The U.S. Defense Department’s regulations on installing video games within one’s workstation can be summed up in one word: Don’t! Or, at least don’t do it without first submitting the software for an elaborate testing and accreditation process.

But as the U.S. military raises its focus on serious games, this policy may be an impediment. Because no matter how good a game is or how snappy the graphics, it still has to run on a government network. And therein lies a collision course between users clamoring for commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) games as cheap and effective training tools, and network administrators who need to worry about another COTS product like they need a hole in the head.

Hostilities between software users and the so-called “network Nazi” aren’t unique to the military, to which anyone who has worked in the corporate world can attest. But proponents of commercial games say that when the COTS product is a game, even for legitimate training purposes, the situation is even worse.

“Many people can’t differentiate between an authentic, interactive historical simulation and video poker,” said an Air Force contractor familiar with simulations. “Both are treated equally, just below Internet porn.”

The contractor, who requested anonymity, accused military information technology personnel of being inflexible when it comes to installing commercial games or allowing them access through firewalls onto military networks. “Most of them don’t seem to comprehend any positive operational military utility in using computer simulations. Video cards are considered unnecessary. They primarily respond to any commercial program as a threat,” the contractor said.

Even searching for information on games is difficult, said the contractor, pointing to a “draconian software filtering policy that mindlessly blocks out all Web sites containing any ‘games’ reference in the metadata.”

Military IT personnel respond that in a hostile world of viruses and hackers, there is good reason why users can’t install whatever software they like. “Most consumers don’t understand the dangers associated with the technologies they want to use,” said a contractor with the Army’s Office of Information Assurance and Compliance.

Common features of COTS games are anathema to military IT personnel. For example, there is Internet activation, a copy-protection scheme that requires users to log in to the game publisher’s server before the game can be activated. “Some of these games open up a direct linkage between you and a commercial Internet site,” said the Army expert. “It’s a direct connection into an Army network from an external network. It’s a huge liability.”

Commercial games might also use port redirection, where the software is supposed to use one computer port but actually uses another, said Jerry Rosebloom, chief of the network risk assessment and COTS assessment branch of the Air Force Communications Agency. Bandwidth hogging is another no-no; a game that consumes more than 5 percent of a total network pipe is considered a hog, said Gene Zuratynsky, branch chief for Air Force information assurance policy.

An important factor is how large a network will access the game. A small, closed LAN system — which is how commercial games have usually been used by the military — will face an easier approval process. “If they were to implement it on a single installation, for a community with maybe 30 or 40 workstations, isolated from the base’s network on a small, closed loop, that would be the easiest,” Rosebloom said.

There is a formal process to using COTS games. Administratively, COTS software must fill a requirement that can’t be satisfied by an existing Air Force product, said Air Force spokeswoman Karen Petitt. In addition, there must be a determination of the funding required and the type of contract needed. In terms of network certification, it’s up to the sponsor to show that the product is safe and doesn’t hog bandwidth, Rosebloom said.

If the sponsor does the testing and paperwork correctly, accreditation could take two to three months, he said. In that respect, COTS games are at a disadvantage. Rosebloom emphasized that the Air Force is not anti-COTS; government off-the-shelf (GOTS) products developed in-house must meet the same criteria. But GOTS designs tend to be better documented than COTS. “You look at a commercial design and their philosophy is, ‘I just have to give you enough information to get it running,’” Rosebloom said.

Rosebloom said his job is to protect Air Force networks, but he is also mindful of operational necessity. “If someone comes to us and there’s an operational requirement and there’s nothing in Air Force or DoD that meets the need, then we work through the processes from a security and network perspective to get their systems online.”

Not every COTS user has a rough experience. One former U.S. Joint Forces Command researcher, whose job involved using games, said he never had any problems. Weekly updates for online games such as “World of Warcraft” and “Second Life” initially worried the information assurance team, but they became accustomed to it. He also needed exemptions from Web filtering tools so he could visit game sites. But otherwise, it was smooth sailing.

“My only guidance was that I had to obtain legal copies of the software,” he said. “And that the moral content didn’t get my boss fired.” å

— Michael Peck