Since tests are communicated with the engineering R&D department, Sifers-Grayson needs Operations Security (OPSEC) for the test range. Information is transferred through a variety of radio wave communication devices. Cyber-attacks into the system and changing test data are to be blamed for the test site (Konstantinou & Maniatakos, 2020). Wireless signals from and to test cars, as well as mobile phone communications from the R&D department, is acquired by the launch site. The trial zone has an internet service between control and command, cell phones, and video symbology systems. Control devices, the web, transmitters, spacecraft, and mobile phone communications are all included in this testing area. The test scope is vulnerable to risks such as malware attacks and computer hijacking, which can result in data modification and the data loss sent over the dataset obtained (Stephens, 2020). For safety reasons, Sifers-Grayson must keep a watchful eye on its activities within the zone.
At the range testing, Sifers-Grayson requires OPSEC to safeguard the corporation and its experiment vehicles from attacks. The goal of OPSEC is to improve operational capability by securing critical but sensitive information (Heino & Kalalahti, 2021). The OPSEC process consists of five steps, where the first one is identifying mission-critical facts and the second one is evaluating the hazard associated with the process. In addition, evaluating flaws and indications and estimating the risk to the company are the third and fourth steps in OPSEC strategies. Finally, devising and implementing remedies are the last steps in the OPSEC procedures. A hacker can gain access to the firm’s test vehicle’s RF communication channels and records. Cybercriminals can take advantage of flaws in an industry’s security protocols, gadgets, and software. Unauthorized users who gain access to information that is unclassified may endanger Sifers-Grayson.
The sample vehicle’s area network connection makes it easier for cyber threats to gain access to it. Physical impediments to Wi-Fi devices make it difficult to safeguard its convenience. A malicious attacker can get around the corporate security system, resulting in information being accessed or disclosed by unauthorized users. Sifers-Grayson should implement appropriate security controls to prevent hackers from getting access to the organization’s data (Udipi, 2021). Up-to-date hardware for the computers, constant internet traffic inspection, complicated identities, and multi-authentication needs for login would be among the safety precautions.
Since the test limit is open protection, it is encouraged to evaluate data to assess inside the testing area from an open-source software. The usage of a high-speed internet connection to improve data channel access via devices such as smartphones is an important tool for communicating (Hui et al., 2021). This guarantees that whatever is conveyed is adequately evaluated to ensure that transactions are not put in danger. OPSEC is required for Sifers-Grayson to get its tasks to exceed its examining vehicles to be managed to run without possessing any hazard.
The risks that will impair the initiatives’ functioning will be limited via OPSEC. Wireless routers make hacking into the performing quality easier. An effective attack into Sifers-Grayson machines could result in data leakage and a test failure at the launch facility, where there is a vehicle. With OPSEC, Sifers-Grayson mitigation strategies will always be in position. OPSEC is much more efficient since it can monitor all operations that workers achieve by the use of their own gadgets.
References
Heino, O., & Kalalahti, J. (2021). Securing operational capability for exceptional circumstances: how do professional first responders respond to the unexpected?Sustainability, 13(11), 18-64. Web.
Hui, S., Wang, H., Xu, D., Wu, J., Li, Y., & Jin, D. (2021). Distinguishing between smartphones and IoT devices via network traffic.IEEE Internet of Things Journal, 1-1. Web.
Konstantinou, C., & Maniatakos, M. (2020). A data-based detection method against false data injection attacks.IEEE Design & Test, 37(5), 67-74. Web.
Stephens, S. (2020). How cyber insurance can still leave you vulnerable to risks.Computer Fraud & Security, 2020(2), 12-14. Web.
Udipi, S. (2021). The event data management problem: getting the most from network detection and response.Network Security, 2021(1), 12-14. Web.