LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA Archives

TEAM-ADA Archives


TEAM-ADA@LISTSERV.ACM.ORG


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA Home

TEAM-ADA  March 1997

TEAM-ADA March 1997

Subject:

Re: VIRUS ALERT - My Email of 21 March 97 Contains a Virus

From:

Alfred M Selgas <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Alfred M Selgas <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 24 Mar 1997 08:39:10 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (196 lines)

     
        ALL,
                THE CURRENT VERSION OF "MCAFEE VIRUS SW" DETECTS AND CLEANS THE 
       "OLD WAZZU" VIRUS.
        R/ AL SELGAS 602-4493

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: VIRUS ALERT - My Email of 21 March 97 Contains a Virus 
Author:  [log in to unmask] (Currie Colket) at SMTP-GW
Date:    3/24/97 7:05 AM


Dear Mr. Paige and Colleagues,
     
My email of Friday, 21 March titled: "Re[2]: Reason for Mr. Paige's Decision 
Unclear" regrettably contains a virus. I have been notified by about 10 people 
that the Microsoft Word attachment to this email titled "forpaige.doc" contains 
a variation of the Wazzu virus. 
     
The IBM AntiVirus checker we use here did not detect any problems with the 
forpaige.doc file. However, our checker is 7 months old and the WM.Wazzu.gen 
virus apparently is newer. The reported virus is the "WM.Wazzu.gen." I found out
the following from a search of "WM.Wazzu" on AltaVista ["WM.Wazzu.gen" had no 
matches]:
     
> WM.Wazzu.a - This curious virus contains a macro that, like the 
> concept virus, attaches to Word documents. When activated, wazzu 
> randomly inserts the word > "wazzu" in your document. (Go figure!) Dr. 
> Solomon's does NOT detect this virus. It was discovered on a Student 
> Lab PC while running the FINDVIRU virus checker. If you encounter this 
> virus, please contact the Helpdesk as soon as possible. 727-5536 or 
> e-mail: [log in to unmask] 
     
You will want to delete the original transmitted file called "forpaige.doc". I 
have attached a copy of the file in ASCII text. If you have not opened the 
forpaige.doc, please do not. If you have opened the file, I am told there 
probably is not a problem unless you also evoke other Word files, in which case 
you will infect them as well. To be safe, you should have your system analyzed 
using a virus checker capable of detecting and correcting the WM.Wazzu.gen 
virus.
     
I apologize for any inconvenience I have caused.
     
v/r
Currie
     
P.S. I will be out of the office on travel until 31 March.
     
ASCII Version of forpaige.doc =>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     
     
                              Strawman for 
                     Software Acquisition Manager 
                             Training Needs
     
Purpose:  This Strawman addresses the knowledge and skills needed by a software 
acquisition manager to support the acquisition of a software dependent system. 
This knowledge and skills may also be desirable for other acquisition personnel 
such as the program manager.
     
Context:  The knowledge and skills for a software acquisition manager must be 
driven by systems engineering of which software engineering is a significant 
part. Also the knowledge and skills for a software acquisition manager are 
driven by acquisition policy. The current thrust in the DoD is to use 
performance specifications which focus on what to build and not how to build.
     
Knowledge and Skills: The knowledge and skills necessary for the software 
acquisition manager are categorized in 3 general areas:  People, Process, and 
Technology:
     
1.      People: People make the acquisition happen through the effective use of 
technology and processes. People with the right skills are necessary on both the
acquisition side and on the development side. Effective use of people will 
impact the cost, schedule, and quality of a project. Knowledge necessary for 
software acquisition personnel would help answer the following questions: 
 What are the useful organizational approaches that make sense in developing 
software? 
 What should one look for in a proposal in evaluating the effectiveness of the 
organization for developing software? 
 What are the dangerous organizational approaches that result in poor quality 
software? 
     
2.      Process: Processes allow a software acquisition manager with the 
necessary tools to manage the acquisition from the perspective of Cost, 
Schedule, and Quality. When plans fail managers sacrifice quality to achieve 
cost and schedule. Projects that are late have typically (but not always) 
seriously compromised quality. This results in a poorer product delivered to the
fleet as well as significantly higher life-cycle costs. Important knowledge 
include Mil-Std 498, ISO/IEC 12207, CMM, SPICE, SA CMM, Best Practices (SPMN), 
Software development strategies (e.g., evolutionary, incremental, build, 
waterfall), Documentation methodologies, Software metrics, Configuration 
Management, Cleanroom, Inspections, Planning strategies, Testing strategies, 
Software Quality (SA) strategies, Independent Verification and Validation (IV&V)
strategies, things to put into an RFP, things to look for in a proposal, and the
evolving acquisition environment. Software acquisition personnel must be aware 
of the tradeoff of COTS and proprietary software within an acquisition to commit
the government into future contracts.
     
3.      Technology: Knowledge of software technology can be critical in the 
current acquisition environment of knowing what to ask for in the performance 
specification. Technology provides feasible engineering solutions to meet the 
systems requirements. Knowledge of the technology options available will have an
impact on what we can ask in the RFP. Later, knowledge of these technologies is 
important for evaluating the approaches of alternative technology proposed by a 
vendor. Technologies can seriously impact the cost, schedule, quality, and 
long-term life-cycle support of a project so the benefits and tradeoffs 
associated with their use must be well understood. Examples of key technologies 
software acquisition personnel should know include:
     
 Benefits/Tradeoffs in using WWW and Java technologies within C4ISR; 
 Benefits/Tradeoffs of Ada versus C++ within C4ISR;
 Benefits/Tradeoffs of Interface technology within C4ISR;
 Benefits/Tradeoff of using Open Systems approaches within C4ISR; 
 Benefits/Tradeoffs of using the TAFIM for C4ISR systems;
 Benefits/Tradeoffs of using the Joint Tactical Architecture for C4ISR;
 Benefits/Tradeoffs of using UNIX/POSIX versus Run-time Executives within 
C4ISR;
 Benefits/Tradeoffs of using different scheduling algorithms within a single 
processor and within the distributed C4ISR software environment;
 Benefits/Tradeoffs in using Expert System technology within C4ISR; 
 Benefits/Tradeoffs in using Artificial Technology within C4ISR;
 Benefits/Tradeoffs in using Virtual Reality within C4ISR;
 Benefits/Tradeoffs in using Safety-Critical technologies within C4ISR;
 Benefits/Tradeoffs in using modeling and Simulation technologies with C4ISR; 
 Benefits/Tradeoffs of using Object Oriented Technologies versus conventional 
technologies for developing C4ISR; OOA???, OOD???, OBP???, OOP???
 Benefits/Tradeoffs in using Client/Server technology within C4ISR; 
 Benefits/Tradeoffs in using CORBA technology within C4ISR;
 Benefits/Tradeoffs is the use of different Software Engineering Environments 
for developing C4ISR systems;
 Benefits/Tradeoffs in using CASE tools within C4ISR;
 Benefits/Tradeoffs in using various software development methodologies within 
C4ISR;
 Benefits/Tradeoffs in using formal methods for analyzing requirements and 
specifications in C4ISR environments;
 Benefits/Tradeoffs in using Encryption/Security technologies within C4ISR; 
 Benefits/Tradeoffs in using Domain Modeling and reuse technologies within 
C4ISR;
 Benefits/Tradeoffs in different architectural approaches within C4ISR; 
 Benefits/Tradeoffs of different networking approaches within C4ISR;
 Benefits/Tradeoffs of automatic testing approaches within C4ISR;
 Benefits/Tradeoffs of Information Warfare technologies within C4ISR;
 Benefits/Tradeoffs of using COTS within C4ISR and if COTS is used, the 
appropriate mechanisms to integrate the COTS into the system;
 Benefits/Tradeoffs of integration technology for evolving legacy systems 
within the C4ISR environment.
     
One initial observation is that software technologies encompass many diverse 
areas. It is not likely to find a single individual knowledgeable in each of 
these technologies. It should be noted that the benefit/tradeoff knowledge level
for a technology is significantly less than a working knowledge of that 
technology.  Program Directorates may want to foster a working knowledge for 
certain software technologies critical to their mission domain. 
     
The new acquisition rules mean we have to be smarter in what we can ask for and 
smarter in our approach for evaluating proposals. Lack of knowledge of the 
benefits & tradeoffs of these technologies is a serious problem not only for the
software acquisition manager, but also for general program manager types. For 
example, the first item on the list is Benefits/Tradeoffs in using WWW and Java 
technologies within C4ISR; a software acquisition manager should know how the 
technology could be applied to a procurement, both from the perspective of 
knowing what capabilities to ask for in an RFP and from the perspective of 
analyzing proposal approaches. Not understanding the power of this important 
technology might, for example:
     
 Cause the RFP to be written in such a way that WWW and Java 
  technologies are precluded in the vendor's solution space;
 Cause proposals advocating the use of WWW and Java technologies 
  to be poorly evaluated as the evaluator might not understand how 
  the technology is an appropriate solution to the C4ISR domain.
     
It should be noted that each of the above technologies has risks for using and 
risks for not using the technology. These risks frequently have a serious cost 
impact on program maintenance, for example, current acquisition policy on the 
use of COTS can result in a very effective system delivered to the Fleet. An 
excellent example of an effective system using COTS was recently demonstrated on
the Theodore Roosevelt for the Scaleable High Performance LAN (SHPL) & Advanced 
Power Projection Planning & Execution (APPEX) programs. However, common sense 
must be applied as COTS poorly selected and poorly integrated could result in 
requirements not being satisfied or life-cycle costs an order of magnitude 
higher than alternative approaches. For example, the BSY-2 program found no COTS
product that could support the real-time database requirements, despite working 
with database vendors for years. A real-time database engine had to be 
developed. Then again, had SHPL & APPEX been custom built, such technology as 
the WWW would neither be easily integrated into the aircraft carrier nor 
inexpensively evolveable as the WWW technology evolves. Systems/software 
acquisition personnel must understand the technologies involved to understand 
the risks of using or not using each technology.
     
Summary:  Education and training in these people, process, and technology areas 
are desirable to improve expertise and knowledge of software acquisition 
personnel. This education and training must be done in the context of software 
engineering partnered with systems engineering to acquire a system under the DoD
acquisition rules.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
June 2007
May 2007
March 2007
February 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.ACM.ORG

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager