Ask Slashdot: VPN Service For a Deployed US Navy Ship? 349
shinjikun34 writes "I am currently stationed on a U.S. Navy ship deployed in a country with restrictive internet policies. We are currently in the process of setting up an entertainment internet connection for the crew to use in their downtime. I suggested (and was thereby tasked with finding) a VPN service that would support 100 to 500 devices, have an end point inside the continental United States, be reasonably priced, and secure/trustworthy. Something that is safe to use for banking and other financial affairs. Ideally, it would be fast enough to support several VoIP calls (Skype, Google Voice, etc) along side online gaming, with possible movie/music streaming. It will need an end point in the U.S. to allow for use of Google Books, Netflix, Hulu, and other services that restrict access based on region. I, in all honesty, have no idea where to begin searching, and I ask the good folks of Slashdot to aid me in my quest. One of the main requirements I was given is that the company has to be trustworthy. And it has to be a company — computer in someone's closet hosting a VPN isn't acceptable to the Navy. What services would Slashdot recommend? (I understand that our connection without a VN probably won't be able to handle the described load, but I would prefer a VN service that offers capacity above our need. That way when T/S'ing the connection, the VPN can be at least partially ruled out.)"
Pair (Score:5, Informative)
Try Pair.com [pair.com] in Pittsburg, PA. I've been with them for over 16 years now and I've been very happy with their service and support.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
%s/Pittsburg/Pittsburgh/g
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That'll change properly spelled instances to Pittsburghh. What you want is to add a word-terminator to the expression so it doesn't break the correctly spelled words. /nerding out
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I stand Korrekted! Dern them pescy spel kurrekturs lett'n them thar mispelin's git thru! Serves me right for not double-checking before I sent that out!
:-D
Re:Pair -- good choice (Score:3, Informative)
I've also been a Pair customer for many years. Their support is absolutely fantastic. Unlike many large companies who don't bother to read your questions and just reply with boilerplate, Pair responds quickly and accurately, and follow-ups are quick and easy (email). Sometimes, they've proactively fixed accounts that were at risk due to a security flaw or upgrade.
Amazon Web Services? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
100 devices (probably mostly phones and tablets) is not particularly difficult. In fact its no more difficult than providing a vpn for a single device.
Any one of a half dozen models of off the shelf routers (consumer grade) will do this out of the box for you and any number of ISP's offering VPN services are compatible with all of these and usually say so in their advertising.
Bandwidth is the only issue, but 100 or 200 wifi devices checking email instant messages once every 15 to 30 minutes presents no par
Re: (Score:3)
I have bad news for you (and OP)-- no matter what solution you pick, at the end of the day its going to be a computer in someone's closet hosting a VPN.
The only question is whose closet, whose computer, and what type of computer.
Honestly, depending on where you are, getting a cage in a co-lo center like equinox or Hurricane Electric and throwing your own box in there may be the best solution. The "company" becomes "the navy" and "the colo provider", both of which are at the high end of "trust-worthy"-- re
.mil? (Score:2, Interesting)
Doesn't the navy has its own Internet structure? Or may you not use that?
The end point should be run by the military (Score:5, Informative)
The NSA is tasked with securing such communication and you should regardless of classification of data be using their equipment or at least an approved system. In that way you know that you at least are protected from your provider.
Your users shouldn't even know you'd doing jack to their connection except to show as a US IP address. There should be no identifying information that points that IP to any military activity.
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly yes, I agree with the above poster.
I'm amazed that the US Navy doesn't already run something like this themselves - they're the ones that know the communications capabilities and deployment of their ships better than anyone else. Surely given the number of ships and personnel outside the US at any one time it would be more effective to have an in-house team based in the US to handle this especially since many of the reasons listed are not exclusive problems of a "guest" country with an oppressive i
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The end point should be run by the military (Score:5, Informative)
My guess is that the military DOES provide internet access. And it probably allows them to do basic web tasks, etc but does not allow streaming video, VOIP, etc. This is probably because they are on a limited satellite connection and have to guarantee performance for the actual military functions of the ship.
They also probably have access to Armed Forces radio and television, DVD libraries, etc.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The end point should be run by the military (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The end point should be run by the military (Score:5, Insightful)
Either the submitter has no clue or you have wrongly guessed abut his situation. Consider the comment about being stationed on a ship that is deployed in a country with restrictive Internet policies. If the US Navy were providing the Internet connection that they hoped to used, why would the country's Internet policies be relevant to the question? I assume that there is an Internet connection being provided via a shore-based ISP and it is snooping and restrictions on the use of the shore-based ISP that they would like to bypass using a VPN.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The end point should be run by the military (Score:4, Informative)
I'm amazed that people really trust the OP is in a US Navy ship.
He said he is using a local ISP for bandwidth. So clearly he is not talking about ON the ship while at sea.
He is probably talking about dock side encrypted wifi (perhaps bridged to some place onboard).
He's probably stationed on a tug or service boat, oilers, replenishment ships, repair ship, because it would be pointless to set up something like
this on a war ship which doesn't spend all that much time in port.
100 to 500 devices indicates (think cell phones and tablets and the occasional lap top) a crew of something much smaller than a Frigate.
Even Coast Guard national security cutters tend to have a crew greater than 100.
Re: (Score:3)
The British navy has ships that aren't ships at all - they're actually buildings ashore. "Stone Frigates" is the jocular term.
Re:The end point should be run by the military (Score:5, Funny)
Likely you've never left CONUS for any length of your life at all.
Amusing. I was born and live in the UK.
I think that's outside "CONUS" as far as I remember? I mean, we have universal healthcare and everything.
Re:The end point should be run by the military (Score:5, Informative)
Do you think the Roman Legionnaires followed local laws they disagreed with in the many lands they conquered? Of course not,
Actually in general they did. The Roman legions set up all sorts of barriers to prevent Roman troops from offending local custom. It also slowed down the rate at which Roman soldiers "went native" and ended up with mixed loyalties. Which is essentially the policy and model the US follows today.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get it; why would your soldiers "go native" if you encouraged them to rape and pillage as much as they wanted? Maybe I should have used the Huns or Mongols for my example. I'm pretty sure Genghis Khan wasn't too keen on following local customs or laws, and in fact is famous for raping local women.
Re: (Score:3)
why would your soldiers "go native" if you encouraged them to rape and pillage as much as they wanted?
Romans didn't rape and pillage generally. Pillaging reduced the economic output of a region long term, which reduced the possibilities for tax revenue. As for rape, it depended on the slave strategy. Frequently homosexual rape was used to break down resistance in captives thus making future male slaves more maintainable. Heterosexual rape frequently reduced the value of female captives as slaves or as
Re:The end point should be run by the military (Score:5, Informative)
The Romans and the Mongols generally operated on different models. The Mongol approach was to overcome resistance by terror. In the absence of some prior dispute, when they came to a city they asked that it submit to them. If it did not, and they succeeded in capturing it, as they usually did, they were brutal: they would generally kill all of the men of military age and the elderly. Younger women and children would often be enslaved and if not, killed. The city would be looted. If, however, the city capitulated, they were actually pretty nice. They would take control but otherwise largely leave things as they were.
The Mongols were tough and prepared to be brutal, but they were not mere bandits, and they were not a mob. The Mongol Empire was well organized, with an excellent courier system and the rule of law. Unlike contemporary European countries, they were religiously tolerant (except for the Ilkhans, in Persia, after 1295 when they converted to Islam.) The Mongol legal code, the Yassa, was, from what survives of it, pretty reasonable for its time.
BTW, some corrections (Score:3)
The USA is rank 24 (of 182) for corruption. Only 23 countries are better. Mexico is rank 100. You have no clue about Mexico. See for yourself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index [wikipedia.org]
Of course, Afghanistan ties for spot 180 or 181. It's not so much about government; it's a matter of culture. Check out the map. The good parts of the world share the culture of northwestern Europe, with just a few rare exceptions. (the USA, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all have culture from northwestern E
Re:The end point should be run by the military (Score:5, Insightful)
The NSA is tasked with securing such communication and you should regardless of classification of data be using their equipment or at least an approved system. In that way you know that you at least are protected from your provider.Your users shouldn't even know you'd doing jack to their connection except to show as a US IP address. There should be no identifying information that points that IP to any military activity.
If you read between the lines, the poster is saying that this is an entirely separate network where the crew can bring their personal (non work) systems, and it will have no access or visibility to any of the ships systems or network. As such, those requirements go away. The Navy of course wants a US-based company to approach so they can monitor use and make sure that if another Wikileaks happens, they are a phone call away from saying "It was this guy, at this time, on this terminal," and also because US-based company means US-based laws -- and it's harder for a foreign national to penetrate a domestic service than a foreign one, especially after it gets hardened, which falls under the purvue of the DHS, not the NSA, in this case -- since the company is private, not military. And it probably will have cameras in the rec area, as all meeting and confidential areas on the ship do. So let's just go ahead and assume that the security people have already reviewed this and have green-lit it with the appropriate restrictions. They are, afterall, highly trained professionals. -_-
Remember that aircraft carriers have thousands of personnel, deployed for months at a time with no access to anything but the ship. Entertainment becomes incredibly important for crew morale, and the Navy recognizes the need to balance this; They want to give their crew access to everything you can do on the internet at home on their little slice of the United States afloat. And why shouldn't they?
Hewlet Packard $3bn No-Bid Contract (Score:2)
Like many technology items, the Navy contracts them out. HP got a sweet no-bid contract extention (HP bought EDS which originally bid it). Since then they have been charging the tax payer over $2000 a year to provide network connectivity... for EACH WORKSTATION.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/08/hp-holds-navy-network-hostage/ [wired.com]
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/02/navy-internet/ [wired.com]
In theory the Navy is supposed to start rolling their own stuff, but my guess is since this is on slashdot HP is going to ma
Re:The end point should be run by the military (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read between the lines, the poster is saying that this is an entirely separate network where the crew can bring their personal (non work) systems, and it will have no access or visibility to any of the ships systems or network. As such, those requirements go away.
I just escaped from the world of contracting for the DoD and I can tell you that there is no such network on any military facility. Trust me. No boat, no ship, not even a storage shed. How do I know? Because I used to work on training simulations, and we wanted to set up things like a private WiFI network, to allow instructors to monitor simulations from a tablet device. Could we do so? No. It's against DoD rules. You can set up a private network, but only if it is wired, and only if it does not go out onto the net. Further, any machine on that network must comply with DoD Information Assurance (IA) rules. Those rules don't let you have USB enabled, you can't even have a USB port accessible on the device, without special authorization and hardening of the OS to disable the port, but allow charging.
The poster above is absolutely correct. You do not want to be caught setting up this kind of network. You will get in huge trouble if the DoD finds out. All internet access should be going from the ship, to their home port and onto the internet from there. If I were in charge of this boat, I would not do this without an order in writing authorizing me to do so because he's going to get burned if he goes thru with this.
what about USB keyboards / mouses? (Score:2)
what about USB keyboards / mouses? USB printers? as now days it's getting harder to find PS2 stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when did government requirements have anything to do with reality? They probably just keep using 12-year-old systems because of the requirements.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So let's just go ahead and assume that the security people have already reviewed this and have green-lit it with the appropriate restrictions. They are, afterall, highly trained professionals. -_-
And yet they come here to slashdot to ask for advice?
Come on.
Re:The end point should be run by the military (Score:5, Funny)
What ever happened to taking turns dressing up as women and having dances?
Re: (Score:2)
All that went away back when they stopped letting you catch sea bats on the hangar deck.
Re: (Score:2)
Bandwidth through the atmosphere to a satellite isn't fat as shit and even if it was it would probably being used to beam back data for I don't know military purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
...regardless of classification of data...
Wow, that is so wrong. There is no need for a TIC so the swabbies can stream Netflix, play Warcraft and Skype home to the wife and kiddies.
It looks like the local regime filters the Internet, so using local ISPs probably is straight out as too much shit gets blocked. All they're trying to do is bypass that.
Re: (Score:3)
The high number of "In the Navy" views on YouTube originating from the IP will give them away.
Sonic.net (Score:2, Informative)
I know Sonic.net offers their customers VPN service, and have a great track record and are a pleasure to work with. I'd call their business/enterprise department and see what kind of bandwidth they can give you in a VPN termination.
However, I hope you're aware of the dangers of having multiple secure and insecure internets in close proximity...I sincerely hope one moron with a patch cable can't bridge the "entertainment" network to anywhere else...frankly I'm surprised this isn't handled by the USN core net
Re: (Score:2)
q&a seems totally legit (Score:3, Insightful)
You realize that some of the people reading Slashdot around the world are going to have a vested interest in getting a back door into your affairs, right?
This would be an excellent trap to catch foreign agents.
Re: (Score:2)
The enemy has limited resources. What could the enemy possibly learn from spying on individual sailors' downtime habits that could possibly be valuable in combat?
Sounds like you've been reading too many Tom Clancy novels.
Re: (Score:2)
That's some fancy Jason Bourne stuff you're talking about. Ever thought about writing? Sure, you can't prevent people from posting pictures, since every grunt's wife wants pictures of her man in uniform. But that's a concern at all military installations. There are protocols for these things and all communications are generally reviewed from really sensitive areas or people who have made mistakes. They should build a nondescript room for accessing the 'net so people can take webcam pictures without worrying
Re: (Score:3)
Government systems? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Like that will stop you from going down when caught. Just means you will have company when you are court marshaled.
forget online gaming on a ship as the lag is kille (Score:2)
forget online gaming on a ship as the lag is killer and moving from area to area can lead to drop outs.
What type of connection? (Score:2)
I'm surprised this is even an option, I recently worked at a remote US government facility and there were heavy filtering requirements in place. Do military regs really allow you to avoid their regular IT controls and policies this way?
At any rate, my first question is are you talking about a physical internet connection while in port, or using a satellite at sea or what? You're talking about supporting an awful lot of users and data through the VPN, but can your basic connection support that?
Build your own - not at someone's house though. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's like none of you even read. It specifically says it must be a reputable company. Building their own is not an option.
Re: (Score:2)
Almost all VPN services are fly-by-night ops (Score:3)
Almost all VPN services are fly-by-night ops. Just don't do it. Seriously, they come and go like the wind. I'm sure there are legit and have been around for a long time but it's nigh impossible to vet any of these companies.
Instead find a good hosting providing and rent yourself a server with the amount of bandwidth you need and the location in the US you want (most providers have data centers in various places). For more security I would get a whole machine, not a VPS. Run OpenVPN or whatever on it and you're good to go. It wouldn't need much disk or RAM.
IPv6? (Score:3)
Not a VPN, but what about a IPv6 tunnel to Hurricane Electric? Much of what you are interested in is IPv6 accessible. And the HE tunnel is free.
Might check and see where the IPv6 anycast address routes to from your location. Might be in a different country.
Don't (Score:2)
Anything other than a government controlled VPN would be a dumb move. One step back though, why do you need a VPN? I assume the Navy can get his hands on a decent US IP range and have it routed properly? Even with non-US IP's you can probably get access. Most entertainment companies have good relations with the military - they could provide access as a courtesy.
Could be simple. Could be complex. (Score:2)
Create a VM endpoint in the US on something like Amazon Web Services. Fire up a tunnel (vtund over ssh? openvpn? whatever) from your ship's router to your endpoint, route traffic through it, make sure your local DNS resolves through the tunnel, and call it a day. This way you won't need to tell people to mess around with VPN clients. The fewer moving parts, the better.
This is pretty simplistic though. You need to give us more details. How much bandwidth do you have to play with? What is the expected latenc
Why doesn't the Navy already have one? (Score:2)
Is the OP saying that the Navy doesn't already run a VPN? WTF?
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect the story is either a total fabrication, or he's trying to get around some local restriction and not get caught.
Either way, i'm suspicious.
Technical Question: (Score:2)
How much salt water safe coax can they trail behind the ship? I mean, it can get pretty messy, especially if they go around an island or something. Really, shouldn't the poster have at least considered these basic issues?
No wonder the navy budget is HUGE!!!
What the... (Score:5, Insightful)
OK I'm not American (I'm Australian), but this whole post elicits a massive "WTF" from me.
If this is a Navy ship, belonging to the world's most powerful military and run and administered by a branch of the US Government, then surely:
a) if this kind of usage of the connection is permitted, the Navy (or other government entity) would have its own infrastructure you could use for this; or
b) if not, there'd already be a clear policy that stated who your preferred providers of such a service would be (having been vetted and cleared for such use by the relevant IT people within the Navy)
I mean, I can't imagine any government department, let alone the Navy, giving some random guy the task of finding and setting up a VPN via whatever means he happened to think was good.
Also, um, doesn't the ship have its own internet connection? I'm surprised that the filtering practices of the country where you're based are affecting you ... surely you don't allow people on the ship to use random, untrusted connections provided by whatever place you happen to be in?
Anyway, as I said, I'm not American and wouldn't have a clue how the US military operates. But I can tell you this kind of thing would never fly in a government department here.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
OK I'm not American (I'm Australian), but this whole post elicits a massive "WTF" from me.
If this is a Navy ship, belonging to the world's most powerful military and run and administered by a branch of the US Government, then surely:
a) if this kind of usage of the connection is permitted, the Navy (or other government entity) would have its own infrastructure you could use for this...
Yes, they do have their own. It's called NIPRNET, which is pretty much exactly what the OP is requesting to have in the first place (trusted network and endpoints in the US, and a connection to the internet).
The problem here is that they're on a ship, and likely not trusting in any other 3rd party network providers, are probably relying on satellite shots to connect to their networks, which puts a nice big fat 500ms delay in the path, which would choke streaming an animated gif to 500 users, let alone VoIP
Hey I got a company! (Score:2)
And a dedicated room (very very small...) for the computer!
use my company! You can trust me... er, my company.
surprised they don't provide this already (Score:2)
I understand personal unsecured devices on the DoD network are forbidden, but it's also easy to see where you literally have a boatload full of people with ipads and personal laptops with webcams that want internet access and a connection to family at home.
Creating a second, public-only network is the obvious solution. But given the recent wikileaks-ish concerns, I'm amazed that they are considering anyone else providing this service. It would seem that the logical thing for them to do now is to create a
Re: (Score:3)
This really needs to be done internally, under the control of the military, not farmed out.
One of the problems with the US military these days is that they farm out everything they can, usually to expensive no-bid contractors; they're even farming out security and combat work now to mercenaries. I'm really surprised they haven't gone ahead and farmed out even the postal service.
The whole situation is looking a lot like the decline and fall of the Roman Empire, where the empire spent so much money on their
NMCI / NGEN (Score:3)
Maybe you should call your support desk or talk to your commanding officer?
A LOT of money has been spent by the government to give you a secure environment, with thousands of pages of STIGs to comply with, encryption, and other safeguards.
It sounds like you want to do an end-run around the regulations and security imposed on your shipboard environment. The policies in place have been shaped over the last two decades.
Do you have the slightest idea of the issues involved? We got in trouble for pinging ONCE A REBOOT from PCs that were shipboard (to check to see if they had rejoined the land-side networks), as the Naval side saw it as an attack on their network. There are real bandwidth issues on board a ship, as well as a whole slew of security issues. Just tunneling through a VPN connection is not a solution at all.
Login, Inc. Tucson AZ (Score:5, Interesting)
We are happy to provide you free VPN termination for your needs. You're welcome to have us
checked out. US owned, operated, our CEO is the son of a service person, and we support our
armed forces. Contact sales@login.com and we'll set up whatever GRE/IPSEC/other VPN you
want.
Thank you for your service.
Ehud Gavron
Login, Inc.
Tucson AZ US
Re: (Score:2)
Small world. I had no idea you were on slashdot -- we briefly met a few years back for a Thawte notarization.
Anyway, good to know you guys are still around and doing stuff like this.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes! Hi Pete! It sure is too bad Thawte's Trusted Third Party system was taken down
by Verisign. I'm also unexcited that there are no email S/MIME signatures good for more
than 365 days... it's a step backward.
Ehud
What is the physical layer? (Score:4, Insightful)
I know this one... birdstep (Score:3)
http://www.birdstep.com/english/secure-mobility/safemove-mobile-vpn.aspx [birdstep.com]
dunno if it's expensive, it should provide a bridge though since that's what you need(apparently, so that your lan games don't route through to usa and back. where safemove is good is that you could install it on the machines and go to a cafe on shore and still be safe, with pretty much zero hassle).
what you want is a service with which you can locate the endpoint in a datacenter you choose, the military probably has some.
buying that endpoint service inside usa is probably going to be peanuts compared to buying the actual bandwidth for those 500-1000 users in some shithole country.
(some people on the thread don't seem to understand that this is the _entertainment_ network with machines separated from the military side, it's pretty much standard practice in any competent military).
What an AWESOME TROLL (Score:5, Insightful)
Holodeck (Score:2)
Do Not Pull A Skunkworks (Score:3)
It's completely reasonable for you, with orders, to investigate. But if you pull this behind the back of the existing infrastructure maintainers, you could be in a a great deal of trouble for violating security policies that no one here is equipped to help you follow. Contact the IT personnel at your main base, and find out what they've already got in place, and what policies you need to work with.
As a deployed ship, every communications should be encrypted: even casual email to your families about when you're coming back might be considered military intelligence, and I've seen commercial cases where personnel were not _allowed_ to pre-encrypt their communications before it hit the local proxies, precisely so it could be checked for confidential material. I've explained to clients and partners that this allows local monitoring to intercept the communications between their private machines and the proxy, and for anyone who cracks the proxy to read it all, and then they had to factor in _those_ issues.
You're also going to face potential issues with people taking "unsecured" machines for any "social" network and cross-connecting them to secure communications. That's just what the IT personnel at your home base should be able to help you assess. Even if you wind up doing most of the work, keeping them informed will mean that the pitfalls or incompatible tools can be recorded for anyone else who needs to do this.
Another group that might be able to help is the USO: They've been involved in helping communications for active military throughout their existence, and they might be aware of others who've faced just these questions and whom your normal chain of command might not be aware of.
Phish on! (Score:4, Interesting)
This post is a fishing trip. The poster is trying to get responses from people in the military that have already done what he seeks, and once he knows what unauthorized networks are being used, he can then locate them and attack them.
After numerous wikileaks excursions, there is no way the government is actually allowing this sort of network on-board ships. This might actually BE the government sniffing out potential leak sources. If any of you troops are considering answering this guy with factual information, think twice, then thrice.
Re:WTF (Score:5, Funny)
You would prefer they asked the Geek Squad?
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh don't worry they aren't going to take your word for it.
But as far as doing their homework, gathering opinions and collating data for review, they're asking in one of the right places.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:WTF (Score:4, Informative)
The only people who should be setting this up are the people who admin the rest of the networking equipment on board.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
no satellite link (Score:5, Interesting)
it's going to have to share the same satellite link for example
The whole point of this is to avoid the satellite link. He's probably in port, where he can just toss a cable from the ship to the dock. At worst he's close enough to shore for a WiMax link. I'm betting he's in port. He probably also has temporary connections for power, water, and sewer. It's probably like an RV hook-up at an RV campground.
I'm betting this comes out of some morale/entertainment budget. They couldn't afford Madonna, they aren't allowed to use that budget for hookers or alcohol, and thus... the internet.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd be very surprised if there was a way to set it up so it was 100% guaranteed to be independent of military equipment (it's going to have to share the same satellite link for example)
If that were the case (sharing), why would they be concerned about the other countries internet laws?!
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:WTF (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if it's not prevented by technological measures on the ship, you can be damned sure there are a more rules and regulations that he could spend the rest of his military career reading.
The DoD isn't particularly fond of people doing anything with information that they don't have control over.
Even if the DoD didn't like it, anyone with anything resembling security in mind wouldn't want to open up any sort of security risk. Opening an encrypted tunnel to circumvent packet inspection sounds like a wonderful way to bring in viruses, or send out classified materials. And fuck, potentially compromising any systems on a military vessel could be the difference between surviving and losing all hands.
I do have suggestions on good things to use, for civilians, in civilian environments, where it really doesn't matter if they get some malware, or otherwise hose their system. I won't touch this one. I'm allergic to prison, and more so to military prison.
Re:WTF (Score:4, Insightful)
As others have mentioned, those decisions don't come down to a sailor on a ship. They come from the command. There are miles and miles of red tape,
Others have also mentioned that the military *does* have provisions for such things. In asking for another way around, he's basically saying that he wants to circumvent the security of the ship for undisclosed reasons.
Sure, there are technical ways that we can suggest to monitor the traffic on the ship side of the VPN. The problem here is that he most likely doesn't have the authority (or even real permission) to explore the options. He's most likely going to find himself in some very uncomfortable discussions with some strong penalties threatened.
Re: (Score:3)
And why would anyone offer to help circumvent a country's restrictions and/or packet sniffing. Because you don't like the rules and regulations yourself?! It seems the OP is quite ignorant to rules in general. For what it's worth, most telecommunications will let you apply for an exemption to internet restrictions with appropriate justification. The use only by American citizens on a ship flying American flag might be enough.
Often, in other countries with new or government owned infrastructure, subsidize th
Re:When in Rome ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Then respect the laws of that country and don't try to bypass their Internet policies.
Foreign laws don't apply on an American warship, which are considered US territory. I learned this in a very practical sense many decades ago, when I was on an LPH [wikipedia.org] in the South China Sea. We picked up a load of Vietnamese boat people, including a pregnant women. During the stress of the transfer she went into labor, and the baby was born on the deck of our ship. When we returned to Subic Bay, all the refugees were transferred to a refugee camp. Except the woman and her baby. They were taken to the US Naval Hospital, and then flown to the USA. Since the baby had been born on the deck of an American warship (US Territory) it was an American citizen, not a refugee.
Re: (Score:2)
Then the Navy should provide such a VPN and a secure network channel back to US territory. Depending on a private VPN provider is not a good idea. Aside from trust issues, using one VPN per ship can still provide useful traffic analysis data. Internet traffic from military personnel should look like it comes through one portal, or be randomized so that location data cannot be deduced.
And then there's the issue of VPN security through foreign Internet facilities. Its quite possible that the country you are
Re: (Score:2)
But when you are in the US try the best you can to avoid the laws of the that country such as IP laws? Why are extremely restrictive laws in a foreign country more important to follow that much less restrictive laws in your own?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Then respect the laws of that country and don't try to bypass their Internet policies.
Would you have said that if the guy wasn't in the military?
Re: (Score:3)
As any US citizen visiting a foreign country, yes. More so if that person has been granted special privileges as a diplomat or US official.
If a citizen of some country needs a VPN to bypass their own corrupt or unjust government, then I'm all for helping them. But its got to be a grass roots effort. None of this CIA sponsored change of government crap.
Re: (Score:2)
That's largely irrelevant. It's quite possible that (apart from the first and last) two subsequent packets travel through an entirely different set of countries.
So which laws apply? Union? Intersection? Simple majority?
Re: (Score:2)
So you mean that I as an internet user now need to know exactly where and how my packets are routed? Because you claim that if that data travels through a country with different laws, I must follow them.
Re: (Score:3)
You are proposing a non-military access point onto a vessel vested with the task of protecting the interests of the United States.
It's the goddamned internet... You have to hook it up SOMEWHERE . If I could, I'd build a plinth and put this comment on the top and a faceplate under that said "Stupidest Person in IT Award (2012)". I'm gonna go take a shower now... I feel dirty.
Re: (Score:2)
It's the goddamned SECURITY that is the issue here, dear genius IT person
I guess I just don't see how two computers that have no electrical or wireless connection to one another can intefere with one another in a malicious fashion. Perhaps you could enlighten me, oh Ye of Infinite Knowledge?
Re:No internet for you! (Score:5, Insightful)
Agreed. The US Navy does a lot of great things (some of their disaster work is first-rate, for example, and they also do anti-piracy work and help ensure free navigation), but our armed forces and military policy have also been responsible for a lot of really bad things (allying with armed forces that place zero value on human life, adding to demand for forced prostitution, propping up oppressive regimes).
It's not black and white, and talking points on both sides (insofar as there are only two) have some truth to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Soldiers need rest and relaxation time between their murdering sprees in the pursuit of imperialism. But what's really pathetic is that they actually bother to follow the laws of local countries, instead of just barging in and doing whatever the fuck they want. What's the point of having a big military to go around and project force, murder people, and seize control of resources, if you're then going to bow down to locals and follow their idiotic little laws? I'm sure the Roman Army never did anything li
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, if you read between the lines, I'm advocating for non-interventionism. Militaries are a necessity I'll agree, but they should only be used as a last resort, and when that point comes, then everything else goes out the window. Until that point comes, soldiers should be kept at home, and never deployed anywhere (except for the Navy of course, whose job is to sail around and always has been, but even so, they shouldn't be docking at other countries for very long, maybe long enough for a brief shore
Re: (Score:2)
As I said in another post here, the situation strongly resembles the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Wikipedia has a great article about it here [wikipedia.org]. There's a lot of parallels with the bloated military machine, and the decrease in technical innovation.