Talk:SIPRNet

Computing Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Espionage Low‑importance

	SIPRNet is within the scope of WikiProject Espionage, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of espionage, intelligence, and related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.EspionageWikipedia:WikiProject EspionageTemplate:WikiProject EspionageEspionage articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: North America / United States

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Mozilla Thunderbird

Before anyone has kittens, I have removed the mention of Thunderbird because it is not extant on GCCS machines. While I'm not authoritative on the subject, I haven't seen it anywhere in my experience on many SIPR sites. I'd welcome the mention of any conflicting experience, but I suspect the addition was some attempt at MTA equality. Or something. Avriette 01:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well my GCCS machine has Mozilla loaded on it. Not exactly Thunderbird but that's not so farfetched. --Roaddoggfl 03:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know this is not really DISA-sanctioned. For example, how did you get Mozilla onto it? I suppose you probably shouldn't answer that. Can you speak to whether DISA allows users to install software on GCCS machines? Also, what version of GCCS is this? My most recent experience with GCCS is with 3 and 4. Last I heard, 5 was either being deployed or in the works. ... aa:talk 03:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe 3 or 4, and Mozilla comes pre-loaded from our 6 shop. They won't let us use IE. --Roaddoggfl 17:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For all parties concerned : Roaddogfl - any machine on the siprnet has a very strict set of programs that are and aren't allowed. I would love to know what DOD security officer gave you all permission to use Mozilla. What I find even more unbelievable, is the fact that you said - "I.E. is not permitted". This is so far from the truth that it is ridiculous. It sounds like your system administrator needs to have the DOD run a security team down your way. It does not take a genius to figure out why the use of any web browser that is not I.E, or netscape, is not allowed. This whole line of chat greatly disturbs me, and from the sound of it, is in fact, illegal. So have a security sweep of your system, and let me know the result :-) -brokerdavelhr — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.80.145.148 (talk) 18:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just bad form to talk about the nature of a SIPRNet box. A layer of security on the network is based on security through secrecy. Talking about specific version numbers used is very unprofessional. Please don't post additional details that aren't sourced from somewhere on the web. It's not trivial to remove anything posted on Wikipedia once the cat is out of the bag so to speak. fintler (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing

I added this article to the Category:Military Communications, am I off in my assumption that a network that DoD uses would categorize it as "military"? --thatmarkguy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.98.115.254 (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-network Information

OPSEC - Although I'm all for FOIA, I think a lot of the systems listed should be kept off because of OPSEC reasons. There are a lot of specifics in this document. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.25.87.34 (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the portion of the article which discloses that SIPRNET is, in a sense, a secured parallel internet. I left out the portion about which subnetworks are on SIPRNET. Dougsnow 21:28, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Link

The DISA link is broken. I'm not sure what it pointed to, but it should be updated with a current reference. Pcraven (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trusted Guard

The article currently states: "…no access is permitted between the two networks. However, in certain rare circumstances, data is passed one way to the SIPRNET by means of a device known as a trusted guard. This device is designed and configured in such a way as to make it impossible for data to travel down to NIPRNET." This is incorrect. Passing data from NIPR to SIPR involves checking for viruses and other malicious code and is done all the time. A trusted guard performs automated downgrading of material to move it to a network of lower classification (c.f. Radiant Mercury). Stubb (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WikiLeaks

"Cablegate" on http://wikileaks.org/ I think this should be a part of this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.177.95.65 (talk) 18:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Runaway sentence

In describing "Specific Risks and Mitigation Strategies for Essential Operational Capabilities Supporting GWOT and Contingency Operations" considered so that "movement of organizations, functions, or activities from Fort Monmouth to Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) will be accomplished without disruption of their support to the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT) or other critical contingency operations" a DoD report stated that "Certified facilities or services are required including Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities (SCIF), IT connectivity to Defense Research and Engineering Network (DREN), Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPR)

connection, Joint Worldwide Intelligence Communications System (JWICS) connection, fully equipped and secured Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information (TS/SCI) office, laboratory and fabrication facilities with uninterrupted worldwide Non-Classified Internet Protocol Routers (NIPR)/Secret Internet Protocol Routers (SIPR) and other services for sustained operations and program execution. The above sentence from the article is extremely poor wording and almost (completely?) impenetrable for that reason. someone please fix it! __meco (talk) 20:33, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Access

Interesting how widely available access is - "Thanks to earlier WikiLeaks documents, it is known that New Zealand's Defence Forces are linked to SIPRNet which allows even New Zealand frigates and armoured vehicles access to material seen on general's desks in Washington, London and Canberra..." from: http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4415037/NZ-way-down-the-WikiLeaks-queue Snori (talk) 02:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this is true then there is a serious issue with who has SIPR access. As you know, information on the SIPRnet can be classified as high as SECRET//NOFORN... Why is SIPR access available to foreign nationals? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.117.196 (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

new access being implemented. https://www.army.mil/article/244545/?fbclid=IwAR0oRxqtCGET4XtlDdwnXgTZOFiIK0DGzSlC_bjXtE8HeGlz6zFDMp51boE --172.3.177.215 (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]