http://www.open-do.org/2009/05/12/software-certification-a-tricky-business/ Toward a cooperative and open framework for the development of certifiable software Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:14:38 +0200 hourly 1 http://www.open-do.org/2009/05/12/software-certification-a-tricky-business/comment-page-1/#comment-8382 Tom Ferrell Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:10:20 +0000 http://www.open-do.org/?p=436#comment-8382 Interesting article, however, it along with the lead-in text offered here, perpetuates the errant belief that DO-178B is solely focused on generating a paper trail. I am seeing this view over and over again in my work as a DER. Somehow the product assurance element of DO-178B is being lost in a haze of paper. DO-178B is ALL about correctness by construction. The 'paperwork' serves as the objective evidence of the engineering processes used to accomplish that construction process. Lack of traceability through the design ultimately says we don't know what elements of the design tie to what requirements and whether all requirements have been addressed completely and correctly. Such functional coverage, along with structural coverage, says that all functionality has been verified and no addtional functionality has been incorporated (some of which could be malicious or create a backdoor for malicious attack). While I am all for exploring ways to make DO-178B more flexible with respect to modern SW engineering practice, simply indicting the paperwork is the wrong approach. Interesting article, however, it along with the lead-in text offered here, perpetuates the errant belief that DO-178B is solely focused on generating a paper trail. I am seeing this view over and over again in my work as a DER. Somehow the product assurance element of DO-178B is being lost in a haze of paper. DO-178B is ALL about correctness by construction. The ‘paperwork’ serves as the objective evidence of the engineering processes used to accomplish that construction process. Lack of traceability through the design ultimately says we don’t know what elements of the design tie to what requirements and whether all requirements have been addressed completely and correctly. Such functional coverage, along with structural coverage, says that all functionality has been verified and no addtional functionality has been incorporated (some of which could be malicious or create a backdoor for malicious attack). While I am all for exploring ways to make DO-178B more flexible with respect to modern SW engineering practice, simply indicting the paperwork is the wrong approach.

]]> http://www.open-do.org/2009/05/12/software-certification-a-tricky-business/comment-page-1/#comment-52 Is it finally time for Lean and Agile Certification/Qualification? Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:13:20 +0000 http://www.open-do.org/?p=436#comment-52 [...] finally time for Lean and Agile Certification/Qualification? By matteo bordin | June 4, 2009 The problems encountered within the AirBus 400M program highlight the importance of deploying an effective infrastructure when developing high-integrity [...] [...] finally time for Lean and Agile Certification/Qualification? By matteo bordin | June 4, 2009 The problems encountered within the AirBus 400M program highlight the importance of deploying an effective infrastructure when developing high-integrity [...]

]]>