Want Dept. of Defense Y2K Info? Check out THIS Website!!

greenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread

This is the website of the Inspector General. All reports are in .pdf format. This will require lots of horsepower and LOTS of time. Please post any interesting tidbits. My PC blows up everytime I try to launch a report!

Thanks.

R.

www.ignet.gov/ignet/internal/pcie/dody2k.html

-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), October 05, 1999

Answers

To the top, hoping for a bite...

R.

-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), October 05, 1999.


Do you all remember the testing that went on that made the news Re: the Military testing it's Logistics Branch, and how it all came out A-OK? That this was taken as a MAJOR piece of evidence that Y2K was going to be a big 'nothing'? Well check out this summary of the test cited from the link above....

*Snip*

"The testing of logistics systems supporting the 5 mission-critical processes was limited to 37 mission-critical systems out of the 149 listed in the DoD Year 2000 Reporting Database. However,the DUSD(L) did not formally document the risk assessment process that was required to be conducted as part of identifying and prioritizing the core logistics processes. Additionally, the DUSD(L) did not systematically montior the content of the commander in chief operational evaluations or Service integration tests to ensure that any systems or processes not covered were identified and included in the logistics functional end-to-end tests. Although the DUSD(L) proposed an additional risk mitigation step, the Chief Information Officers of the Components, except for the Air Force, had not agreed to perform verification and validation of 100 percent of mission-critical code. As a result, more needs to be done to enable the DUSD(L) to perform an overall assessment of the logistics functional area's year 2000 readiness and the Chief Information Offices of the Components need to support the DUSD(L) efforts to ensure that critical logistics systems will operate in a year 2000 environment."

*Unsnip*

Can you say "OOPS!" Let me include some summarys to this in parenthesis:

"The testing of logistics systems supporting the 5 mission-critical processes was limited to 37 mission-critical systems out of the 149 listed in the DoD Year 2000 Reporting Database. (ONLY 37 of the critical 149? Less than a third of the systems tested?)However,the DUSD(L) did not formally document the risk assessment process that was required to be conducted as part of identifying and prioritizing the core logistics processes. (IE they didn't state EXACTLY what areas of the computer core was to be tested in relation to the overall affect of the project!)Additionally, the DUSD(L) did not systematically montior the content of the commander in chief operational evaluations or Service integration tests to ensure that any systems or processes not covered were identified and included in the logistics functional end-to-end tests. (In other words, this was done in such a way, that only the areas that thery KNEW would pass were tested. No other areas were identified in relation to the overall affect on the projected impact of Y2K!!!)Although the DUSD(L) proposed an additional risk mitigation step, the Chief Information Officers of the Components, except for the Air Force, had not agreed to perform verification and validation of 100 percent of mission-critical code. (When the DUSD called them on this, He/She was told "we never agreed to test the whole thing! So stay quiet and test what we TELL you to test")As a result, more needs to be done to enable the DUSD(L) to perform an overall assessment of the logistics functional area's year 2000 readiness and the Chief Information Offices of the Components need to support the DUSD(L) efforts to ensure that critical logistics systems will operate in a year 2000 environment.(The final part states essentially that this test is/was a sham, but it's not my ((the DUSD(L)'s)) fault. I tested what they let me, and that's all she wrote!)"

Got Proof? RIGHT HERE BABY!!! Frightening isn't it eh?

-- Billy-Boy (Rakkasn@Yahoo.com), October 05, 1999.


Please, please, PLEASE, review this info soon. I'm afraid it may be yanked...

R.

-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), October 05, 1999.


Roland,

Let me know which report looks good, I'll pull it down and ZIP it up and mail it to you, if you want. It all looked kind of old to me. The most recent one is

"Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command Preparation for Year 2000 Battle Group Systems Integration Testing (05/26/99)"

I just need your e-mail address.

Did you read the shot description that went with this report? doesn't look good. I'll bet Adm. Bull (commander of CV-64 carrier group 81'-83') would have gotten the Conie's group in shape in time. Why do you think they tested an old Constellation class carrier (CV-**) instesd of a newer Enterprise class (CVN-**)? The Nuclear powered ships have many more bells and whistles (more to test). Seems like they would want to test the more complex ships with the most complex systems instead of the old diesel burners.

-- DOC (DOC@DOC..), October 05, 1999.


Doc - I apreciate your offer. Will need to research to idientfy specific reports. There do seem to be alot of recent reports, however, alot are dated Sseptember.

Thanks...will get beck later.

R.

-- Roland (nottellin@nowhere.com), October 05, 1999.



(snip) Audit of Ballistic Missile Defense Organization Year 2000 Initiatives (Project No. 8AB-3004)

Announced: January 28, 1998

Objective: Determine whether Ballistic Missile Defense Organization initiatives to address the Year 2000 computer problem are effective. Specifically, the auditors will determine whether the Ballistic Missile Defense Organization and its field activities have complied with the DoD Year 2000 Management Plan.

Final Report Issued:

Report No. 98-180, Ballistic Missile Defense Organization Year 2000 Initiatives (7/16/98)

Results: The Medium Extended Air Defense System program and the National Missile Defense programs initiated actions to ensure that future contracts include Y2K compliance clauses. However, the April 1998 quarterly Y2K report from BMDO did not accurately report progress made in solving Y2K problems. In March 1998, BMDO did take positive action to assess the Y2K problem by establishing a Y2K project management office but additional work is still needed. Also, officials from BMDO incorrectly approved the Theater High Altitude Area Defense system and all four of the National Missile Defense program elements to proceed beyond the assessment phase. As a result, DoD received and forwarded to OMB overstated progress reports on the Y2K effort for the Theater High Altitude Area Defense and the National Missile Defense programs. In addition, the risk for a timely solution to the Y2K problem for these programs was increased.

-- mommacarestx (harringtondesignX@earthlink.net), October 05, 1999.


Without trying to br flip, Roland, I found this material to be the greatest sleep inducer that I have ever encountered. I have nothing but admiration for the drones that prepared these reports.

dave

-- dave (wootendave@hotmail.com), October 05, 1999.


It does mostly look old but there are also some newer ones. The newest ones I saw were 10/1/99 and 9/15/99. Here's Sept 15th's news (summary):

Audit of the Environmental Security Year 2000 End-to-End Tests (Project No. 9CB-0099)

Announced: April 19, 1999

Objective: The overall objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of the planned Environmental Security year 2000 end-to-end tests. Specifically, we will review the test plans and the results of selected test events.

Final Report Issued

Report No. 99-253, Audit of the Environmental Security Year 2000 End- to-End Tests (09/15/99)

Results: Defense Logistics Agency had not planned and performed effective end-to-end tests for environmental security automated information systems that had been reported as being mission-critical. The tests did not include an adequate number of systems to test the function of environmental reporting.Also, at the time of the audit, the Defense Logistics Agency had not completed system-level contingency plans to address procedures for minimizing disruptions in the event of Y2K related system failures. Insufficiently rigorous end-to-end tests allowed continued risk that the environmental compliance reporting function could be impaired by Y2K related failures. Having sound contingency plans in place therfore is of particular importance in this functional area, whether or not the DoD now ocnsiders the systems and function to be other than mission-critical.

-- mommacarestx (harringtondesignX@earthlink.net), October 05, 1999.


I particularly liked report 99-262. 130 "Mission Critical, non-date dependent systems" were checked...and 4 were found to actually be date-dependent. OK, somebody goofed, right? But then, those 4 were (suddenly) deemed to not be mission critical... RIGHT!

-- Mad Monk (madmonk@hawaiian.net), October 05, 1999.

Wheeewww! I can see why Horn gave them a D grade now! They still have a LOT of work to do, even on mission-critical systems. Since it was the DOD that made the decision for the government to go with 2 digits way back in the 60's, I guess they kinda deserve it. The bummer is that this is costing US a s**tload of money.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 06, 1999.


DOC,

I think it's Adobe that offers an on-line service to convert PDF file. I don't remember the procedure, but it has been has posted here a few times. It doesn't do graphics, just text, but good enough to post here! <:)=

-- Sysman (y2kboard@yahoo.com), October 06, 1999.


Sysman,

What do you mean by "convert" a PDF? All you have to do is download the Adobe Acrobat reader and these documents open right up. Then you just copy the text and paste it here.

It would take months to read all of the reports, so here are just a few of the summaries I copied;

Report No. 99-172, Year 2000 Status of the Army Total Asset Visibility System (05/28/99)

Results: The Army Total Assets Visibility System was prematurely certified as year 2000 compliant. The certification was premature because the system was tested in a noncompliant operating environment and did not go through interface testing. Additionally, the Army Total Asset Visibility System contingency plan was incomplete and had not been fully distributed to and coordinated with the functional users. As a result, the Army Total Asset Visibility System remains at risk of failure.

Report No. 99-204, Year 2000 Status of the Combat Control System Mark 2 Block 1 A/B (07/09/99)

Results: The Naval Sea Systems Command certified the Combat Control System Mark 2 Block 1 A/B as year 2000 compliant in October 1997, using criteria that were subsequently superceded. As a result, system level testing was still incomplete when the Combat Control System Mark 2 Block 1 A/B was reported as compliant in the DoD year 2000 database. Additional testing was performed after certification. Although the additional testing was sufficient to alleviate concerns about this particular system, the methodology used for its certification raises concerns that 127 other Naval Sea Systems Command systems certified as of September 1998 may have been prematurely and inappropriately certified.

Report No. 99-241, Reported Year 2000 System Certification Levels (08/23/99)

Results: The detailed DoD year 2000 system certification-level data reported into the DoD Year 2000 Database was unreliable because of inconsistencies in certification-level definitions. The DoD Year 2000 Management Plan encouraged but did not require the use of its sample Year 2000 compliance checklist. Therefore, some individual Components used checklists with different certification-level definitions than the December 1998, DoD Year 2000 Management Plan "Year 2000 Compliance Checklist." In addition, the DoD Year 2000 Management Plan included inconsistent definitions of certification levels. This created the problem that, even if the Components converted their unique certification levels to equivalent DoD certification levels before reporting into the DoD Year 2000 Database, there was no way to determine which DoD policy document was used as the guideline. Inconsistent certification-level data in the DoD Year 2000 Database hampered its utility as a tool for analytical purposes. If management saw value in collecting this data, stronger measures were needed to ensure data reliability.

-- @ (@@@.@), October 06, 1999.


While some of these reports are older, a good deal of them are very current. Many have an "Announced" date that is old, but the report results are dated July, August, and September.

FWIW.

R.

-- Roland (nottelling@nowhere.com), October 06, 1999.


Looks like charred ---> scattered ashes to us, beyond toast.

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 06, 1999.

A & L - LOL!!

Yeah, what a disaster. When you start reading some of these reports you begin to appreciate just how huge and complicated the government is. And this is only one Federal Department! The amount of paperwork being produced is staggering in itself. If the business world is anywhere near this confused, things are coming apart at the seams. I suspect that some of the huge corporations are almost as complicated and equally screwed up. Sure glad I'm ready to be self-sufficient!

-- @ (@@@.@), October 06, 1999.



Back up to the Top now that Diane is back. Go Sherlock! This is a motherload of Important Stuff !!!

-- Ashton & Leska in Cascadia (allaha@earthlink.net), October 08, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ