Is it against any regulation to have a commercial network in the same environment as a NIPR and SIPR network?

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:41:03 -0500

Response by Capt Bob Abbott made Feb 11 at 2016 4:44 PM

Capt Bob Abbott — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:44:51 -0500

I don't think anyone should really answer this one brother, this might be treading too close on the line of what's classified what's not. I know I wouldn't post any answers on rally point of what goes on inside a SCIF

Response by MSgt John Taylor made Feb 11 at 2016 4:45 PM

MSgt John Taylor — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:45:31 -0500

NIPR/SIPR are commercial networks with encryption/decryption devices at the terminal. with that said, you are required to have so many feet separating them

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 11 at 2016 4:57 PM

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 16:57:33 -0500

I'm not sure. However, it's usually in a policy letter from a J6/G6, in my experience It's definitely looked down upon, especially if there's Wireless involved.

Response by SGT Edward Wilcox made Feb 11 at 2016 5:07 PM

SGT Edward Wilcox — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 17:07:44 -0500

Your SIPR should be self contained in a secured room. No other network is allowed in that room, including NIPR. There should be no wireless access in that room, as well. Having said that, my last unit provided a civilian commercial wirless network for general use. It was justified as an MWR resource. It should never be used for official business, unless the user is using a vpn to access DOD resources, and then only if no available NIPR workstation is available. I do not believe that such a setup is covered in any regulation, and is, instead, a local command level decision.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Feb 11 at 2016 6:05 PM

MSgt James Mullis — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 18:05:29 -0500

It sure used to be!

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Feb 11 at 2016 6:21 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 18:21:45 -0500

There are exceptions to complete separation. Like another poster, I won't go into it, but suffice it to say responses that need to be worked both high and low concurrently, things are set up so the people responsible for a given thing can work the whole picture.

Response by PFC Michael Robert Lawrence made Feb 11 at 2016 10:24 PM

PFC Michael Robert Lawrence — Thu, 11 Feb 2016 22:24:31 -0500

Likely no, however SDN/traditional firewalls , and proper fedramp and fisma compliance on some nodes and comercial nodes is a pain. A Few cloud hosting providers do so.
However muti-layer dmz also a factor.
YouTube has a Dod and federal government compliance company out of Fort Wayne In. One internal network supports stock business website hosting.
The others various Federal government cloud hosted products.
Verizon has been Nashin at the bit for a FISMA certified. (250 +/- or less ppl have it in USA curently .. I've been training for CISSP.. I and after the 5th offer looked up diacap/fisma)
Not saying it's a means, however it's a long presentation. However some networks in dod are traditionally isolated.
However with SDN (software defined networks ) the ability to secure cloud computing of networking applications and services, with per user VPN could help the warfighter. Training and or other items can be VPN and virtually available to military units globally. Base is hit with a tornado, then training or operations is affected. I'd the item is cloud , then multiple secure instances can be run globaly. Congress is worried over cryptography... however perfect forward secrecy is becoming increasingly posible.
So telling VPN or who were or transparent traffic that doesn't leek it's destinations, what's encypted, ie disguised as plain traffic.

While some networks won't ever be online
It may become posible to have military grade private clouds.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 12 at 2016 12:36 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 00:36:05 -0500

Have you asked the BAMO? There should be a BAMO or NetOps Warrant that has your answer.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 12 at 2016 8:57 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 08:57:48 -0500

I have a filling it is , so you might want to not have it there.

Response by PO2 Chris Steinheiser made Feb 12 at 2016 11:19 AM

PO2 Chris Steinheiser — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 11:19:32 -0500

No uniform regulation covers this. It is bound from departmental governance of information: NOFORN, Confidential, secret, top-secret.... I think (Opinion / not fact)

Response by PO2 Chris Steinheiser made Feb 12 at 2016 11:20 AM

PO2 Chris Steinheiser — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 11:20:51 -0500

For example what the US Navy classifies as NOFORN (not releaseable to foreign nationals) the Army may classsify as Secret . . . Further examples within each branch at differnt levels also apply.
What an air unit in the Navy would classify is different than what a submarine command would . . .

Response by SSG Mark Metzler made Feb 12 at 2016 8:47 PM

SSG Mark Metzler — Fri, 12 Feb 2016 20:47:25 -0500

I would guess it's a security problem, regular network access might open a security hole in secure military networks. Just a guess though.