Poll Hacked – Who Knew?

So today we noticed that our poll on the Captain Corcoran Child Porn case seemed to be pretty active with support for Corcoran.  Then we realized someone was apparently voting over and over again by presumably clearing the cookies that would have blocked repeat votes.  This caper was not isolated to one person, so far the Internet Forensics firm we used to investigate this has tracked down two government employees who participated in the vote padding event.

But nothing was lost here.  We switched to the 3rd and most restrictive level of security which ( we hope) votes blocks based on IP address in addition to cookies.  Who knew?

Before the cyber vote attack it was clear that most readers felt that public access to information on sex offenders was important.  I’m not sure if the Coast Guards interest are served by employees spending their day attacking our site, but I suspect its not – or is it?

CG-9 NSC TEMPEST Update Feb 5, 2009 – Read between the lines

by Michael DeKort

The Coast Guard adheres closely to the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense and the National Security Agency rules, regulations, and protocols for TEMPEST testing and certification. “TEMPEST” (not an acronym – it is a formerly classified DoD code word from the 1950s) is the short name referring to investigation, study, and control of compromising emanations from telecommunications and Automated Information Systems equipment. No classified information is permitted to be loaded on any system that does not meet these stringent requirements. TEMPEST consists of visual inspections and instrumented surveys of communications and information technology systems and infrstructure. On extremely complex C4ISR systems, especially those on a first-in-class cutter, such as CGC BERTHOLF, TEMPEST certification often occurs after preliminary delivery.

The Coast Guard’s Technical Authority, with support and cooperation of the C4ISR Program Manager and National Security Cutter (NSC) Project Manager, conducted TEMPEST certification inspections prior to preliminary acceptance of CGC BERTHOLF in May 2008. These efforts, which began in 2007, helped to develop post-delivery Information Assurance (IA) & TEMPEST mitigation plans to ensure the condition of the cutter was fully understood at preliminary acceptance. They also enabled the Coast Guard to assess the progress the contractor had made towards resolving TEMPEST discrepancies idenified between June 2007 and February 2008. Going forward, the pre-delivery inspections provide a TEMPEST baseline, which the Coast Guard documented in the DD-250 preliminary acceptance document, to serve as a reference point for all future TEMPEST mitigation activities. The Coast Guard has employed the test-fix-test methodology since delivery.

Progress to Date

All 122 visual TEMPEST discrepancies identified during the preliminary delivery of the ship (DD-250) have been resolved. The Coast Guard is conducting ongoing Instrumented TEMPEST surveys using a National Security Agency (NSA) approved contractor to prepare for final TEMPEST testing. The posture and readiness for testing of TEMPEST communications will be further improved with March 2009 hardware installations. The final Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command (SPAWAR) shipboard Instrumented TEMPEST survey is scheduled for April 2009.

First let me say that if the information may very well be a positive step forward.  However – closer analysis says that if those steps were positive they were small and there are still significant problems with the NSC and TEMPEST.  And let me go one step further.  The overall statement was written to purposefully mislead the reader.

Comments-Questions

-       122 visual test failures fixed
o       All of them were open this time last year and were part of testing going back to the summer of 2007.  Keep in mind this is the same spin we heard then.  The CG promised instrumented, not just visual testing, would be done by the winter of 07, then the spring of 08, then by acceptance, then by August of 08 and now the spring of 09.  I believe they knew they were nowhere close to being done last year and lied about the status to get the ship delivered and maintain control of the program.
o       The statement makes no mention of visual testing that has been done since or needs to be run and completed. (They do mention final instrumented tests will start in April.  This does not necessarily mean all the visual tests will be run or finished by then)
o       The statement mentions that some equipment has not been installed yet and Adm Blore said this week that there were “design challenges” in this area.  As such the visual testing cannot be complete.
o       The statement is purposefully trying to mislead the reader in to thinking there are basically no issues or much if any work left in the visual TEMPEST testing area
o       What happened to the 353 critical design flaws the Navy documented in late 2007?
o       How were the 122 items closed?  Fixed? Waived?  Were the requirements changed to mitigate the failures?
-       They are using NSA approved personnel
o       Why mention this?  I think this was mentioned because they are sensitive to the illegal and improper waivers made on the 123s.  Waivers that set the stage for problems on the NSC.  (Ron Porter, a CG employee, waived critical TEMPEST test failures the Navy did not want waived.  It was illegal because Ron Porter was not approved by the NSA to sign off on waivers, approvals or denials.)
-       Final instrumented testing is due to start in April
o       First this is start of the final runs – not the completion
o       They cannot complete until most if not all of the visual tests are run and passed and the equipment they say won’t be installed until March.  Given all of this it seems they really aren’t close.  While I am sure they have made progress they haven’t gotten to the meat of it.
o       Remember, as detailed above, this testing is over a year late.
-       “Design challenges”
o       What are they?
o       Why would there be notable design issues now – this late in the game?  The design reviews were years ago.  Supposedly the installation of all the equipment and cables were supposed to be done by acceptance last year.   I understand small design and fab issues this late in the game but not significant design issues – even with a first in class that supposedly closed all of its “starred items” and appears to have closed the visual test failures?  What caused these design issues to show up or still exist this late in the game?
o       What drove the more than 1 year schedule slips?
o       If all is going well why even mention design challenges now?
o       Were any mentioned to anyone prior to acceptance?
o       Were any part of the now two year old set of 353 items the Navy documented?
o       Were any of them known before or at acceptance and were they documented and were they documented properly?
-       TEMPEST work by LM
o       According to blogs on this very site there are people who say they are in the know who stated that Lockheed and the CG ran in to contractual issues that delayed the design of some or most of the TEMPEST systems.  Is that not true?  Did Lockheed make complete all of their designs on the original schedule?  Were their any ECPs or contract changes to get them to do anything they weren’t originally planned or contracted to do? Did you pay LM any additional amounts to perform any additional C4ISR and/or TEMEPST work?  Would Northrop say that LM did everything it was supposed to when it was supposed to and in no way impacted the design and fabrication of the boat?  If any of this is true were any of the oversight groups made aware of this?  Was the issue documented in the DD-250s?
-       Other issues?
o       Is it true there are significant problems with the air search radar, the video surveillance system or the antenna mounting (causing simultaneous comm issues)?  If so what are they, why did they occur and what is being done?
o       Are there any other C4ISR issues?
o       What contract and/or requirement changes were made since Jan 2004?  What was added changed or delegated from this set?
-       123 Refund
o       What is the $96m for?  What is the itemized list?
o       Where are you relative to getting the money back?

Coast Guard Administrative Law Judge Walter J. Brudzinski looking to move up?

According to Virgina Law Blog, February 19 and 20 are going to be long days for judicial nominating committees. The committees of several bar groups plan to interview candidates those days for vacancies on the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. District Court in Richmond, and twenty-six people have asked to be considered for one seat or the other.

Walter J. Brudzinski, an administrative law judge with the U.S. Coast Guard in New York City and a former state and federal prosecutor in Virginia Beach and Norfolk has said he’s interested in both the appellate and district courts.

But if you did back a little bit, you’ll find a quote by the Brudzinski that may make it hard for him to pass muster with the Bar and a Senate Confirmation.  In 2007 the Baltimore Sun reported the Sun Investigation Justice capsized?

On Dec. 7, 2004, Judge Walter J. Brudzinski, an ALJ for the Coast Guard in New York, came to New Orleans to hear a case concerning a marine engineer named Christopher Dresser, whose charge of failing a marijuana test had been plodding through the Coast Guard system since 1997. (Dresser’s brother, Michael, is a staff reporter for The Sun but played no role in the newspaper’s investigation.)

Massey attended the hearing as a spectator, and after listening to testimony from a scientist and from Dresser’s mother, she and Brudzinski went to lunch. According to Massey’s statement, Brudzinski expressed frustration that the evidence made him inclined to rule in Dresser’s favor, but added: “If I ruled that way, the chief judge would have my job.”

“He was not saying this in a kidding way,” Massey said.

Brudzinski never directly said that Ingolia had told him how to rule, Massey said, “But the gist of the conversation was, in my professional opinion, that there had been conversations and the Chief Judge had indicated to him how the case needed to come out.”

Judge Jeffie J. Massey, who retired 2007, said in a sworn statement that she was told by Chief Judge Joseph N. Ingolia to always rule in the Coast Guard’s favor and came under intense pressure when she did not.

Vice Admiral Pekoske as next Commandant

Vice Admiral David P. Pekoske

As one reader pointed out on Tuesday February 10th, our poll is unscientific. In fact as far as I know, no one at CGR is a science major anyway.  What we do find surprising is how quickly Pekoske jumped ahead of the field today.  On Sunday afternoon when this poll was launched, Vice Admiral Papp was in the lead, but by Monday “others” had taken the clear lead and last evening (Tuesday the 10th), it’s Pekoske at 35% with 801 votes.  “Other” is still in second place at 24% with 555 votes.

This poll probably means ZIP to Secretary Napolitano or President Obama, but it does give us and our readers some of idea of what we’re all thinking.  We’ll keep this poll open till the weekend.

Enjoy!