The National Institute of Standards and Technology has released a draft report that provides recommendations on mitigating technical trust-related concerns that may affect the adoption of Internet-of-Things products and services.

NIST said Monday the document identifies 17 possible issues related to the performance and credibility of IoT systems, as well as offers additional research areas on IoT trust.

The 17 trust concerns identified in the draft report are based on six trustworthiness elements defined in NIST Special Publication 800-183, which provides information on IoT based on the discovery of the technology’s sensing, computing, communication and actuation capabilities. 

The agency intends to inform managers, supervisors, technical staff and entities involved in IoT policy decisions, government and procurement about what to consider when acquiring an IoT product or service.

NIST will accept public feedback on the draft guidance until Nov. 5.

Researchers from the Department of Health and Human Services‘ Office of the Chief Technology Officer have learned that HHS constituent agencies do not have a standardized mechanism for sharing restricted and nonpublic data resulting in procedural inefficiencies and the siloing of information.

The researchers said in a September 2018 report that there is no uniform documentary requirement across and even within HHS agencies for data access requests, with some agencies preferring the use of interagency agreements and others favoring data sharing agreements.

The research team also observed that requisite documents could be subjected to additional review, delaying the release of requested information by as much as one year.

Furthermore, the investigators found out that many agencies do not have a dedicated unit assigned to track data requests and their outcomes, resulting in requestors likely encountering “difficulty in navigating various procedures and forms.”

The absence of a “data governance group” at the agency or even departmental level “can also lead to a lack of accountability regarding access requests,” the investigative team noted, adding: “There was little evidence of agency-level procedures to address concerns if access is significantly and inappropriately delayed or denied altogether.”

The U.S. Navy has formed a group that will define the design and purpose of the service’s next large surface ship, Defense News reported Monday.

Rear Adm. Ron Boxall, director of the office of the Chief of Naval Operations Director of Surface Warfare, said the service seeks a ship that is big and flexible enough to be easily modified and equipped with energy-extensive weapons such as electromagnetic rail guns and laser systems.

The Navy also wants its future surface vessel to have removable panels, larger vertical launch system launchers and Raytheon’s AN/SPY-6 Air and Missile Defense Radar.

Boxall added that the service wants its new new ship to accommodate unmanned vehicles as the service begins deploying drones in its operations.

The OPNAV N96 head also said that the Navy intends to initiate the acquisition process in 2019, then procure a new surface ship by 2023 or 2024.

Ellen Lord, undersecretary for acquisition and sustainment at the Defense Department and a 2018 Wash100 recipient, said in a video interview aired Friday that DoD plans to use performance or progress payments as an incentive to defense companies that work to fulfill project requirements.

“I believe the lifeblood of most industry is cash flow, so what we will do is regulate the percentage of payments or the amount of profit that can be achieved through what type of performance they demonstrate by the numbers,” Lord told Defense News’ Aaron Mehta during the interview.

She noted the Defense Contract Management Agency has large amounts of industrial base data that the department uses to understand cost structures, rates and disclosure statements.

Lord added the data also helps DoD to measure quality in how contractors manage factories, overhead structures and cost of systems ordered by defense agencies, as well as the timeliness of proposal submissions and achievement of small business contracting targets.

The department will accept public comments on its proposed rule for performance-based and progress payment rates through Oct. 23.

A bipartisan group of House members has asked the Intelligence Community to provide Congress a report on technologies that can be used to generate hyper-realistic multimedia forgeries amid worries that such equipment could be used for nefarious purposes.

Reps. Carlos Curbelo, R-Fla., Stephanie Murphy, D-Fla., and Adam Schiff, D-Calif., sent a letter to National Intelligence Director Daniel Coats expressing concern over the possibility that “malicious foreign actors” could use advanced technology to produce “deep fakes”—fraudulent audio recordings, images or videos that are virtually indistinguishable from authentic ones—to blackmail individuals, sow disinformation and potentially threaten public discourse and national security.

“By blurring the line between fact and fiction, deep fake technology could undermine public trust in recorded images and videos as objective depictions of reality,” the representatives wrote in the letter published Friday.

Considering such implications, the lawmakers asked Coats to coordinate with Intelligence Community leaders to prepare a Congressional report detailing, among other things, how deep fake technologies might be used to compromise U.S. national security; what technological countermeasures have been developed or could be developed; and what additional legal authorities may be needed to address the threat.

The signatories asked that the report be submitted by Dec. 14 at the latest.

Some lawmakers have raised concerns about the lack of a single body that would be accountable as the departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs modernize and integrate their electronic health records systems despite the presence of an interagency program office, Federal News Radio reported Friday.

The report said Congress mandated the formation of an IPO a decade ago to help VA and DoD facilitate EHR interoperability, but the office has seen its responsibilities reduced in recent years.

“I think it’s evident that they never had the clout to either mediate or resolve the issues between VA and DoD,” Carol Harris, director of IT acquisition management issues at the Government Accountability Office, said of the IPO.

“The IPO was never set up to succeed, because neither of the departments were ever willing to relinquish control,” Harris added.

Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), chairman of the House Veterans Affairs’ technology modernization subcommittee, said at a Thursday hearing that he believes the IPO should be given more responsibility and authority over EHR modernization efforts at both departments.

“Most everyone here today agrees the IPO needs to do more. My hope is DoD and VA will hash out what that looks like,” Banks noted.