India's R&D in Defence DRDO, PSUs and Private Sector

Bart S · Post by **Bart S** » 11 Apr 2017 02:52

^It's actually BS repporting. BOSS is just another debian based linux distro, it isn't in and as of itself either indigenous or necessarily more secure. Now if there was an effort on to audit each line of code and harden the system, build a local approved packages/code/driver repository or similar system, that would be a start.

Arun.prabhu · Post by **Arun.prabhu** » 11 Apr 2017 03:07

None of which matters until our programmers go through the code line by line and remove whatever backdoors there are and patch whatever exploits it has.

Bart S · Post by **Bart S** » 11 Apr 2017 03:13

nukavarapu wrote:
Bart S wrote:^It's actually BS repporting. BOSS is just another debian based linux distro, it isn't in and as of itself either indigenous or necessarily more secure. Now if there was an effort on to audit each line of code and harden the system, build a local approved packages/code/driver repository or similar system, that would be a start.
The way I look at it is though its based on Debian they actually recompiled code for most of the core packages. Check out the package manager being used. All the linux distro source code is available. You can download the entire source code and compile it yourself. Same goes for the packages that are available. Just a simple rule to not allow propitiatory software whose source code is not available should be enough. All the apps that they have listed are all GPL2 or Apache license and the source code is readily available.

Yes, but this is trivially simple to do and nothing to crow about nor is it going to help security much, in the 90s before downloads were a thing, lots of PC magazines used to build and distribute their own distros on CD (of course a lot used to distribute well known distros like the then RHL and Debian etc as well), and there are individual enthusiasts who build their own distros today.

Unless every line of code is understood and audited and augmented with more secure mechanisms and the whole OS hardened if needed it isn't going to help. Some examples would be the ones below, but even that would just be a baby step and not a single one of those have everything we need.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Security- ... ing_system

This just looks like some lazy copy-paste effort by some IT babu(oon)s.

Bart S · Post by **Bart S** » 11 Apr 2017 03:15

nukavarapu wrote:
Arun.prabhu wrote:None of which matters until our programmers go through the code line by line and remove whatever backdoors there are and patch whatever exploits it has.
And you are saying that the people @ DRDO did not do that already? I hope you understand that all the packages available for BOSS is open source?

It's built by CDAC and the distro's website does not mention any special security measures. Maybe DRDO have their own secure fork of it or another distro, but there is not much info out there in the public domain on that, if it even exists.

Also, just being open source is no guarantee of security, it means that it is harder to hide backdoors but only if smart people (no DOO types) have looked at it long and hard enough. Even then there are major security issues, for e.g the issues with the open source OpenSSL that affected much of the Internet and the many vulnerabilities that are constantly discovered in Firefox or Chrome.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Apr 2017 03:21

AFAIK, this effort is a short term one and the other local development/s is/are progressing in parallel.

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/com ... 221430.ece

Rishirishi · Post by **Rishirishi** » 11 Apr 2017 04:02

No matter how well you understand any code, there will always be weaknesses. With your own operating system and inhouse developed software, outsiders will simply not understand where to look. Even if they get hold of it, it will take them "ages" to understand and decrypt.

But at the end of the day, I think any computer device is possible to hack. Even Angela Merkels phone was hacked by the Americans.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 11 Apr 2017 04:12

Rishirishi wrote:No matter how well you understand any code, there will always be weaknesses. With your own operating system and inhouse developed software, outsiders will simply not understand where to look. Even if they get hold of it, it will take them "ages" to understand and decrypt.

They don't have to understand all the code. Only probe the system to find out if there are holes and vulnerabilities that they can exploit. If what you said was true closed-source systems like Windows would be inherently more secure than open source ones, which is definitely not the case.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Apr 2017 04:50

given that secrecy is the best weapon. secure the physical copies of the OS and let no information leak about what was its basis unix or linux or whatever.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Apr 2017 16:16

https://thewire.in/120052/nscs-doval-budget-increase/

Behind a Mysterious Budget Increase, the National Security Need for ‘Make-In-India’ Chips

By Manoj Joshi on 30/03/2017

The National Security Council Secretariat, headed by top spy Ajit Doval, may have received a staggering 311% increase in funds this year to tackle issues at the intersection of cybersecurity and nuclear weapon delivery systems.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi with NSA Ajit Doval before a meeting in Ufa last Friday. PTI Photo by Manvender Vashist

Prime Minister Narendra Modi with NSA Ajit Doval. Credit: PTI

This year’s Union budget appeared to be a mostly humdrum affair when it came to India’s defence interests. Although the total sum allocated towards our defence sector was a hefty Rs 2.7 lakh crore, it was only a modest increase of 5.6% when compared to last year.

What raised eyebrows, however, was the staggering 311% increase in the outlay of the National Security Council Secretariat (NSCS) – its budget went up from Rs 81 crore to Rs 333 crore. The one line explanation given read “The provision is for meeting the administrative expenses of the National Security Council Secretariat.”

A certain parsimony has been a rule of thumb with regard to budgets relating to defence, so why this generosity? Behind this lies a complicated story.

The NSCS officially services the National Security Council (NSC) whose members are the prime minister and the home, defence and finance ministers. While the composition is essentially similar to the Cabinet Committee on Security, the NSC is advised by the National Security Adviser (Ajit Doval) and in that sense, he is the head of the NSCS.

The NSC comprises of the National Security Advisory Board (NSAB), which is an advisory board of non-government or retired specialists, and a strategic policy group (SPG) comprising secretaries of key departments, the heads of the three services and the intelligence chiefs.

As of now it is not clear just how frequently the NSC or the SPG meet. NSA Ajit Doval did without an NSAB for nearly two years but has now established a compact body under the chairmanship of retired diplomat P S Raghavan.

Another component of the system is the Joint Intelligence Committee which pre-dates the NSC system and is autonomous, though embedded in the NSCS.

Neither the NSC, JIC, nor the NSAB requires the kind of money that has been appropriated. Neither did the NSCS need it in the past when it was mainly a think-tank for the NSA and a mechanism to coordinate intelligence tasking.

But the NSCS is now fleshing out its hithertofore additional tasks relating to cyber security and nuclear weapons. While the costs relating to the nuclear weapons and missiles come from the budgets of the DRDO and Department of Atomic Energy, there are some additional areas that need urgent attention. These are primarily at the intersection of cyber security and nuclear weapons and delivery systems.

It may be recalled that one of the more important tasks of the NSA is being the chairman of the executive council of the Nuclear Command Authority (NCA). Since 2012, the government has created a Strategic Programme Staff to assist him in this task which is essentially to ensure that if the political council of the NCA orders the use of nuclear weapons, they are ready for use.

Integrated circuit R&D

One major weakness of the Indian deterrent has been the fact that India uncomfortably depends on imported integrated circuits (ICs) for its command and control systems, even though domestic chips have been used in missiles and satellites. In an era where there is considerable worry that foreign origin chips may contain “kill switches” or other means of cyber intrusion, it is important for the country to ensure that its nuclear command and control system is fool-proof on this front.

The money appropriated is likely to help with the R&D relating to the ICs and their fabrication.

India has considerable expertise in chip design but does not have the capability to manufacture them. In 2012, India unveiled a new semiconductor policy aimed at encouraging the setting up of fabrication units within the country. Two consortiums were identified by the government – one led by Hindustan Semiconductor Manufacturing Corporation (HSMC) and the other by Jaiprakash Associates. HSMC has since tied up with ST Microelectronics, Silterra and AMD to set up a $3.5 billion facility in Gujarat while Jaiprakash has dropped out, leaving its partners IBM and TowerJazz looking for investors. A third plant is expected to come up in MP through Cricket Semiconductors of US.

So far, India has been making do with chips fabricated by the Bharat Electronics, Gallium Arsenide Enabling Technology Centre in Hyderabad and the the Semiconductor Complex Ltd (SCL) in Mohali for its space programme and defence. The GAETEC is a DRDO lab which provides GaAs chips for highly specialised communications applications.

The SCL was set up in 1983 at a cost of $70 million with technology from American Microsystems Inc and Rockwell International and Hitachi. However, the company was wound down to a semiconductor laboratory although it continues to provide chips for the strategic sector. One weakness of the outfit is that it focuses more on R&D to enhance technology that it acquires from abroad. Manufacture is a weak area because the demand of SCL products is not sufficient to justify the financial investments for upgrading its foundries.

However, SCL and GAETEC are boutique solutions. For a robust defence set-up, India ideally needs to have critical systems that are entirely designed and fabricated in India especially with regard to our military and space-related equipment.

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 11 Apr 2017 16:46

Quite a roundabout way of funding something like this. Don't we have black funds already to fund something like this..??

Gyan · Post by **Gyan** » 11 Apr 2017 16:53

It seems that major Fab Labs in Europe and USA are going down the tube. It is one in 100 year opportunity to throw USD 10 Billion dollar at the sector and invite them to India. A 10 Billion dollar investment subsidy in high tech is better spend then parking it in US treasury.

Further other highly ignored sectors are (i) Lithium ion battery manufacture (ii) Consumer electronics (iii) Aircraft and (iv) Aircraft turbine engine manufacture (v) Telecom switching and transmission equipment (vi) PV cells etc. Another USD 10 Billion investment subsidy will produce more and better jobs then whole of NREGA

JayS · Post by **JayS** » 11 Apr 2017 17:09

Gyan wrote:It seems that major Fab Labs in Europe and USA are going down the tube. It is one in 100 year opportunity to throw USD 10 Billion dollar at the sector and invite them to India. A 10 Billion dollar investment subsidy in high tech is better spend then parking it in US treasury.

Further other highly ignored sectors are (i) Lithium ion battery manufacture (ii) Consumer electronics (iii) Aircraft and (iv) Aircraft turbine engine manufacture (v) Telecom switching and transmission equipment (vi) PV cells etc. Another USD 10 Billion investment subsidy will produce more and better jobs then whole of NREGA

While manufacturing in India is very important, in particular in short term, in long term the real deal is to own the standards for electronics. We need to start defining next generations of electronics in various areas. But only possible if we build base today.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 11 Apr 2017 17:31

JayS wrote:Quite a roundabout way of funding something like this. Don't we have black funds already to fund something like this..??

India's way of black funding is exactly like the above. Like funding Agni TD through dept of animal husbandry.

kit · Post by **kit** » 12 Apr 2017 19:53

http://idrw.org/indias-indigenous-synth ... ore-130689

interesting development .. probably india can combine the desi AWACS with this for a JSTARS type program .. maybe brar can elaborate ?

SaiK · Post by **SaiK** » 20 Apr 2017 21:28

How about starting BRF group consulting org? you heard this first from me here. no cheating.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 254406.cms

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 26 Apr 2017 10:23

Hope this is the correct place to post this as the R&D is in collaboration with DRDO:

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 361241.cms

jayasimha · Post by **jayasimha** » 26 Apr 2017 16:38

A contract for acquisition of 31 surface surveillance radar ( SSR) for Indian navy has been signed with M/s Nova integrated systems hyderabad on 17th FEB at a cost of aprox 200 cr.

Neshant · Post by **Neshant** » 27 Apr 2017 06:24

SaiK wrote:How about starting BRF group consulting org? you heard this first from me here. no cheating.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 254406.cms

Start a BR ETF.

jayasimha · Post by **jayasimha** » 27 Apr 2017 17:20

INDIAN ARMY's comprehensive list of REQUEST FOR INFORMATION from Indian industry

https://indianarmy.nic.in/MakeInIndia/S ... iiXRdbuA==

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 28 Apr 2017 14:36

India in advanced stages of formulating defence manufacturing policy: Arun Jaitley

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... aign=cppst

Gaur · Post by **Gaur** » 02 May 2017 17:40

Defence Minister Arun Jaitley hands over DRDO developed devices to forces

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 465221.cms

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 02 May 2017 21:16

Gaur wrote:Defence Minister Arun Jaitley hands over DRDO developed devices to forces

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/new ... 465221.cms

NEW DELHI: Defence Minister Arun Jaitley today handed over a number of devices developed by the DRDO to National Security Guard (NSG), Delhi Police and National Disaster Response Force (NDRF).

The devices handed over to NDRF included 'E-Nasika', a hand-held equipment which is capable of rapid detection of chemical agents well below their toxic limits.

Jaitley also handed over to NSG an equipment called 'OTL-300'. It can instantly detect partially camouflaged optical ele ..

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 May 2017 21:50

60cm res cartosat2 images

http://www.isro.gov.in/pslv-c37-cartosa ... -satellite

Feb 2017

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 02 May 2017 21:51

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 May 2017 21:54

The italy inage is a must see

Karthik S · Post by **Karthik S** » 02 May 2017 21:59

We used these satellites during surgical strike IIRC.

Bart S · Post by **Bart S** » 02 May 2017 22:09

Singha wrote:60cm res cartosat2 images

http://www.isro.gov.in/pslv-c37-cartosa ... -satellite

Feb 2017

Is Cartosat 2C an ISRO in-house development or the one that the Israelis built for us?

This is extremely impressive, IIRC just a few years back 1m resolution used to be talked about as the holy grail in military-grade imagery that only NATO states had access to!

Added later:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartosat
As per Wikipaedia the resolution of the satellite is 25cm so the 60cm image is just a fraction of its real capabilities!

jayasimha · Post by **jayasimha** » 11 May 2017 18:27

REQUEST FOR INFORMATION : BOARD PARAMETERS FOR
COMMAND & CONTROL CENTRE (MOBILE) VEHICLE BASED
1. Detailed information is sought from interested OEMs/ Vendors with regards to ‘Command
& Control Centre (Mobile) vehicle based. Qualitative Requirements (QR’s) and Trial Directives
(TD’s) are att as Appendix ‘A’ and Appendix ‘B’. Respondents are also requested to furnish
details about their firms/companies in accordance with the Performa att as Appendix ‘C’.
2. Additional information, technical details, product brochures/literature pertaining to the item
in question may be forwarded to the under mentioned address within 15 days:-
Communication Directorate
HQ National Security Guard
Mehram Nagar
Near Domestic Airport
Palam
New Delhi – 110037

http://nsg.gov.in/administrator/writere ... 20Cent.pdf

jayasimha · Post by **jayasimha** » 11 May 2017 18:29

Mar 31, 2017 - REQUEST FOR INFORMATION: LIGHT WEIGHT ANT MATERIAL RIFLE.
The Indian Army is planning to procure Light Weight Anti Material Rifle
https://www.indianarmy.gov.in/writeread ... 310317.pdf

Varoon Shekhar · Post by **Varoon Shekhar** » 11 May 2017 20:40

Bart S, it is an in house development, it's possible that ideas were picked up from elsewhere. Are you thinking of Risat-2, launched in April/2009? That one had significant Israeli involvement. It is still uncertain whether the entire satellite is Israeli supplied or, just the SAR on the satellite. My sensible guess is the latter.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 12 May 2017 06:14

Jayasimha - please do put some thought into whether all those tenders are actually relevant for this thread or should go into procurement ones or related service ones.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 May 2017 06:48

IDIOCY

http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2017/05/d ... tegic.html

The policy’s initial aim is to shortlist six top companies as SPs in four technology segments – single engine fighter aircraft, helicopters, submarines and armoured fighting vehicles. A company can be nominated an SP in only one segment, and will have to indicate its preferences while applying.

shiv · Post by **shiv** » 13 May 2017 08:34

I think the idea is OK. No single Indian company has the skills for all round participation and even if they do they can become a monopoly edging out others. If the initial policy is to get one company for one tech line and make it work - more companies can be allowed later by a policy change. That aside - every selected company will get huge contracts and will be expected to deliver. if the contract money is divided up between 2-3 companies none of them may be able to deliver and the less efficient ones will blame the govt for "favouritism" towards reliance or some other entity who is working on the same field. One tech type (eg aviation, or ship or guns) for one company seems to me to b a good initial thrust.

Bart S · Post by **Bart S** » 13 May 2017 11:55

Varoon Shekhar wrote:Bart S, it is an in house development, it's possible that ideas were picked up from elsewhere. Are you thinking of Risat-2, launched in April/2009? That one had significant Israeli involvement. It is still uncertain whether the entire satellite is Israeli supplied or, just the SAR on the satellite. My sensible guess is the latter.

Thanks!

Yes, I was thinking of RISAT-2. Looks like our imaging capabilities are pretty state of the art currently.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 May 2017 17:17

shiv wrote:I think the idea is OK. No single Indian company has the skills for all round participation and even if they do they can become a monopoly edging out others. If the initial policy is to get one company for one tech line and make it work - more companies can be allowed later by a policy change. That aside - every selected company will get huge contracts and will be expected to deliver. if the contract money is divided up between 2-3 companies none of them may be able to deliver and the less efficient ones will blame the govt for "favouritism" towards reliance or some other entity who is working on the same field. One tech type (eg aviation, or ship or guns) for one company seems to me to b a good initial thrust.

Sorry thats not how it is, it will stymie development till any policy change comes and till then the capex invested goes idle. L&T today is contributing to subs, radars, arty and thanks to this stupid policy, it may have to pick and choose rather than focusing on all round excellence. This decision is typical commie style decision making, whereas need of the hour is to have our own IAI or LG or Boeing which can make fighters, missiles and even invest in land systems. Like Wipro, you xan only work on SAP services. Infosys, CRM. Some other firm some other IT vity. What would have happened to Bangalore then? Or the Indian industry? Let the firms decide on theur capabilities and invest. Would we be anywhere if only Vodafone and BSNL could do cell phones and the rest were not preferred partners? Why make such a stupid policy to begin with? It just shows the utter lack of common sense in babucracy. Modi has to herd cats with this lot.

Same for Tata Power SED. They make multiple systems. They will be curtailed now. BTW, if the money is divided among 2-3 companies is exactly how both Akash (BEL, BDL with subsystems from multiple groups) and Pinaka (Tata, L&T) have bern successfully run. I cannot begin to express how stupid and misguided this policy decision was. Its been driven purely by MOD babucracy conservatism to avoid allegations of favoritism and so they dont gave to get off their @sses and certify capability (for which they know they are unsuited and dont want to give up.their power either) and DPSU namely OFB lobbying to prevent severe competition.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 May 2017 17:25

This is how this policy protects OFB. Deal for 100000 carbines? Say 4 preferred partners. Best gets the deal, decides to work with any other pvt firm to do it. But not necessarily OFB, if IA timelines are strict. Only 2 firms? Even if the private firm wins, MOD will lean on it to work with OFB, as has happened repeatedly in the past. So irrespective of whether a DPSU wins a mega deal or not, it gets good pickings. In the past, St Antony even took work done by L&T and gave it to BEML. If there us no competition, none of these firms will change, especially OFB and the shipyards which are the worst of the lot.
Right now, you want optics- options are between BEL, Tata, Tonbo, and a few others. This idiotic policy will ensure preference for one pvt firm and the size cap means Tonbo, which exports far more than BEL ever did in the segment, can never swing deals with the same leverage in the Indian market.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 13 May 2017 17:38

How and Why did Parrikar and Jaitley approve this policy? Surely they would not be unaware of the pitfalls..

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 May 2017 17:53

Parrikar made many decisions with the proviso he would fix it later. But then off he went to Goa. Other gent, less said the better. He is a temporary DM.

Karan M · Post by **Karan M** » 13 May 2017 17:54

Also of course they were aware of the pitfalls. Even IA spoke up to protect their MSME suppliers. But clearly OFB et al lobbying has done the trick.

Kashi · Post by **Kashi** » 13 May 2017 17:57

I think there should be more to it than that. I wonder if there were any quid pro quo involving OFB, MoD and Armed forces to achieve gains elsewhere.

Either way, it's baffling to say the least.