We are also sending copies of this
report to the Honorable William S. Cohen, Secretary of Defense,
and the Honorable Louis Caldera, Secretary of the Army. Copies
will also be made available to others upon request. Please contact
me at (202) 512- 4841 if you or your staff have any questions
concerning this report. Key contributors to this assignment were
Charles F. Rey, Bruce H. Thomas, and Gregory K. Harmon.

Sincerely yours, Allen Li Associate Director Defense Acquisitions
Issues

Letter 1 Appendix I

20 Red Team Tasks

Appendix II 24

Comments From the Department of Defense

Tables Table I. 1: Phase I (Task Force XXI) Red Team Tasks 20
Table I. 2: Phase II Division XXI AWE Red Team Tasks 21

Table I. 3: Planned Phase III Vulnerability Assessments During
FBCB2 Test Events 22

Figures Figure 1: Army's Defense in Depth Protection Concept 6

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense FBCB2 Force XXI Battle Command, Brigade
and Below EPLRS Enhanced Position Location and Reporting System
SINCGARS Single Channel Ground and Airborne Radio System DISC4
Director of Information Systems for Command, Control,
Communications, and Computers

AWE Advanced Warfighting Experiment MCS Maneuver Control System
SLAD Survivability /Lethality Analysis Directorate

Appendi I x Red Team Tasks Table I. 1: Phase I (Task Force XXI)
Red Team Tasks Red Team task Objective Location Dates

 Position/ navigation vulnerability To determine the impact of
loss of Global Fort Huachuca, AZ Apr. 1996

assessment Positioning System signal on the Task Force Fort
Huachuca, AZ Dec. 1996

information network  Hacker/ virus vulnerability To determine the
vulnerability of the Task Force Fort Hood, TX

Dec. 1996 assessment information network to hacker, virus, and
other Fort Irwin, CA Mar. 1997

non- traditional threats  Operations security evaluation To
determine new/ increased operational Fort Hood, TX

Dec. 96 security vulnerabilities due to digitization of the Fort
Irwin, CA Mar. 97 battlefield

 Signal intelligence/ measurement To determine unique pattern and
signatures of Fort Hood, TX Dec. 1996

and signatures intelligence the digitized force Fort Irwin, CA
Mar. 1997

characterization  Security policy evaluation To assess the needs
for revised and/ or Fort Hood, TX

Dec. 1996 additional security policy due to digitization Ft.
Irwin, CA Mar. 1997

 Tactical Internet components To determine unique vulnerabilities
of the

Fort Monmouth, NJ June 1996

vulnerability assessment individual systems comprising the
Tactical Fort Monmouth, NJ Nov. 1996 Internet (e. g., SINCGARS and
EPLRS)

Source: U. S. Army, Protection Plan for Army XXI Information
Systems.

Table I. 2: Phase II Division XXI AWE RedTeamTasks Red Team task
Objective Location Dates

 Electronic warfare To determine the impact of loss of selected
Simulation Exercise II

Sept. 1997 communication links on the Division XXI AWE Fort Hood
Nov. 1997 experimentation information network  Operations security
evaluation To determine new/ increased operational security Fort
Hood Nov. 1997

vulnerabilities due to digitization of the battlefield  Computer
attack vulnerability To detect exploitable vulnerabilities of
attacks from Simulation Exercise II Sept. 1997 assessments both
outside and inside the Division XXI AWE Fort Hood Nov. 1997

information network  Capture/ exploitation of the

To determine vulnerabilities to the Mobile Fort Hood Nov. 1997

mobile subscriber equipment Subscriber Equipment network resulting
from node capture of Small Extension Node

 Measurement and signatures To determine unique patterns and
signatures of the Fort Hood Nov. 1997

intelligence characterization digitized force Source: U. S. Army,
Protection Plan for Army XXI Information Systems.

Table I. 3: Planned Phase IIIVulnerability Assessments During
FBCB2 Test Events Responsible Red Team task Objective Event
organization

System assessments To assess performance of individual systems to
electronic warfare and command and control attack and characterize
their signatures

 Electronic attack To assess vulnerabilities of new Laboratory
assessments of Near PM TRCS/ CECOM

communication systems to jamming Term Digital Radio, High Capacity
Trunk Radio, and others as required

 Computer attack To assess vulnerability of Army Tactical
Vulnerability assessments of  PM Applique Command and Control
System component FBCB2, Maneuver Control  PM ATCCS systems to
command and control attack

System, other command and  Other PMs

control systems SLAD

Technical Network To assess the vulnerabilities of the network to
assessment attack and characterization in a controlled environment

 Electronic attack To assess vulnerability of battalion- and
Field Test I EPG

brigade- level communication  Field Test II systems/ networks to
jamming  Computer attack To assess vulnerability of information
and

 Laboratory and testbed PM IW/ SLAD Command and Control systems to
attack assessments

 Field Test I  Field Test II  Characterization To assess the
ability to identify friendly nodes Laboratories CECOM/ SLAD/
through unique signatures INSCOM/ EPG Operational network

To assess the vulnerabilities of the network to assessment attack
and characterization in an operational environment

 Electronic warfare attack To assess vulnerability of battalion-
and IOT& E OPTEC/ SLAD/

brigade- level communication PM IW systems/ networks to near- peer
live electronic warfare attack

 Command and control To assess vulnerability of information and
Limited User Test

OPTEC/ LIWA/ PM IW/ attack Command and Control systems to live
attack FDT& E

SLAD culminating in a full- up near- peer computer IOT& E attack
during IOTE

 Characterization To assess the ability to identify friendly nodes
Limited User Test CECOM/

through unique signatures in an operational INSCOM setting

 Operations security/ To assess operational and computer security

 Limited User Test INSCOM

computer security procedures and training FDT& E IOT& E

Legend: ATCCS Army Tactical Command and Control System CECOM
Communications and Electronics Command EPG Electronic Proving
Ground FDT& E Force Development Test and Experimentation INSCOM
Intelligence and Security Command IOT& E Initial Operational Test
and Evaluation IW Information Warfare OPTEC Operational Test and
Evaluation Command PM Program Manager, Product Manager, Project
Manager LIWA Land Information Warfare Activity SLAD Survivability/
Lethality Analysis Directorate TRCS Tactical Radio Communications
Systems

Source: U. S. Army, Protection Plan for Army XXI Information
Systems.

Appe ndi I I x Comments From the Department of Defense

Now on p. 14. Now on p. 14. Now on p. 14.

Table I. 1: Phase I (Task Force XXI) Red Team Tasks 20 Table I. 2:
Phase II Division XXI AWE Red Team Tasks 21 Table I. 3: Planned
Phase III Vulnerability Assessments During FBCB2 Test Events 22

Figure 1: Army's Defense in Depth Protection Concept 6

GAO United States General Accounting Office

GAO/NSIAD-99-166

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-99-166 Battlefield Automation United States
General Accounting Office

Washington, D. C. 20548

Let t er

B-280565 Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-99-166 Battlefield Automation

Let t er

B-280565 Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-99-166 Battlefield Automation

B-280565 Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-99-166 Battlefield Automation

B-280565 Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-99-166 Battlefield Automation

B-280565 Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-99-166 Battlefield Automation

B-280565 Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-99-166 Battlefield Automation

B-280565 Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-99-166 Battlefield Automation

B-280565 Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-99-166 Battlefield Automation

B-280565 Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-99-166 Battlefield Automation

B-280565 Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-99-166 Battlefield Automation

B-280565 Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-99-166 Battlefield Automation

B-280565 Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-99-166 Battlefield Automation

B-280565 Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-99-166 Battlefield Automation

B-280565 Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-99-166 Battlefield Automation

B-280565 Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-99-166 Battlefield Automation

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-99-166 Battlefield Automation

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-99-166 Battlefield Automation

Contents

Contents Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-99-166 Battlefield Automation

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-99-166 Battlefield Automation

Appendix I

Appendix I Red Team Tasks

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-99-166 Battlefield Automation

Appendix I Red Team Tasks

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-99-166 Battlefield Automation

Appendix I Red Team Tasks

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-99-166 Battlefield Automation

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-99-166 Battlefield Automation

Appendix II

Appendix II Comments From the Department of Defense

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-99-166 Battlefield Automation

(707347) Let t e r

Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report and
testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be
sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money
order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary,
VISA and

MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more
copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013

or visit: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U. S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512- 6000 or by using
fax number (202) 512- 6061, or TDD (202) 512- 2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a
touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how
to obtain these lists. For information on how to access GAO
reports on the INTERNET, send an e- mail message with info in the
body to:

info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:
http:// www. gao. gov

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548-
0001

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00

Page 30 GAO/ XXXX ???

Contents

Contents Page 31 GAO/ XXXX ???

Page 32 GAO/ XXXX ???

Contents

Contents Page 33 GAO/ XXXX ???

*** End of document. ***