Officer Brings Security Flaw To Army's Attention; Army Threatens Him With Jail If He Talks About It

from the good-deeds-won't-go-unpunished,-not-in-this-man's-Army! dept

Thu, Sep 5th 2013 8:37am — Tim Cushing

It's a common, but regrettable, reaction. Person A discovers flaw in computer security. This is brought to the attention of Persons B-whatever. Person A is threatened, bullied, fined, expelled, etc. for daring to highlight a potentially damaging security issue. In extreme cases, some even throw the highly-flawed CFAA at the person, accusing them of hacking, "exceeding authorized access."

Why? Who knows? Apparently nothing fixes a security flaw faster than acts of intimidation and the resultant bad press. The US Army presumably holds the power to actually shoot the messenger, but thankfully, it didn't take things that far.

A soldier was made to sign a non-disclosure agreement by the US Army after pointing out a security flaw which allowed accounts on shared PCs to be accessed without proper authentication…

Army staff authenticate on shared computers on bases and in the field using Common Access Code (CAC) smart ID cards. On completing a session the card is removed from the reader and the session should be terminated. However, it appears that the logoff process is often slow and can easily be cancelled by the next user, who can then continue to access the system under the previous user's account.

While I can almost see the rationale for this action (don't talk about this until we can fix it), it's severely undercut by the fact that the US Army a) had no intention of fixing it and b) had previous knowledge of the flaw's existence.

The issue has been known about for over two years, with one Army lieutenant who spotted it facing all manner of troubles when he tried to report it to senior staff. Having been told that the problem was too tricky to fix, he was then allegedly made to sign a non-disclosure agreement and told he could face imprisonment if he broke it.

Others who pointed out the flaw to superiors were faced with silent inaction.

I guess the Army figured it could just wait it out. Maybe the system would mend itself, using some sort of nanobot AI or something. I'm pretty sure I read something in Omni about in back in '81... In the meantime, it applied the most minute of Band-Aids to the problem.

A statement issued by senior Army IT security staff after the problem appeared in the news has advised soldiers to be more careful when logging out of shared PCs.

Right. Because that "be careful" statement works so well at libraries, schools, offices… basically anywhere anyone shares computers. Of course, most shared computers won't have access to information that could potentially pose a threat to a nation's military if it made it out into the wild. The Army seems to somewhat feel this non-solution might be inadequate, so it's applying another set of "be careful" Band-Aids in a way only a large government entity can: with handbooks and motivational posters and weeklong events.

In response to the problem they are planning an “Information Assurance/Cybersecurity Awareness week” in October as a follow-up measure to their new handbook, released last February, which stresses the importance of individual responsibilities to protect information. According to Lundgren, the handbook “augments current policy, training, and inspection processes and aims to raise awareness and change culture.”

I'm guessing the effectiveness of this program will be in the 0% range. It's tough to get anyone to care about an issue you can't be bothered to fix, no matter how many reminders clog up soldiers' inboxes or how many commanding officers read the mandatory "IA/CA Week" announcement in a low, perfunctory monotone.

And once again, we're back to the crux of the issue: the Army won't fix the problem. It doesn't seem impossible or even extraordinarily difficult. There is the matter of scale, which does complicate things, but refusing to tackle the root problem means the hole in the system will remain open and exploitable, no matter how many soldiers are forced into signing NDAs or threatened with jail time or bored to death by "awareness" presentations.

Considering the recent NSA leaks, you'd think the Army would be hammering away at the problem with alacrity, rather than throwing updated policies and freshly-printed handbooks at its personnel.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: army, gag order, nondisclosure, security, security through obscurity

47 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2013 @ 8:43am

It would appear that the best thing to do, given the threat of prosecution for reporting a vulnerability, is to simply leave it there.

Seems to me that it takes some kind of data loss/compromise event to get any of these "IT personnel" (and I use the term loosely, sarcastically even) to even think about fixing the problem.

If that's the incentive they need to implement better security, then why help them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 6 Sep 2013 @ 5:10am
  
  Re:
  Given how gung-ho the government gets about guys like Snowden (or even Swartz), I wouldn't be terribly surprised that if the hole does get exploited, everyone who reported its existence and tried to get the Army to fix it will be up on conspiracy charges.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sheogorath (profile), 6 Sep 2013 @ 10:33pm
  
  Re:
  It would appear that the best thing to do, given the threat of prosecution for reporting a vulnerability, is to simply leave it there and take full advantage of it.
  FTFY.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Falindraun (profile), 9 Sep 2013 @ 10:03am
  
  Re:
  as a former member of the us army IT, i have done IT in the army as a soldier in more than one location. First i would like to say that this problem is much worse depending on location. What is supposed to happen when you remove your Common Access Card (not code as mike has it in the article), provided the users account in Active Directory is set up properly as per DOD regulation, is that the computer is supposed to lock when the card is removed. Some locations disregard this either completely (even after i had pointed it out to my supervisors and i was told to drop it) or just for extremely senior ranking service members ie: generals seargents majors so that they are not forced into leaving their CAC in the card reader as they feel it is an inconvience. also this problem is not limited to shared comuters, however it is limited to the unclasified network as all of the militarys networks that are classified Secret and above still require old fasioned name and password.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2013 @ 8:44am

you'd think the Army would be hammering away at the problem with alacrity

They are already attacking the problem with the tools they know the best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Bergman (profile), 6 Sep 2013 @ 5:16am
  
  Re:
  To a bureaucrat, problems don't exist until someone points them out. The one who pointed out a problem therefore caused it, and get punished for disrupting operations.
  
  Engineers tend to react the other way, someone who points out a problem is the hero who allowed the problem to be fixed so operations work better.
  
  Unfortunately, bureaucrats tend to be in authority over engineers, most places.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2013 @ 8:46am

Typical government stance on "problems":

It's not a problem if nobody knows about it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2013 @ 9:02am
  
  Re:
  So cover your ears, repeat the line "La la la, I can't hear you, la la la" and simply pretend that nobody knows about it. Because if you can pretend hard enough then it might become true.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ltlw0lf (profile), 5 Sep 2013 @ 9:04am
  
  Re:
  Typical government stance on "problems":
  
  It's not a problem if nobody knows about it!
  
  Very much a sad but true statement. They go so far as outlaw their own people from knowing what everyone else already knows, even though that action pretty much guarantees failure.
  
  However, having experienced this issue myself (the abnormally slow and long period of time for a system to lock after removing a smart card,) it isn't something the Army can easily fix. The problem is Microsoft's and ActiveCard's. Microsoft has the capability of locking the computer on smartcard removal built into Windows, and it has the option to lock the system, or log the user off. The problem isn't when the lock the system option is used, but when the log the user off option is used (which is used for shared systems.)
  
  Instead of Microsoft/ActiveCard doing the right thing, which is to lock the system, and then process the log-off of the user, it just goes through the standard log-off, which may take some time because running applications are terminated and user data is saved. And if any application asks the user a question (like, do you really want to quit without saving your document?,) the system may sit in a much longer than usual stuck state. If the user is impatient and leaves before this process is completed, then someone else can interrupt the process and continue on using the system.
  
  There are really two ways to fix this problem, and both will require active participation from Microsoft/ActiveCard. The first would be to perform the "log on as different user" capability built into the OS when the user removes their CAC. By doing so, the user is still logged in, and their applications and data are still safe, but the system will allow another user to log in and receive a new session (this is limited in Windows, and since the original user is still running applications and using data, may slow down the system if a couple people are logged in.) Or, Microsoft/ActiveCard could change the software so that upon immediate removal of the card, the system is locked, and the user is logged out in the background.
  
  I doubt the Army has enough clout to fix this themselves.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2013 @ 9:13am
    
    Re: Re:
    It's the US Army. Even if they need Microsoft/ActiveCard to do the fixing, they definitely have enough clout to get it fixed if they cared to exercise it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - ltlw0lf (profile), 5 Sep 2013 @ 9:34am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      they definitely have enough clout to get it fixed if they cared to exercise it.
      
      I've sat in meetings with Microsoft in which a Microsoft engineer has told us, straight faced, that we don't buy enough of their product to mean anything to their bottom line (even though we apparently have enough clout to have a couple Microsoft-paid engineers working at our facility and with us on a regular basis.) They wouldn't move when we pointed out their software was broken, and we ended up having to write our own software to cover up their failure to fix their software (which they ended up using and pushing out to all their customers.)
      
      Nope, unless the Army levels a couple buildings in Redmond Washington, or takes their business elsewhere (either of which are highly unlikely,) Microsoft will still view them with the same disdain it views all of its other customers.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2013 @ 10:06am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        So Microsoft and the Army will have a war, with each doing what it knows best.
        
        1. Microsoft delivering buggy software to Army facilities.
        2. Army leveling buildings on Microsoft campus.
        
        Who will win? Or will we all win?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Sheogorath (profile), 6 Sep 2013 @ 10:43pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Micro$##t will win. What will happen is that the army will gleefully take delivery of their new software and use it for their 'smart' weaponry, which they will aim at Redmond. Of course, the inevitable will occur, and the only thing left standing will be the fucking target.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2013 @ 10:34am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Unless you were working for the Army at the time, I'm still pretty certain that the Army has the clout to get it fixed. If nothing else even with budget cuts, it shouldn't be that difficult to scrap up a couple million dollars to throw at the problem to get a relatively simple fix implemented.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ltlw0lf (profile), 5 Sep 2013 @ 5:22pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        it shouldn't be that difficult to scrap up a couple million dollars to throw at the problem to get a relatively simple fix implemented.
        
        I'd prefer to scratch the whole program entirely and save the money altogether. Why throw good money out with bad.
        
        Implementing a simple Linux based system would be far easier than trying to wring water out of a stone. CAC works with Linux, albeit not as easily, and it wouldn't take too much money to dump Windows and ActiveCard and throw a little at the contractors to come up with what is needed using Linux.
        
        Unfortunately, even with acquisition rules changing to enforce open-source in the selection process, it is still really difficult for open-source to get any sort of traction in government (mainly because it is seen as a free, and thus unsupported, operating system.)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Falindraun (profile), 9 Sep 2013 @ 10:25am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        the army and the dod will never move away from linux and most of the armys computer users are no more tech savvy then your average civilian business computer user, in other words because using linux would require retrainging of everybody in the military as the army doesnt train their IT to use linux at all durring their inital training (yes its microsoft only aside from cisco switches and routers), and none of the armys users recieve any computer training (aside from specific job training), those that do use unix only use it in a text based format to order parts and to provide an electronic work log for militry vehicles and even then they only get training on the specific program they use to do this, and army IT is NEVER ever alowed to even attempt to fix these computers and when they do need to be fixed they are sent back to the manufacturer to be reimaged by them. so linux (a great idea) will never happen as the training it would require is akin to teaching your non tech savvy grandmother how to send email, its better to just let them use windows
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Falindraun (profile), 9 Sep 2013 @ 10:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        just fixing a typo, first reference to linux on the first line should read Windows.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2013 @ 9:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    I've worked on smart card systems that logon/off quickly enough to not have this problem. I'd argue it's the bloatware the government likely has to track their users moreso than that bloatware in Windows or ActiveCard (even though I'm sure those don't help).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2013 @ 4:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      If it is a computer running Microsoft Windows, the smart card system is just an attachment to the OS and card application cannot change the slowness which is under control of the core Windows software. They are at the mercy of Microsoft in this context.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2013 @ 4:18pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I think you've nailed it.
    
    So, a software fix is out of the Army's hands. There is a security fix though, and I'm serious about this even though I'm smiling, change the procedures to force the person logging off to wait until log off is complete. I am assuming that they are using an OS version previous to Windows 7 where this problem is a lot more annoying.
    Attempting to hide the problem is horrible security because it is precisely the people you need to worry about who will also end up knowing about it. They could immediately execute each person who found out but that still wouldn't solve the security problem.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Joe2, 9 Sep 2013 @ 7:21pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      And of course now, people are aware of what to be looking out for if nefarious. "Oh gee, I'll play with the dongle until I figure out how to make it let me stay logged in with it missing."
      
      Better to just make sure people are aware of workarounds and what to watch out for. If I saw someone run to a station where the user had to rush to a CO's beck and call, I'd be very suspicious of that individual. All because I read an earlier comment that (probably) pretty much sums up the flaw.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bergman (profile), 6 Sep 2013 @ 5:20am
    
    Re: Re:
    A simple solution would be to have a power/reset button inserted in the card reader. Pulling the card would power cycle the system, and when it comes back up it has no card in it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Joe2, 9 Sep 2013 @ 7:25pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Sadly, only practical if the system uses something where files don't get corrupted that way. Even tablets and smart phones aren't bulletproof when it comes to corruption of data when power is suddenly lost. However, a saved-state to an encrypted hibernation file...?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2013 @ 8:50am

I bet they're using windows bloatware to manage login sessions to shared windows computers... no wonder there's no fix...

The Army should know better than to use Windows...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- E. Zachary Knight (profile), 5 Sep 2013 @ 9:04am
  
  Re:
  You would be lucky if they were even using a recent version of Windows. The pace of military modernization is on par with a snail in molasses on a cold winter's day.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - ltlw0lf (profile), 5 Sep 2013 @ 9:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    You would be lucky if they were even using a recent version of Windows.
    
    You'd be surprised. Recent efforts have been put into place to mandate the latest OS's and for the most part, the longest pole in the tent is usually running Windows 7/Windows 2008R2 (very few are pushing for Windows 8.) The problem has always been the program of records, which tend to take forever since engineering is done by a committee and they don't want to break anything by moving to a new OS without testing to make sure everything works exactly the way it worked on the old OS. And then, there is the ton of paperwork, studies, quick-look reports, mandated engineering documentation nobody will ever look at, and security and accreditation processes that turn a simple operation into a 6 year process.
    
    It is still on par with a snail on a cold winter's day, but usually without the molasses part (unless that is used to keep the engineers happy.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Arthur Moore (profile), 5 Sep 2013 @ 9:46am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Don't forget all the special software the Army likes to use to lock the systems down.
      
      On a slightly different note, It's going to be interesting watching the lawsuits when XP officially becomes unsupported next year. Especially after the first remote OS vulnerability is found.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Postulator (profile), 6 Sep 2013 @ 4:33am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "On a slightly different note, It's going to be interesting watching the lawsuits when XP officially becomes unsupported next year. Especially after the first remote OS vulnerability is found".
        
        What lawsuits? Who will be sued? Microsoft is not obliged to support its products forever any more than any other company - and they support their operating systems a lot longer than Apple does. Alternatively, perhaps you might like a ten year old version of Linux - if you could find one. Have you tried firing up ten year old games? Some of them have been patched, but others just refuse to run on Windows 7 or Windows 8. Is that the game publisher's fault? Fine, sue EA. Good luck with that, you couldn't even get your money back if you bought Sim City and found it didn't run in the first few weeks it was out.
        
        Sorry Arthur, but your comment makes absolutely no sense.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Falindraun (profile), 9 Sep 2013 @ 10:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        the only software the military uses to lockdown computers is active directory and then its done via group policy no special bloatware is used at all.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2013 @ 9:05am
  
  Re:
  I've talked to technicians (of mid sized to large organizations) that, surprisingly, don't even know what 'cryptography' is yet alone what public key cryptography is. Didn't even know what the word cryptography meant? How can you be a computer tech and not know something so fundamental and basic? Isn't there some kinda screening process here?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2013 @ 9:11am
    
    Re: Re:
    That first question mark should be an exclamation mark.
    
    The sad part is that the people doing the screening probably don't know all that much more either so how can they be expected to screen?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
BentFranklin (profile), 5 Sep 2013 @ 9:10am

Yawn. When you leave a secure area, you are supposed to ensure the gate has completely closed before you go on. Same concept.

I don't see anything wrong with applying a common sense workaround until it gets fixed. I can only imagine the hell involved in trying to change the software in thousands of military PCs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Michael, 5 Sep 2013 @ 9:41am
  
  Re:
  I don't see anything wrong with applying a common sense workaround until it gets fixed
  
  Two problems with that statement jump right out at me. First, thay have known about the problem for two years - even for the US military, that is not an adequate response time. Second, if there is a common-sense approach to work around it, you don't silence people - you educate them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Roan, 5 Sep 2013 @ 10:06am
  
  Re:
  Here's the problem. That's fine in a standard office environment. That's perfectly acceptable for officers or senior NCOs. The problem is that this issue magnified by the Army environment.
  
  Imagine you are a lower enlisted soldier. You are at the beck and call of NCOs and Officers. Immediate obediance is stressed, for good reason. You may be punished for responding in any way other than instantly. You are working on a computer and your boss yells for your presence. Do you:
  A) Remove your CAC card and wait until the computer fully logs you off before going to your commander?
  B) Grab your CAC card and rush to the needs of your officer?
  
  The first can result in punishment that could include loss of your weekend, extensive physical exercise, loss of pay and rank, or any number of other penalties depending on how the officer reacts to your slow response. The second results in an exploitable vulnerability in the entire computer system that may compromise personal information to anyone who exploits it.
  
  This is not a viable solution.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 5 Sep 2013 @ 11:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    If that's true, the problem is with the Army procedures. Waiting for the logoff should be part of security protocols and therefore should supercede an officer's impatience. Failing to wait should be the punishable offense, not making the officer wait an extra few minutes.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Falindraun (profile), 9 Sep 2013 @ 10:35am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      i can promise that every lower enlisted will 100% of the time always pick option B and the smart ones will give a quick 'windows key + L' to lock their station then pull their card and go running.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Luigi Vercotti, 5 Sep 2013 @ 9:36am

Nice Army Base here...
You've got a nice Army base 'ere, Colonel. Be ashamed if something were to... 'appen to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2013 @ 10:02am

If the Army doesn't widely publicize this case and ones like it, how will the soldiers learn not to report security holes?

It seems there's a bug in this program.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2013 @ 11:13am
  
  Re:
  Now that seems like the most pressing problem. Obviously the problem will take time to remove, so it doesnt seem like it will be fixed in any near future.
  
  The problem sounds pretty obvious so it shouldn't be necessary to hide it. If they really have a problem of large magnitude here, the solution is to inform about how to properly work around it. Therefore the "Information Assurance/Cybersecurity Awareness week" should have happened at lower scale earlier. 2 years before setting these wheels in motion seems like too large a timeframe even for uncle Sam. It sounds like some officers have been far too snappy to hand out warnings, punishments and NDAs while forgetting to move the information up the chain to the right people on this issue.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
CTVic, 5 Sep 2013 @ 10:56am

too tricky to fix?
The problem was too tricky to fix? How about removing the Cancel button from the logoff screen. You log off when you log off. If you didn't mean to log off then tough shit, Private, log back in again.

Seems to me it would be easier to threaten and intimidate the developer into issuing a hotfix than it would to threaten and intimidate every system user that tries to speak up and say "Um ... hey guys?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 5 Sep 2013 @ 11:29am
  
  Re: too tricky to fix?
  Convincing Microsoft to fix Windows bugs can be tricky.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Fenderson (profile), 5 Sep 2013 @ 11:36am
    
    Re: Re: too tricky to fix?
    As someone who has to routinely talk with Microsoft about their bugs and work around them, i can confirm that there are a large number of bugs that MS developer acknowledge in private, but MS will never, ever acknowledge formally.
    
    And they will never get fixed, because the don't officially exist.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe2, 9 Sep 2013 @ 7:16pm
  
  Re: too tricky to fix?
  Simple? Disable keyboard and mouse and set policy to reduce timeout to a few seconds before auto-killing tasks? Combined with blanking the screen, this should pretty much stop the issue!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Groove Tige, 5 Sep 2013 @ 1:40pm

I see a problem here:

"A soldier was made to sign a non-disclosure agreement by the US Army after pointing out a security flaw which allowed accounts on shared PCs to be accessed without proper authentication� "

I mean, I know soldiers have no rights whatsoever and can be intimidated into doing anything a superior wants... but it just seems backwards.

Like going to the press and spilling all your secrets, then mumbling "uhhh... off the record, right?"

It's not like hospitals happily perform surgery on you, leaving you crippled for life, then say "hey, we fucked up, so can you please sign this that says you're giving us permission to perform this risky operation that fucked you up?"

Actually, scratch that, I suspect those are probably more real than I think...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ECA (profile), 5 Sep 2013 @ 3:16pm

Been in the business to long, LOGIC SUCKS
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130905/12295324417/nsa-gchq-covertly-took-over-security-standards -recruited-telco-employees-to-insert-backdoors.shtml

Iv been around computer way to long..
MANY corps put backdoors into products to HELP IN FIXING THEM..
The IDEA that placing backdoors that OTHERS CANT FIND into a product, only gives access to OTHERS. thinking that there ISNT another person out there thats AS SMART AS YOU, is stupid logic.

there have been GREAT products made. and there were PROBLEMS with it...The Person that set it up, LEFT/QUIT/DIED/Got pissed off... Could do anything with the set up, or FORGET THE PASSWORD.. and the only thing you could do? START OVER..NEW hardware or a TOTAL RESET of the hardware(not good)..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Sep 2013 @ 4:29pm

NDA's
One thing about this story puzzles me. Why did they make the soldier sign an NDA? He's a soldier and this is the army. Why doesn't the army just order him not to talk about it? Perhaps, even making it a written order. An NDA, which is about contracts, seems inappropriate here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Joe2, 9 Sep 2013 @ 7:31pm
  
  Re: NDA's
  The way it works is if you joined say, the Manhattan project, that you signed a specific document for that. It's an additional, STRICTER agreement. It also specifies who you can and can't discuss it with. Caveat: I'm not in the US military.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]