A Technical History of the SEI

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Introduction to Real-Time Embedded and Cyber-Physical Systems Most mission-critical defense systems use embedded processors with hard real-time components in which the software must process inputs from sensors and execute instructions to control devices. Sensor data can arrive synchronously or asynchronously. Each data point is available only for a short period (nano to micro seconds), and the output must be produced fast enough to provide timely control. A terrain-following avionics system is an example: it must process the altimeter, airspeed, and radar inputs in sufficient time to issue altitude controls to follow the terrain. The processor may be performing other lower priority tasks, such as monitoring fuel. Real-time constraints affect almost all Department of Defense (DoD) systems applications, such as avionics, fire control, vehicle management, missile guidance, radar tracking, and unmanned air vehicle (UAV) control. Indeed, the requirement to manage real-time constraints is one of the factors that distinguishes DoD software from many civilian applications. While civilian applications also exhibit real-time components, the DoD requirements are generally coupled with other factors, including sheer size of the software, security, weapon system safety, and life dependence, that make the real-time component critical [NRC 2010]. As the integration of the processor with the physical system of sensors and controls has become ever tighter, the term cyber-physical has been adopted to describe these systems. The SEI Contributed to Early DoD Ada Adoption Effort for Real-Time Embedded Systems Prior to establishing the SEI, the DoD developed a new programming language called Ada. One of the factors driving development of Ada was the desire to develop real-time software in a higher level language supported by tools to manage the complexity. When the SEI began operating, the DoD had mandated the use of Ada for all mission-critical systems, and DoD program managers had serious concerns regarding early use of the language. Since this was clearly of strategic importance to the DoD and future software-intensive systems, the SEI launched several efforts aimed at addressing the technical and managerial questions about Ada adoption. A number of commercial Ada compilers were coming to market. While each was required to pass validation by the Ada compiler test suite, the supporting tools making up the software development environment were largely disparate. This was the source of considerable confusion among DoD program managers. The SEI set out to assess the maturity of various compilers and supporting tools to determine their suitability to support DoD programs. For a variety of reasons, DoD programs chose different embedded processors with different instruction set architectures for their systems. Each of those instruction set architectures required different code generators, so that while each could use the same validated compiler and each validated code generator would produce code that correctly executed the Ada instructions, different code generators would have different runtime characteristics. The SEI established the Ada/Real-Time Embedded Systems Testbed to build the necessary infrastructure to test the runtime performance of code generators. In addition to having the necessary hardware to support testing the suitability of these processors for a given application, the SEI testbed team had the expertise to conduct the testing so that DoD programs did not need to undergo the expense of duplicating that capability. DoD programs that did not choose Ada as their CMU/SEI-2016-SR-027 | SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE | CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY 19 Distribution Statement A: Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited
development language nevertheless needed to test the suitability of their chosen processors and the runtime performance of their chosen compiler. The SEI responded to this need by expanding the Ada Embedded Systems Testbed to the more general case [Weiderman 1989a]. Benchmarks, such as the Hartstone benchmark, were developed that enabled assessment of the performance of a runtime system. Another source of confusion for DoD program managers concerning the use of Ada for real-time systems were two prevalent notions, motivated in part by historical experience with the use of other high-level languages for real-time systems: (1) the notion that the Ada language needed to be modified to achieve needed real-time solutions, and (2) the practice of extensively modifying the Ada compiler and/or vendor-supplied runtime system. The Distributed Ada Real-time Kernel (DARK) effort was initiated to address two distinct needs of real-time applications: distribution and hard real-time scheduling mechanisms. DARK was a prototype kernel that demonstrated the functionality needed to effectively support the execution of distributed, real-time Ada applications in an embedded computer environment by returning control to the user [Bamberger 1988]. This effort was led by a newly hired SEI staff member who was formerly a member of the Ada Language Design Team and a Distinguished Reviewer, again providing credibility to early SEI work. The resulting prototype was offered to compiler vendors and used by at least one. These early efforts helped those programs that selected Ada as the development language. But, despite the mandate, that decision was not always an easy one for DoD program managers. A program manager faced many considerations in making the language decision, some driven by myth, some by technology maturity, and some by simple bias. The Air Force program manager for the SEI asked the SEI to develop a factual guide for program managers. Relying on the work of other Ada-related projects at the SEI and the substantial expertise the SEI had accumulated in Ada and real-time systems development, the SEI produced the Ada Adoption Handbook: A Program Manager’s Guide [Foreman 1987]. The handbook was an objective guide for DoD program managers that addressed many of the myths surrounding the use and practicality of using Ada on defense systems. Its thoroughness and objectivity helped establish the SEI as a source of unbiased guidance on software technology. It was so well received and heavily used in the DoD that the JAC/EG requested an updated version to capture changes in the supporting technology. The updated version was published in 1992 [Hefley 1992]. Adoption of Ada was not as widespread as was originally expected, and the language has since been overtaken by other languages for many applications. To some, this represents failure. That view misses the important point that Ada was a significant step in defining advanced programming languages with capabilities that support the process of software engineering and aid in system reliability, particularly for real-time systems. Ada afforded engineers an opportunity to develop software for real-time embedded systems in a high-level language, including within the language a capability to specify concurrent execution that was formerly available only by making reference to an operating system call. Because the language was well defined and compilers certified as being compliant with the definition, software engineers could develop the software on host machines with powerful software development environments and reliably port the software to a variety of target machines. In essence, Ada helped to perfect the viability of safety critical realtime systems. Several DoD and NASA programs realized these benefits in developing reliable real-time systems. Although some of the people who joined the SEI had been deeply involved in the development of the language and supporting infrastructure, the SEI was not directly involved CMU/SEI-2016-SR-027 | SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE | CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY 20 Distribution Statement A: Approved for Public Release; Distribution is Unlimited
Page 1 and 2: A Technical History of the SEI Larr
Page 3 and 4: Table of Contents Foreword Preface
Page 5 and 6: The Consequence: Undergraduate Soft
Page 7 and 8: References 131 Expanding the CMMI P
Page 9 and 10: The Challenge: Configuration Suppor
Page 11 and 12: References 275 Operational Support
Page 13 and 14: Foreword Angel Jordan University Pr
Page 15 and 16: to the SEI on a part-time basis as
Page 17 and 18: Blaise Durante Deputy Assistant Sec
Page 19 and 20: synergy between the TRA team’s ob
Page 21 and 22: Preface This report chronicles the
Page 23 and 24: Abstract This report chronicles the
Page 25 and 26: 1 Introduction CMU/SEI-2016-SR-027
Page 27 and 28: Introduction In December 1984, the
Page 29 and 30: promulgate use of modern techniques
Page 31 and 32: Interpreting the Charter In creatin
Page 33 and 34: of Defense and flag officers from t
Page 35 and 36: (CRADA) funding is available to exp
Page 37 and 38: Another effective mechanism has bee
Page 39 and 40: 2 Real-Time Embedded Systems Engine
Page 41: Figure 3: Real-Time Embedded System
Page 46 and 47: in those developments. The SEI was,
Page 48 and 49: general-purpose techniques but with
Page 50 and 51: Summary DoD systems have traditiona
Page 52 and 53: Ada/Real-Time Embedded Systems Test
Page 54 and 55: enchmark. Results of testbed experi
Page 56 and 57: Distributed Ada Real-Time Kernel Th
Page 58 and 59: Ada Adoption Handbook The Challenge
Page 60 and 61: [Hefley 1992] Hefley, William; Fore
Page 62 and 63: processor utilization. The sample a
Page 64 and 65: References [AFSAB 1988] Air Force S
Page 66 and 67: also known as using simplicity to c
Page 68 and 69: Software for Heterogeneous Machines
Page 70 and 71: [Barbacci 1986b] Barbacci, Mario &
Page 72 and 73: The increase in processing capacity
Page 74 and 75: [Lakshmanan 2011] Lakshmanan, Karth
Page 76 and 77: analysis as well as model tuning fo
Page 78 and 79: References [Hansen 2004] Hansen, J.
Page 80 and 81: or asynchronous networked computer
Page 82 and 83: 3 Education and Training CMU/SEI-20
Page 84: Figure 4: Education and Training Ti
Page 87 and 88: making materials available to allow
Page 89 and 90: course offering, while at other uni
Page 91 and 92: [DoD 1984] Statement of Work for Im
Page 93 and 94: The curriculum guidelines also sugg
Page 95 and 96:
Undergraduate Software Engineering
Page 97 and 98:
SEI adapted the Personal Software P
Page 99 and 100:
Software Assurance Curriculum for C
Page 101 and 102:
how they relate to business needs.
Page 103 and 104:
Survivability and Information Assur
Page 105 and 106:
The SEI curriculum and others’ co
Page 107 and 108:
The CSEE conference series also bro
Page 109 and 110:
CMU Master of Software Engineering
Page 111 and 112:
Executive Education Program The Cha
Page 113 and 114:
Professional Training The Challenge
Page 115 and 116:
Education and Training Delivery Pla
Page 117 and 118:
[Ardis 2005] Ardis, Mark. “An Inc
Page 119 and 120:
practical for keeping content curre
Page 121 and 122:
[Johnson 2012] Johnson, Col. Rivers
Page 123 and 124:
4 Management CMU/SEI-2016-SR-027 |
Page 125:
Figure 5: Management Timeline CMU/S
Page 128 and 129:
Introduction to Management When the
Page 130 and 131:
neering CMM [SEI 1995] to describe
Page 132 and 133:
under SEI stewardship in 2009. Deve
Page 134 and 135:
References [Averill 1993] Averill,
Page 136 and 137:
[SEI 1995] A Systems Engineering Ca
Page 138 and 139:
The SEI developed a more explicit m
Page 140 and 141:
[Humphrey 1988] Humphrey, Watts; Sw
Page 142 and 143:
opinion leaders and senior managers
Page 144 and 145:
[Hayes 1995] Hayes, William & Zubro
Page 146 and 147:
move from maturity level to maturit
Page 148 and 149:
The People Capability Maturity Mode
Page 150 and 151:
The SEI Contribution As is the case
Page 152 and 153:
and security process improvement. T
Page 154 and 155:
[Caralli 2004] Caralli, Richard. Ma
Page 156 and 157:
4.6.2.1 CMMI Constellations For CMM
Page 158 and 159:
ity and widespread use of the CMMI
Page 160 and 161:
Expanding the CMMI Product Suite to
Page 162 and 163:
key leaders within that organizatio
Page 164 and 165:
The Smart Grid The Challenge: The N
Page 166 and 167:
ecoming more widespread. As utiliti
Page 168 and 169:
Continuous Risk Management training
Page 170 and 171:
[Alberts 2009] Alberts, Christopher
Page 172 and 173:
The principal motivator for the dev
Page 174 and 175:
References [Carleton 2010] Carleton
Page 176 and 177:
Measurement and Analysis The Challe
Page 178 and 179:
Carnegie Mellon University, 2002. h
Page 180 and 181:
activities. The final set of activi
Page 182 and 183:
[Rombach 1989] Rombach, H. Dieter &
Page 184 and 185:
5 Security CMU/SEI-2016-SR-027 | SO
Page 186:
Figure 6: Security Timeline CMU/SEI
Page 189 and 190:
Introduction to Security In the ear
Page 191 and 192:
The CERT/CC helps guard against dev
Page 193 and 194:
The SEI concern about risks posed t
Page 195 and 196:
Teams (FIRST), which was formed in
Page 197 and 198:
[Killcrece 2008] Killcrece, Georgia
Page 199 and 200:
The CERT/CC built on its vast colle
Page 201 and 202:
Malicious Code Analysis The Challen
Page 203 and 204:
have put advanced tools in the hand
Page 205 and 206:
Secure Coding The Challenge: Preven
Page 207 and 208:
end, the SEI has developed training
Page 209 and 210:
Network Situational Awareness The C
Page 211 and 212:
In 2007, the Comprehensive National
Page 213 and 214:
study. In 2011, the DoD began fundi
Page 215 and 216:
[CSO 2004] CSO Magazine, in coopera
Page 217 and 218:
People who work in small organizati
Page 219 and 220:
[Violino 2010] Violino, Bob. “IT
Page 221 and 222:
Since its initial development in 20
Page 223 and 224:
References [Alberts 2005] Alberts,
Page 225 and 226:
6 Software Engineering Methods CMU/
Page 227 and 228:
Introduction to Software Engineerin
Page 229 and 230:
were delivered to Army and Air Forc
Page 231 and 232:
Configuration Management The Challe
Page 233 and 234:
The SEI Contribution The SEI recogn
Page 235 and 236:
CASE Environments The Challenge: Ma
Page 237 and 238:
The SEI Contribution The CASE work
Page 239 and 240:
Software Technology Reference Guide
Page 241 and 242:
Reengineering The Challenge: Legacy
Page 243 and 244:
[Bergey 1999] Bergey, John; Smith,
Page 245 and 246:
2. Influence is more important than
Page 247 and 248:
[Brownsword 2004] Brownsword, Lisa;
Page 249 and 250:
Developing Systems with Commercial
Page 251 and 252:
The SEI Contribution When the SEI s
Page 253 and 254:
[Tyson 2003] Tyson, Barbara; Albert
Page 255 and 256:
system is safe); (2) evidence suppo
Page 257 and 258:
7 Architecture CMU/SEI-2016-SR-027
Page 259:
1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996
Page 262 and 263:
Introduction to Software Architectu
Page 264 and 265:
cation description language, in the
Page 266 and 267:
AFSC/ESD conducted a source selecti
Page 268 and 269:
[Brown 1995] Brown, Alan; Carney, D
Page 270 and 271:
Structural Modeling The Challenge:
Page 272 and 273:
The SEI Contribution As a result of
Page 274 and 275:
Federal Aviation Administration Stu
Page 276 and 277:
evolving understanding of software
Page 278 and 279:
The basic features of Serpent were
Page 280 and 281:
Software Architecture Analysis Meth
Page 282 and 283:
A survey of software architecture e
Page 284 and 285:
Quality Attributes The Challenge: M
Page 286 and 287:
[Barbacci 1995] Barbacci, Mario; Kl
Page 288 and 289:
The Consequence: Effective Evaluati
Page 290 and 291:
[Gallagher 2000] Gallagher, Brian.
Page 292 and 293:
design with some variation built in
Page 294 and 295:
Software Product Lines The Challeng
Page 296 and 297:
A software product line curriculum.
Page 298 and 299:
8 Forensics CMU/SEI-2016-SR-027 | S
Page 300:
Figure 8: Forensics Timeline CMU/SE
Page 303 and 304:
Introduction to Computer Forensics:
Page 305 and 306:
ultimate contribution of SEI digita
Page 307 and 308:
The SEI’s experience with cases s
Page 309 and 310:
Digital Intelligence and Investigat
Page 311 and 312:
that not only apply to the specific
Page 313 and 314:
9 The Future of Software Engineerin
Page 315 and 316:
A Vision of the Future of Software
Page 317 and 318:
In each case, impact is achieved th
Page 319 and 320:
e-estimation as a means to assess p
Page 321 and 322:
and complexity of these systems are
Page 323 and 324:
10 Conclusion CMU/SEI-2016-SR-027 |
Page 325 and 326:
Highlighting 30 Years of Contributi
Page 327 and 328:
developed network situational aware
Page 329 and 330:
Direct Support to Government System
Page 331 and 332:
In the course of these reviews, the
Page 333 and 334:
Appendix Authors Contributing to th
Page 335:
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Appr
show all

A Technical History of the SEI

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?