Local Area Networks (LANs) in Aircraft - FTP Directory Listing - FAA

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Consequently, protocol translation gateways have repeatedly been shown to have high operational overhead, often requiring significant administrative oversight even when translating between two such similar systems. Most other legacy systems are significantly different from TCP/IP than CLNP/TP4, which increases the difficulty of doing protocol translation between them. This often results in the need for increased administrative oversight of those translation gateways for them to remain operationally viable over time. 4.7.1 Significant Semantic Differences to Allegedly Similar Concepts. Figure 10 introduced the concept that different protocol families can be connected into the same network system by leveraging protocol translation gateways. This section discusses protocol translation gateways themselves. The key point of this section is that even when protocol families have similar concepts, there are often subtle but important differences between the semantics of those concepts within the protocol family milieu in which they operate that obfuscate translations between these protocol systems. For example, it was previously explained how the OSI CLNP/TP4 variant that the ATN network uses is based upon TCP/IP. Despite the great deal of similarities between these two approaches, section 4.7 stated that the protocol systems are not mutually interoperable nor do they have identical underlying protocol state machines, which causes some translation difficulties for the protocol translation gateway. 4.7.2 Integrating Dissimilar Protocol Families. As was mentioned in section 4.7, deployments that seek to integrate multiple different communication families into an interoperable network traditionally accomplish this via common mechanisms. This section discusses these generic mechanisms in terms of a notional airborne infrastructure that includes both military and civilian aviation protocol systems. Figure 12 shows that environments that do not try to connect their dissimilar network families into a common structure have created a deployment characterized by “islands of communications.” For example, military Link16 communicating systems are only natively able to communicate with other Link16 devices, but not with HAVE QUICK or Link4 devices. These islands of communications are traditionally bridged by protocol translator gateway devices (depicted as G/W in figure 12). As was previously mentioned, protocol translator devices are operationally expensive to deploy and require an unusual amount of administrative attention. They also create single points of failure, communications bottlenecks, and deprecate (e.g., added extra latency and processing needs) the total system performance. Nevertheless, these devices are an essential part of bridging islands of communications, at least initially, for environments that (1) have network-centric operations requirements, (2) have requirements for humans or applications to communicate between (or across) these islands, or (3) have collaborative requirements to communicate with entities beyond the communications reach of legacy protocol systems. 48
Today’s Reality: Islands of Communications IP Transports Link together the AN Protocol Families HAVE QUICK CLNS/TP4 Legacy A Legacy A TCP/IP Other Legacies TCP/IP (Internet) Legacy B G/W G/W Legacy B VHF Link 16 Legacy C CLNS/TP4 Figure 12. Transforming Islands of Communication Into a Single Logical Network Infrastructure However, protocol translation gateways need not be the sole approach to bridge between protocol islands. Other approaches may include: • Gradually migrating legacy applications and protocol systems to the TCP/IP family. • Conveying (when appropriate) legacy communications over IP network transports. Both of these approaches have been widely used within industry as mechanisms to replace protocol translators. For example, during the early 1990s, The Boeing Company internally migrated from 17 distinct protocol families to a single, corporate-wide enterprise network running IP. Examples of specific migration approaches that were used by Boeing to internally create its enterprise-wide IP network include: • Networked Basic Input Output System was converted to run over TCP/IP via RFC 1001 and RFC 1002. • OSI applications (e.g., X.400, X.500) were converted to run over TCP/IP via RFC 1006. • Novell and Apple provided TCP/IP replacements to IPX/SPX (Netware) and AppleTalk in response to customer demand. 49
Page 1 and 2:
DOT/FAA/AR-08/31 Air Traffic Organi
Page 3 and 4:
1. Report No. DOT/FAA/AR-08/31 4. T
Page 5 and 6:
5.4.2 Aircraft as a Node (MIP and M
Page 7 and 8:
11.1 Findings and Recommendations 1
Page 9 and 10:
22 Customer’s L3VPN Protocol Stac
Page 11 and 12:
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Page 13 and 14: PBN PC PE PEP PFS PIB PIM-DM PIM-SM
Page 15 and 16: This report states that the primary
Page 17 and 18: 1. INTRODUCTION. This is the final
Page 19 and 20: protocol (IP)-based communications.
Page 21 and 22: of linking aircraft-resident system
Page 23 and 24: Industry and governments are extrem
Page 25 and 26: 2.1 NOTIONAL NETWORKED AIRCRAFT ARC
Page 27 and 28: Other Control Sites Controller ATC
Page 29 and 30: • The security viability of curre
Page 31 and 32: alternative requires that parallel
Page 33 and 34: Aircraft network security is a syst
Page 35 and 36: 4. NETWORK RISKS. This section spec
Page 37 and 38: General Threat Identifiers FAILURE
Page 39 and 40: esources so that the required real-
Page 41 and 42: “With the rise of client-side att
Page 43 and 44: • During an 11-month period (Apri
Page 45 and 46: attempt the theft of passwords. Non
Page 47 and 48: IP networks are organized in terms
Page 49 and 50: either the user or the trusted soft
Page 51 and 52: However, the previous paragraph beg
Page 53 and 54: Table 1. Internet Engineering Task
Page 59 and 60: • Lightweight directory access pr
Page 61 and 62: mechanism to overcome the key distr
Page 63: Deployments that need to support mu
Page 67 and 68: Simultaneously, IP addresses are al
Page 69 and 70: in-depth manner. Defense-in-depth m
Page 71 and 72: Protection Detection Reaction / Neu
Page 73 and 74: encrypted and then encapsulated wit
Page 75 and 76: Internet (grouping of autonomous sy
Page 77 and 78: via that same IP address. Specifica
Page 79 and 80: deployments. Regional flights that
Page 81 and 82: neighbor as a next hop after “Hol
Page 83 and 84: Interface Interface Customer Site S
Page 85 and 86: Interface Customer’s Application
Page 87 and 88: Although the vast majority of PBN s
Page 89 and 90: 6. RELATING SAFETY AND SECURITY FOR
Page 91 and 92: 6.1.1 Integrity. As section 4.3 ind
Page 93 and 94: As mentioned in section 4.4, the hi
Page 95 and 96: 6.1.4 Confidentiality. Confidential
Page 97 and 98: their own classification level nor
Page 99 and 100: integrity is not permitted to obser
Page 101 and 102: software has been confirmed as leve
Page 103 and 104: • Both safety and security are co
Page 105 and 106: Device at Safety level X Device at
Page 107 and 108: in a Biba Integrity Model environme
Page 109 and 110: Common Criteria Classes ACM—Confi
Page 111 and 112: (see section 9.10). A secure mechan
Page 113 and 114: employed in security-critical appli
Page 115 and 116:
concept, which is needed to create
Page 117 and 118:
4. Learn from past mistakes. Poor d
Page 119 and 120:
exemplar airborne network architect
Page 121 and 122:
• Requirement 8: Biba Integrity M
Page 123 and 124:
Figure 31 shows how the recommended
Page 125 and 126:
to-live (TTL) field in the IP heade
Page 127 and 128:
using the traditional dual router i
Page 129 and 130:
mechanism relies upon the controlle
Page 131 and 132:
HAGs are high-assurance devices tha
Page 133 and 134:
8.3.5 Firewall. The firewall needs
Page 135 and 136:
(AJ) or low probability of intercep
Page 137 and 138:
design decisions that need to be de
Page 139 and 140:
9.2 INTEGRATED MODULAR AVIONICS IMP
Page 141 and 142:
9.3 USING PUBLIC IPs. The model and
Page 143 and 144:
alerted the pilots because the fail
Page 145 and 146:
environments. If the certification
Page 147 and 148:
DSS (FIPS 186 [81]). Code signing i
Page 149 and 150:
elationship with other equipment in
Page 151 and 152:
approach is to keep the log informa
Page 153 and 154:
11. SUMMARY. Current civilian aircr
Page 155 and 156:
environments should be extended to
Page 157 and 158:
12. COTS computer systems cannot be
Page 159 and 160:
14. NAS and airborne network archit
Page 161 and 162:
22. If SWAP considerations permit,
Page 163 and 164:
11.2 TOPICS NEEDING FURTHER STUDY.
Page 165 and 166:
9. Lee, Y., Rachlin, E., and Scandu
Page 167 and 168:
32. Loscocco, P., Smalley, S., Muck
Page 169 and 170:
59. Raisinghani, V. and Sridhar, I.
Page 171 and 172:
the following is a pointer to a rel
Page 173 and 174:
Department of Defense Instruction N
Page 175 and 176:
Information Assurance—The Departm
Page 177 and 178:
Threat source—Either (1) intent a
Page 179 and 180:
information found within these data
Page 181 and 182:
(HTTP) traffic (port 80), port scan
Page 183 and 184:
The simple network management proto
Page 185 and 186:
opportunities to crack the hosting
Page 187 and 188:
authorized to perform. 13 However,
Page 189 and 190:
sniffers, log-cleaning scripts, and
Page 191 and 192:
A.3.1 DENIAL OF SERVICE ATTACKS. Th
Page 193 and 194:
• Disclosure: Disclosure of routi
Page 195 and 196:
affected by the signal intermittenc
Page 197 and 198:
A-15. Barbir, A., Murphy, S., and Y
Page 199 and 200:
Survey Question What is the primary
Page 201 and 202:
Survey Question What is the primary
Page 203 and 204:
should be emphasized that there is
show all

Local Area Networks (LANs) in Aircraft - FTP Directory Listing - FAA

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?