Vault7: CIA Hacking Tools Revealed
Owner: User #524297
2014-01-09 Retrospective for Sparrowhawk
What did we do well?
- common userspace client components, eased porting to new platform
- use of automated build tool (GNU Autotools)
- accessibility of project lead resources for consultation
- Solaris platform solution: STREAMS modules
- very portable across Solaris versions and architectures
What should we have done better?
- initial requirement drawn for too many different platforms at once
- 8 in all: Solaris 8,9,10,11 on sparc; Solaris 10,11 on x86 (32/64bit)
- Solaris 11 on 32-bit x86 not supported by Oracle
- would this have been better as incremental delivery?
- unsuccessful delivery to Solaris 8 sparc
- lacked incorporation of regular customer demos
- prevent drift from customer expectation
- assumptions made about requirements
- that local console is always handled virtually
- /dev/console does not always use the pseudoterminal driver (pts)
- additional time spent adding code to manually attach module to local console
Autotools only partially implemented across the product
- Autotools creates additional complexity, build requirements
- A partially automated build process cannot be automated across build servers
- lack of automated testing capability
- difficult to test across multiple platforms
- lack of available Sparc/Solaris resources hardware for development
- either undocumented, outdated, or "claimed" for other projects
- Solaris 8 04/04 (last release) not purchased by AED, obtained from IV&V
- Mirror of Sun Freeware packages outdated
- OpenOffice for documentation is not cooperative
- documentation should be clear & concise, meant to be read
- Option: Plaintext documentation standards
- can be held/tracked in source control
- README, INSTALL, GOTCHAS : plain text (markdown?)
- Option: Confluence export to PDF
- use of forward declarations of exposed component functions
- why not expose through C header files?
- components should have single responsibility, encapsulate functionality
- wholesale copying of code from publicly available proof-of-concept (POCPoint of Contact, Proof of Concept)
- building does not equal working
- no break from POC, strings and other signatures need to be removed
- debug/error handling capability needed
- cumbersome syntax for debug macros
- compiler specific instructions
- GCC-specific structure packing produced problems across different platforms
- Solaris dev tools (cc) did not honor structure packing
- different compilers used for different components
- Solaris dev tools (cc) used for kernel component -- is this necessary?
- GCC did not seem to compile a working kernel module -- more research?
- keeping code DRY (don't repeat yourself)
- swabbing endianness of bytes back and forth as needed instead of only once
- opening/closing file descriptors for devices multiple times
- common structures used in both userspace & kernel defined by separate files
- use of plain integer (int) type for data values
sufficient onlypreferred if size, sign, or endianness of value are never used
- clearer intent with types that include sign & bit length: int32_t, uint32_t, etc.
- User #11628962: Also dependent on APIApplication Programming Interface requirements
What will we do differently next time to improve?
|1||incomplete||Due diligence on incoming requirements to scope platform support to logical constraints.|
|8||incomplete||Scope requirements to do incremental delivery of platforms.|
|2||incomplete||Incorporate regular customer demonstrations during development to prevent drift from customer expectation.|
|3||incomplete||Recapitalize all Sun/Sparc hardware for Solaris into reusable shared infrastructure for building and testing of Solaris applications.|
|4||incomplete||Obtain reliable mirror of Solaris packages (OpenCSW?) that can be updated.|
|5||incomplete||Decide (as a division) if AEDApplied Engineering Devision will support Solaris as a development target for future requirements.|
|9||incomplete||Consider communication method to keep Project Management/Leadership informed of progress (or lack thereof), schedule, hurdles. Are Jira metrics the solution for this?|
2014-01-14 15:55 [User #524297]:
When I finished the sprint out in Jira, it asked me to create a Retrospective page. There's something iffy w/ the rendering on the Retrospectives page within the EDBEmbedded Devices Branch Space however. When I figure out better instructions, I'll let you know.
2014-01-14 15:07 [User #71473]:
Inquiring minds (me) want to know... how'd you add dat fancy JIRA link?!?