1. Security in Simulation Standing Study Group Tuesday April 9, 2013 13:30 – 17:00 Marina Room 2013 Spring SIW

2. Agenda Meeting start Introductions/Affiliations Background SSG Objectives Committee Review of Minutes and Actions arising Review of ToR/tasks Review of National Use Cases Way Forward Plan for Fall 2013 SIW Final Discussions / Review Action Items Conclude (no later than 17:00) 2013 Spring

3. Committee 2013 Spring

4. SiS SSG Objectives Objective: To identify potential standards needed and if so to create a draft proposal for a new standard for secure information exchange. To create an agreed, common taxonomy for security in simulation. Product: Recommendations to SISO on the subject matter and – if appropriate – an accompanying Product Nomination. Period of Performance: 2012 Spring SIW to 2014 Spring SIW. 2013 Spring

5. SiS SSG Tasks (1 of 2) Identify whether standards might be needed or appropriate for: Data handling between the different classification levels Assurance processes (devices) Accreditation processes (events) Provide recommendations for incorporating security in simulation in the Distributed Simulation Engineering and Execution Process. Draw up a common taxonomy for the topic to ensure everyone understands the same things by the same terms. Establish recommendations for next steps for the topic within SISO. Provide support to other SISO Study Groups and Product Development Groups (as related to the topic). 2013 Spring

6. SiS SSG Tasks (2 of 2) Become and remain cognizant of other organizational efforts related to the topic, and make every possible effort to make contact with such organizations for the purpose of expressing interest in their efforts and findings, potential collaborations, and in sharing the findings of the efforts of the SiS SSG. Conduct SSG discussions and business utilizing the open electronic discussion forum established for the use of the SSG. Post SSG products in an appropriate area of the SISO website for community review and comments as products are developed. Provide to the SAC an annual report describing progress over the previous year and goals for the following year. 2013 Spring

7. NMSG-080 – Security in Collective Mission Simulation Participants: – SWE, NLD, GBR, USA, FRA, NOR, EST, CAN, NC3A. Terms of Reference (ToR): – There is an increasing need for a security solution that enables the sharing of simulation information across different security domains to establish collective simulations without a potential information leakage and confidentiality breach. Technical Activity Proposal (TAP): – The activity will focus on how information within different security domains can be protected with a minimal impact on the operation of the collective mission simulation. Furthermore the activity will focus on a solution that does not require configuration per simulation as is the case today due to the ‘system high’ approach. 2013 Spring

8. MSG-080 and the SiS SSG SSG to build on the work of MSG-080 Scoped and bounded the problem area and gained an improved understanding of it Identified different types of workaround Considered accreditation issues Looking for a continuation in NATO MSG to enable experimentation to test the concepts Papers presented to SISO at Spring SIWs 2011 and 2012 Determine where/whether standards would be of most use e.g. an overlay to DSEEP. Bring in ideas and practices from non-defence domains 2013 Spring

9. Review of National Use Cases A mapping of JTEN to DSEEP (UK) Any more?? 2013 Spring

10. JTEN Use Case (UK) UK FAC guides US pilot to target. The US JSAF pilot released a munition. UK JSAF in the Secret domain received a DIS PDU from the US JSAF providing information about the detonation, displayed to the ‘air gap’ operator on the UK JSAF graphical map display. The Live entities on Salisbury Plain, and the FAC were outside the Secret enclave, so did not have visibility of this. A Restricted terminal, located adjacent to the Secret enclave, displayed events from within the Restricted domain as they occurred. A ‘man on a swivel chair’ manually replicated the detonations events into AWES: this generated feeds into the Synthetic Wrap and the AR monocular. The SW allowed the AWES system to calculate the outcome of the detonation event on the live players – i.e. whether they were ‘killed’ or ‘damaged’ or not effected. The AR monocular allowed the FAC to visualise the outcome of the detonation, which then he could inform the US pilot of the result using his radio. As part of the After Action Review it was agreed that whilst this was a workable solution it was far from ideal. Inevitably, inaccuracies were introduced, delays were experienced and there was a noticeable delta between the simulations running at Secret, and the entities relying on manual injects. 2013 Spring

11. Relevant SIW Papers Verkoelen and Wymenga: 09S-SIW-035, “Multi Level Security in Collective Mission Simulation Architectures” Björn Möller et al: 11S-SIW-069, “Towards Multi- Level Security for NATO Collective Mission Training” Björn Möller et al: 12S-SIW-032, “Security in NATO Collective Mission Training” Björn Möller et al: 13S-SIW-005, “Three Perspectives on DSEEP and Security: Training Goals, Use Cases and the Selection of Security Measures” 2013 Spring

12. Way Forward Continue and promote SSG activities Increase SSG membership Organize investigations Topics Volunteers Energize the community for greater involvement Submit abstracts for Fall 2013 SIW 2013 Spring

13. Questions/Discussion 2013 Spring