Deception, Distortion, Dishonesty: The Real Story Behind the Hype – RSA Conference 2018 – San Francisco

Dr. Khatuna Mshvidobadze

In the summer of 2008, Russia attacked Georgia in the first-ever combined kinetic and cyberwar. Sure, the 1990-1991 Gulf War was dubbed the first information war—the use 226571794ecbc84a4232f3e9a42a7041-480x270of information in war is not new. What was new in 2008 was that Russia employed its cyber arm as an independent operational capability alongside its land, sea and air forces. The targets were critical infrastructure. The strategic objectives were to sap Georgia’s will to resist and to provide cover for Russia’s information campaign to deceive the west into believing that somehow little Georgia was the aggressor.

Operational security was paramount—Moscow had to keep everyone confounded about who was behind the cyber attacks. Just like the kinetic invasion, the cyber attacks were long and well-planned, but Russia did a great job covering its tracks. When the shooting stopped, well-meaning researchers investigated what had happened. However, coming from a profession that focuses on computer screens and a culture unaccustomed to the 2018-04-11_9-18-09kind of deception that is part of everyday Russian life, they foundered.

The attacks led us to Russia. We noted uncanny timing. Western experts were indeed confounded when the trail led to kids and criminals. I have been following that trail ever since. Insight into Russia, all-source intelligence and a keen understanding of denial and deception were needed.

Today, saying that the Russian state employs a network of cybercriminals to do its online dirty work is commonplace. One might just as well pretend not to know the identity of those little green men who seized Crimea. But when I started saying it in 2010, you would not believe the resistance I encountered.

Soon after, I met Jeff Bardin, my professor at Utica College, who became mentor and friend. Jeff brings an extraordinary expertise in all-source intelligence and the ways of denial and deception. At this year’s RSA Conference, it is my privilege to combine with him in a talk entitled Deception, Distortion, Dishonesty: The Real Story Behind the Hype.

Jeff will lead off, analyzing the types of D&D, its various dimensions and some tactics that can be employed online and offline. The planners, he will say, must have clear reasons for utilizing D&D based on their goals. They must define the strategic, operational and tactical goals of deception and the criteria for success.

I will point out that Russians do not see cyber warfare as distinct but regard it as just one tool of information war. Look at 2008. The cyber attacks aimed at hampering the Georgian government’s ability to communicate while Moscow’s propaganda machine painted Russia as the aggrieved party. “Information space opens wide asymmetrical possibilities for reducing the fighting potential of an enemy,” writes Valery Vasilyevich Gerasimov, Chief of the Russian General Staff. It’s a remarkable statement, but nothing new—Russian thinking on information warfare has been consistent since the 1980s.

Now, the Kremlin commands a vast network of online intelligence agencies, scientific organizations, academic institutions, criminals, and trolls. We’ll discuss how Russia deals with enemies, foreign and domestic, cyber players and organization, the growing role of the military, tactics, techniques, procedures and tools, vectors, false flags, troll factories and more. Come join us on Wednesday at the RSA Conference.

KM

Zapad Exercises – 2nd/3rd Order Effects

 

The recent Russian Zapad wargaming exercises included a plethora of electronic capabilities demonstration and potentially more. Russia is known to recently been involved in illegal immigration efforts in Sweden, Finland, and Norway along with hostile intent along its northern borders (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) including cell/communication tower tampering. Could the recent Zapad exercises be more than just wargaming?

Some What If thoughts on these non-linear actions:

– Testing capabilities, distance, strength, impacts
– Testing responses like a stone in pond
    – 2nd and 3rd order effects were measured to determine the impact on targets, targets responses, etc.
    – Russians had people in each target country assisting with target impacts
    – Russians monitored target government communications from within each country
    – Determine length of time for target government to respond and what methods were used and where to get communications back online (if at all) – the locations of the response represent capabilities unknown to Russia until such an exercise is performed
– Other possibles:
     – A cover for illegal activities that occurred during the exercise – a feint, a ruse
 – Testing a precursor to actual execution – that is why military exercises are performed
 – What capabilities are being left in the exercise areas; what is not being removed after the exercise using the exercise as a ruse to place assets close to Western borders that were not there before
 What do you think?
 https://uawire.org/news/media-belarusian-and-russian-militaries-are-jamming-mobile-communications-along-border-with-poland

Drone Wars! Threats, Vulnerabilities and Hostile Use

Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_01Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_02Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_03Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_04Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_05Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_06Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_07Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_08Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_09Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_10Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_11Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_12Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_13Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_14Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_15Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_16Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_17Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_18Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_19Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_20Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_21Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_22Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_23Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_24Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_25Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_26Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_27Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_28Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_29Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_30Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_31Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_32Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_33Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_34Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_35Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_36Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_37Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_38Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_39Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_40Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_41Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_42Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_43Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_44Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_45Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_46Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_47Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_48Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_49Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_50Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_51Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_52Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_53Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_54Drone WARS presentation Cyber Event 100417 slides Rev17A_CMC RKN_201701002 (1)_Page_55

References

Adamy, D. (2001) EW 101 A First Course in Electronic Warfare, Boston: Artech House.

Adamy, D. (2004) EW 102 A Second Course in Electronic Warfare, Boston: Artech House.

Adamy, D. (2009) EW 103 Tactical Battlefield Communications Electronic Warfare, Boston: Artech House.

Adamy, D. (2015) EW 104 EW against a New Generation of Threats, Boston: Artech House.

Anonymous, (2017) GPS/SBAS Signal Generator, GSS4100, Spirent Communications Data Sheet. Satellite AIS, Exact Earth, Ltd.

Anonymous, (9/8/2017) Innovation: Simulating GPS Signals, GPS World, http://gpsworld.com/simulating-gps-signals/

Anonymous, (8/22/2017) Nationwide Automatic Identification System, www.navgen.uscg.gov

Anonymous, (8/22/2017) Long Range Identification and Tracking (LRIT) Overview, www.navgen.uscg.gov

Anonymous, (8/22/2017) How AIS Works, www.navgen.uscg.gov

Anonymous, (2015) Satellite AIS, Exact Earth, Ltd.

Anonymous, (6/21/2015) Cyber Threats against the Aviation Industry, in SCADA on April8, 2014, INFOSEC Institute.

Anonymous, (2012) A Guide for Testers of GPS Devices and Systems, spectracom, Test & Measurement technical Note, TN15-101A – What You Want to know about GPS.

Anonymous, (5/14/2012) what is a GPS Simulator? Spectracom, Test & Measurement White Paper, WP08-101A.

Anonymous, (1/10/2014) GPS Signal Plan, Navipedia, http://www.navipedia.net/index.php/GPS_Signal_Plan

Anonymous, (4/2017) Counter-Unmanned Aircraft System Techniques, HQ, Department of the Army, ATP-3-01.81, https://fas.org/irp/doddir/army/atp3-01-81.pdf

Atayero, A.A, Luka, .K. & Alatishe, A.A (8/2011) Satellite Link Design: A Tutorial, International Journal of Electrical & Computer Sciences, IJECS-IJEND Vol: 11 No: 04.

Balduzzi, M., Wilhoit, K., & Pasta, A. (2014) A Security Evaluation of AIS, Trend Micro Forward-Looking Threat Research

Barker, B.C Capt., et.al. (2006) Overview of the GPS M-Code Signal, MITRE Report.

Bay-Yen, J. (2000) Chapter 5: GPS C/A Code Signal Structure, Fundamentals of Global Positioning System Receivers: A Software Approach, New York: John Wiley, http://read.pudn.com/downloads85/ebook/326017/Fundamentals%20of%20Global%20Positioning%20System%20Receivers/booktext05.pdf

Bhatti, J. & Humphreys, T. E. (2016) Hostile Control of Ships via False GPS Signals Demonstration and Detection, Navigation: Journal of the Institute of Navigation, Vol. 64, No.1, Spring 2017.

Buesne, G & DeSanto, D. (2017) GNSS Receivers and the Cyber-Threat: Lessons from the Information Security Community, Spirent Communications, Baltimore, MD

Buesne, G & Holbrow, M. (6/29/2017) GNSS Threats, Attacks and Simulations, Spirent: PNT Advisory Board, Baltimore, MD

Bussert, J.C. (10/2013) China Expands Influence through Electronics, Signal Magazine, https://www.afcea.org/content/china-expands-influence-through-electronics

Chachak, E. (retrieved 9/1/2017) U.S. Naval Mishaps – Human Error or Cyber Malfeasance? CyberDB.https://www.cyberdb.co/u-s-naval-mishaps-human-error-or-cyber-malfeasance/

Crosby, J. (12/16/2017) here’s What USNS Bowditch Does, Inverse Innovation, https://www.inverse.com/article/25346-usns-bowditch-underwater-drone-stolen-china

Demchak, C., Patton, K, T. & Tangredi, S.J. (8/25/2017) why are our Ships Crashing? Competence, Overload, and Cyber Considerations, Center for International Maritime Security. https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2017/08/25/why_are_our_ships_crashing_competence_overload_and_cyber_considerations_112152.html

Dupont, G. (2017) SIEM Fundamentals for your Threat Intelligence Program, Recorded Future, https://www.recordedfuture.com/security-operations-center-fundamentals/

Easton, R.D. & Frazier, E.F. (2013) GPS Declassified: From Smart Bombs to Smartphones, University of Nebraska Press.

FCC Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Marine VHF Radio Channels, per 47 CFR 80.371© and 80.373(f)

Fessenden, F. & Watkins, D. (6/18/2017) the Path of the Container Ship that Struck a U.S. Destroyer, NYT. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/06/18/world/asia/path-ship-hit-uss-fitzgerald.html?mcubz=3

Gaertner, U (2013) UAV Swarm Tactics: An Agent-Based Simulation and Markov Process Analysis, Naval Postgraduate School Thesis.

Haider, Z. & Khalid, S. (8/2016) Survey on Effective GPS Spoofing Countermeasures, 6th International Conference on Innovative Computing Technology (INTECH 2016), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313543601_Survey_on_effective_GPS_spoofing_countermeasures

Heath, T. (5/7/2015) How to Hack a Military Drone Parts I & II, Technology-Hackers, www.cybersecurityintelligence.com/blog/

Hodge, H. (8/23/2017) why are Navy Ships colliding in the Pacific? Experts Weigh In, Military.com

Homeland Security (2017) Improving the Operation and Development of Global Positioning System (GPS) Equipment Used by Critical Infrastructure, NCIC/NCC Unclassified report.

Hurley, M. (9/2017) Beyond the Iron Triad: The Future of Airborne C2ISR, Arlington, VA: Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies.

Humphreys, T.E, e. al. (1/1/2009) assessing the Spoofing Threat: Development of a Portable Civilian GPS Spoofer, https://gps.mae.cornell.edu/humphreys_etal_iongnss2008.pdf, Cornell University

Humphreys, T.E, (7/18/2012) Statement on the Vulnerability of Civil Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and Other Systems to Civil GPS Spoofing, Submitted to the Subcommittee on Oversight., Investigations, and Management of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

Kao, Lee, Chang, and Ko. (2007) A Fuzzy Logic Method for Collision Avoidance in Vessel Traffic Service, Journal of Navigation, 60, 17-31.

John, E.N & Schrage, D.P (2017) System Integration and Operation of a Research Unmanned Aerial Vehicle, Atlanta GA: School of Aerospace Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology.

LaGrone, S. (8/21/2017) Chain of Events Involving U.S Navy Warships in the Western Pacific Raise Readiness, Training Questions, USNI News

LaGrone, S. (1/31/2017) Cruiser USS Antietam Runs Aground in Tokyo Bay, Spills Oil, USNI News.

Mccaslin, I.B. (2017) Red Drones Over Disputed Seas: A Field Guide to Chinese UAVs/UCAVs Operating in the disputed East and South China Seas. Project 2049 Institute.  http://project2049.net/documents/Red%20Drones%20Over%20Disputed%20Seas_PLA_Project2049.pdf

News Correspondent, (8/22/2017) USS McCain crash is 4th Navy Accident in Pacific this Year, The Washington Post, AP.

News Correspondent, (8/31/2017) DDG 51 Arleigh Burke Class Destroyer, Military.com

News Correspondent, (8/21/2017) CNO Orders Operational Pause, Review After Latest Ship Collision, Military.com

News Correspondent, (8/21/2017) 10 Sailors Missing, 5 injured after Destroyer Collides with Tanker, Military.com

News Correspondent, (8/22/2017) Remains of Navy Sailors found on USS John S McCain, Military.com

News Correspondent, (8/17/2017) Navy Fires Commander, XO from USS Fitzgerald for Fatal Collision, Military.com

News Correspondent, (7/21/2017) Investigation Faults Navy in Fitzgerald Collision Report, Military.com

News Correspondent, (6/20/2017) Stories of Fitzgerald Sailors Killed in Destroyer – Container Ship Crash, Military.com

News Correspondent, (6/16/2017) US Navy Destroyer Collides with Japanese Merchant Ship, Military.com

News Correspondent, (5/09/2017) US Navy Ship Collides with South Korean Fishing Boat, Military.com

News Correspondent, (1/31/2017) Oil Spill in Tokyo Bay After Navy Cruiser Runs Aground, Military.com

Nichols, R.K (8/31/2017) Stand By for a whole slew of military short articles on the Navy Collisions (my students only), Private memo to COT799 & CMST 455.

Nichols, R.K. & Lekkas, P.L. (2002) Wireless Security: Threats, Models, Solutions, New York, McGraw Hill.

O’Donnell, W. (2017) Interview with Navy Captain. http://inmilitary.com/real-reason-us-navy-keeps-hitting-merchant-vessels/

Ranganathan, A, et.al, SPREE A Spoofing Resistant GPS Receiver, Department of Computer Science, ETH Zurich, Switzerland, Zurich Information Security and Privacy Center.

Richardson, J. Adm., (8/31/2017) No Evidence of Hacking in McCain and Fitzgerald Collisions, Military.com

Rudow, l. (2014) Where to Mount a Radome for best Performance, Boat US, http://www.boatus.com/magazine/2014/june/mounting-a-radome.asp

Schallhorn, K., (9/1/2017) US Military crashes, collisions in the Pacific, FoxNews. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/28/us-military-crashes-collisions-in-pacific.html

Schmidt, D.et.al., (5/2016) A Survey and Analysis of the GNSS Spoofing Threat and Countermeasures, ACM Computing Surveys, Vol 48, No 4, Article 64

Sickle, J.V. (8/25/2017) GEOG 862 GPS and GNSS for Geospatial Professionals, Lessons 1-10 complete, Penn State University, College of Earth and Mineral Sciences  https://www.e-education.psu.edu/geog862/node/1407 [ Superb Course on the subject]

Sterling, J. 8/21/2017) A Spate of US Navy warship accidents in Asia since January, CNNNEWS. http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/21/politics/navy-ships-accidents/index.html

Tucker, P., e. al. (9/2017) Beyond GPS: Upgrading the Military’s Navigation-and-timing Backbone, Defense One, e-Book.

Volpe, J.A, (8/29/2001) Vulnerability Assessment of the Transportation Infrastructure Relying on the Global Positioning System, Final Report, Office of Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation, John A Volpe Transportation Systems Center.

Warner, J.S. % Johnson, R.G. (2013) A Simple Demonstration That the Global Positioning System (GPS) is Vulnerable to Spoofing, Journal of Security Administration, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8ddb/89f56dd3e2ae265047822bc47cfb06815d9a.pdf, LAUR-03-6163.

Warner, J.S. % Johnson, R.G. (2003) GPS Spoofing Countermeasures, Journal of Security Administration, LAUR-03-2384, Los Alamos, NM:  Los Alamos National Laboratory

Weise, E. (8/23/2017) Could Hackers Be Behind The U.S. Navy Collisions? USATODAY.

Patents

Berry, R. & Cook, C. (2016) Detection of wireless data jamming and spoofing, US 9466881 B1

 

Blogs

Banggood Blog (9/14/2017) Whats the difference between RHCP and LHCP antennae?     https://blog.banggood.com/rhcp-and-lhcp-whats-the-difference-29046.html

King Blog (9/14/2017) what is the difference between Azimuth and Elevation? https://kingconnect.com/what-is-the-difference-between-azimuth-and-elevation/

Mike Willis Blog (9/13/2017) Propagation. http://www.mike-willis.com/Tutorial/propagation.html

Law and Cyber Warfare Blog. Groll, E. (2017) Investigating if Destroyer Crash was Caused by a Cyber Attack, http://www.jlcw.org/u-s-navy-investigating-if-destroyer-crash-was-caused-by-cyberattack/

Wikipedia

Editor (8/31/2017) GPS Block IIIA, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_Block_IIIA

Editor (9/14/2017) Circular polarization, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization

Editor (9/19/2017) Electromagnetic Spectrum, Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_spectrum

Editor (9/19/2017) Continuous-wave Radar, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuous-wave_radar

Valery Vasilevich Gerasimov – Валерий Васильевич Герасимов

Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation / First Deputy Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation, General of the Army._64031862_gerasimov

Валерий Васильевич Герасимов

Born      8 September 1955 (age 62)

Kazan, Tatar Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic

Married – one son

Russian hackers reportedly stole NSA data via Kaspersky Lab software

http://algo.fyi/5vhjug

Born on 8 September 1955 in the city of Kazan. In 1977, he graduated from the Kazan Higher Tank Command School named after the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the Tatar ASSR (Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic). He commanded platoon, company, battalion in the Northern Group of Troops and Far Eastern Military District.

vg

After his graduation from the Military Academy of Armored Troops named after Marshal of the Soviet Union R.Ya. Malinovsky in the year of 1987, he served as the chief of headquarters and commander of tank regiment, the chief of headquarters of motorized rifle division in the Baltic Military District. From 1993 to 1995 — the commander of motorized rifle division in the North-Western Group of Troops.

After graduating from the Kazan Higher Tank Command School Gerasimov was the commander of a platoon, company, and battalion of the Far Eastern Military District. Later he was chief of staff of a tank regiment and then of a motorized rifle division in the Baltic Military District. From 1993 to 1995 he was the commander of the 144th Guards Motor Rifle Division in the Baltic Military District and then the North-Western Group of Forces.

After he graduated from the General Staff’s academy he was First Deputy Army Commander in the Moscow Military District and commander of the 58th Army in the North Caucasus Military District during the Second Chechen War. His involvement in the arrest of Yuri Budanov led to praise from journalist Anna Politkovskaya.

g3In 2006, he became commander of Leningrad Military District and moved to be the commander of Moscow Military District in 2009 and Central Military District in April 2012. On 23 December 2010, he became deputy Chief of the General Staff

In 1997 after his graduation from the Military Academy of the RF Armed Forces’ General Staff, he served as the First Deputy Commander of Army in the Moscow Military District, the Deputy Commander, Chief of Staff and Commander of the 58th Army in the North Caucasian Military District.

From 2003 to 2005 — the Chief of Staff of the Far Eastern Military District. From 2005 — the Chief of the Main Administration of Combat Training and Troops’ Service of the RF Armed Forces, and from December 2006 — the Chief of Staff of the North Caucasian Military District.vg4.png

In December 2006, he was assigned as the Commander of the Leningrad Military District, and in February 2009 — as the Commander of the Moscow Military District.

From December 2010 — the Deputy Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.

From 26 April 2012 — the Commander of the Central Military District.

Gerasimovs-linjal

03-02By the RF Presidential Decree of 9 November 2012, he has been appointed the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation / First Deputy Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation. He was appointed by President Vladimir Putin on 9 November 2012. Some authors credit Gerasimov as the person behind a so-called “Gerasimov doctrine” – currently prevalent in Russian military strategy – combining military, technological, information, diplomatic, economic, cultural and other tactics, which are then deployed towards one set of strategic objectives. This “political warfare” is preferred due to its comparatively low cost.

vg2

The previous Chief of General Staff, Army General Nikolay Makarov, was seen as close to Serduykov and was seen by commentators as likely to be replaced by new Defence Minister Sergey Shoygu. It has been reported that Makarov resigned, but he was formally dismissed by President Vladimir Putin. Other changes were the dismissal of Alexander Sukhorukov from the position of First Deputy Defence Minister and his replacement by Colonel General Arkady Bakhin, formerly commander of the Western Military District. Aerospace Defence Forces commander Colonel General Oleg Ostapenko was also promoted to Deputy Defence Minister. He was promoted to the highest rank in the Russian Army, General of the Army as of 2014. On September 15, 2016, he and Turkish chief of staff General Hulusi Akar conducted a

03-03

meeting on the future of Syria in the Ankara headquarters of the army. That meeting will result in tightened dealings between Russia and Turkey.

There is an old Soviet-era rhetorical device that a ‘warning’ or a ‘lesson’ from some other situation is used to outline intent and plan. The way that what purports to be an after-action take on the Arab Spring so closely maps across to what was done in Ukraine is striking. Presenting the Arab Spring–wrongly–as the results of covert Western operations allows Gerasimov the freedom to talk about what he may also want to talk about: how Russia can subvert and destroy states without direct, overt and large-scale military intervention. However, the assumption that this is a Western gambit primarily does appear genuinely-held. https://inmoscowsshadows.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/the-gerasimov-doctrine-and-russian-non-linear-war/

image_f02f46e5-5865-43de-957e-a19b266b57fb20170903_133742

VPK_08_476

In April 2014 Gerasimov was added to the list of persons against whom the European Union introduced sanctions “in respect of actions undermining or threatening the territorial integrity, sovereignty, and independence of Ukraine.”

Hero of the Russian Federation.

Personal decorations: Order for Military Merits, Order for Merits to the Fatherland 4th grade, Order for Service to the Homeland in the USSR’s Armed Forces 3rd grade, Order of St. George 4th grade, Order for Merits to the Fatherland with Swords 3rd grade, Order for Honor.

The role of nonmilitary means of achieving political and strategic goals has grown, and, in many cases, they have exceeded the power of force of weapons in their effectiveness.

For me, this is probably the most important line in the whole piece, so allow me to repeat it: The role of nonmilitary means of achieving political and strategic goals has grown, and, in many cases, they have exceeded the power of force of weapons in their effectiveness. In other words, this is an explicit recognition not only that all conflicts are actually means to political ends–the actual forces used are irrelevant–but that in the modern realities, Russia must look to non-military instruments increasingly. https://inmoscowsshadows.wordpress.com/2014/07/06/the-gerasimov-doctrine-and-russian-non-linear-war/

 https://warontherocks.com/2016/03/russian-hybrid-warfare-and-other-dark-arts/

 

 

 

Dru’a al-Waaqiah lil-Bedoon – Syrian Sanctions Busting with Russian Help

Past report on Syrian Government collusion with Russia to bypass sanctions against Syria. This instance involves acquiring materials and machines to manufacture their own body armor in Latakia by way of the UAE where a Syrian soldier working with a female FSB agent centralize the acquisitions.

Visas, passports, military IDs, fake names, bills of lading and more for your reading and review.

The Treadstone 71 Report (pdf) – Treadstone 71 – drua-alwaaqiah-lilboodoon

Treadstone 71 acquired supporting files and documents (30MB zip) – drua-rawfiles-treadstone71

https://treadstone71llc.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/hatem-deeb-_-vk.pdf 

https://treadstone71llc.files.wordpress.com/2014/10/zain-deeb-_-vk.pdf

https://cybershafarat.com/?p=524

http://www.treadstone71.com

Intelligence for the C-Suite and Stakeholders

This is a one-day course designed to educate corporate leadership and stakeholders in cyber and threat intelligence.  There is a general awareness of the need to establish intelligence functions. Many organizations do not have a fundamental understanding of what intelligence is, where the function should reside, how it is different from business and competitive intelligence while understanding the overlaps and natural points of integration. This one day course targets corporate leadership delivering a clear and coherent training that equips stakeholders with the understanding and tools they need to assist in building a successful intelligence program.


Registration Information – Dates and Times TBD

Course High-Level Outline

  • Using Strategic Intelligence
  • Organization and Focus of the Class
  • Background on Strategic Intelligence and Analysis
  • Approaches and Processes
  • Strategic Plan development, acceptance, and dissemination
    • Mission
    • Vision
    • Guiding Principles
    • Roles and Responsibilities
    • Threat Intelligence Perspective
    • Business Intelligence Perspective
    • Competitive Intelligence Perspective
    • Intelligence Strategic Challenges
    • Goals and Initiatives
    • Next Steps
    • Roadmap
  • Stakeholder checklist and stakeholder management groups with strategic and tactical activities definition for intelligence, description of needs and products. This will include:
  • The Future Use of Strategic Intelligence
  • Intelligence: Role, Definitions, and Concepts
  • Basic Concepts Concerning Intelligence
  • The Strategic Intelligence Process – Operations to Tactics
  • The Role of Strategic Intelligence and Its Impact on Stakeholders
    • Operational, Technical, Tactical
  • Why Stakeholders and Executives Need Strategic Analysis:
  • Strategic Analysis Leading to Strategic Decisions
  • Implementing Intelligence Programs
    • The Treadstone 71 Method (Experience with several program builds globally)
  • Challenges for Stakeholders to Accept Intelligence
  • Stakeholder Views: Impact on Intelligence
  • Intelligence as Catalyst for Stakeholders
  • Integrating Analytical Support and the Stakeholder Thought Process
  • Stakeholders and Self-Directed Strategic Processes, Procedures, Methods
  • The Role of Intelligence Management
  • Issues, Tactics, Techniques, Methods, and Principles
  • Managing Intelligence Projects
  • Providing Focused Leadership
    • Leading the Team
    • Understanding Issues and the Process
    • Analysis Overview
    • Collection Management
    • Production Management
      • Evaluation
      • Analysis
      • Integration
      • Interpretation
    • Types of Analysis
      • 14 Types of Analysis
    • Analytic Writing
      • ICD 203, 206, 208
      • Organization, Evidence, Argument, Sources, Pitfalls
      • Use the Title
      • Who/What, Why Now, So What, Impact so far, Outlook, Implications
      • BLUF and AIMS
      • Supervisory Actions
      • Summary Paragraphs
      • Alternative Analysis
      • Clarity and Brevity
      • Peer review
      • Reports and Reporting
        • Feedback
    • Pre-Mortem
    • Post-Mortem
    • Know your professor, get an A – Communicating Up
      • Relevance, Timeliness, Completeness, Accuracy, Usability
    • Briefing Rules
  • Intelligence Analysts and Self-Management
    • High-Level Tasks
  • Analyst Activities
    • Rules for developing analysts – Alignment and as collectors
    • The Role, Responsibilities, and Functions of the Analyst
    • The Analyst’s Roles and Responsibilities – RACI(s)
    • What the Analyst will face
    • Job Descriptions
  • Conclusion
    • The Executive / Stakeholder’s Roadmap
Corporate stakeholders risk investing large amounts of time and money with little positive effect their security, corporate strategies, and business direction. The C-Suite and Stakeholders participating in this course ensures their understanding of the discipline required to build a successful program. The course helps align information security, incident response, security operations, threat and cyber intelligence with the business.

Full Suite of Cyber-Threat Intelligence and Counterintelligence Courses Ready for Global Delivery

Treadstone 71 today announced a full suite of Cyber and Threat Intelligence and CounterIntelligence training courses. The courses drive the expansion of Treadstone 71’s accelerated, academically validated, intelligence training to global markets. Treadstone 71 delivers courses in California, Virginia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands and is set to expand to the Middle East and Asia later this year. (www.planetreg.com/T71IntelTraining)

Treadstone 71 offers a compelling business model that delivers rapid cyber and threat intelligence strategic planning, program build, and targeted training in sectors such as financial services, government, healthcare, energy, and other critical infrastructure verticals. Treadstone 71’s format, curriculum, and instruction model are helping meet critical global demand for cyber and threat intelligence and analysis expertise. Treadstone 71 training provide graduates with an attractive pathway to compensation increases, career progression, and much-needed attention to intelligence. The organization has been teaching cyber intelligence at the Master’s level and commercially for seven years. New courses include a focus on campaign management, the use of Tor, Tails, I2P, and Maltego as well as covering persona development and management. Students create a series of identities, character development, and dimensions, storyline, plot synopsis, story drive and limit, story weaving, applicability, scope, tools to be used, methods of interaction with other identities, engaging secondary characters, refining targeting while developing a campaign to gain street credentials.

“Our courses provide academic instruction combined with real-world, hands-on collection, analysis, analytic writing, dissemination, and briefings that many liken to an apprenticeship,” said Jeff Bardin, Chief Intelligence Officer for Treadstone 71. “Our curriculum follows the teachings of Sherman Kent and Richards Heuer giving students the tools necessary to perform targeted collection, structured analysis while authoring reports modeled after intelligence community standards. We teach methods of cyber infiltration, information and influence operations, counterintelligence strategies, mission based counterintelligence, denial and deception, and counter-denial and deception.”

Treadstone 71 courses are validated and proven by intelligence professionals creating job-ready threat intelligence professionals for global organizations suffering a talent shortage. “Intelligence analysis as an inherently intellectual activity that requires knowledge, judgment, and a degree of intuition,” continued Bardin. “Treadstone 71’s intelligence, counterintelligence, and clandestine cyber HUMINT training and services help organizations transform information into intelligence pertinent to their organization.”

Analysis includes integrating, evaluating, and analyzing all available data — which is often fragmented and even contradictory — and preparing intelligence products. Despite all the attention focused on the operational (collection) side of intelligence, analysis is the core of the process to inform corporate stakeholders. Analysis as more than just describing what is happening and why; identifying a range of opportunities… Intelligence Analysis is the key to making sense of the data and finding opportunities to take action. Analysis expands beyond the technical focus of today providing organizations with core capabilities for business, competitive, cyber, and threat intelligence.

Treadstone 71’s Cyber Intelligence Tradecraft Certification is the gold standard in the industry today derived from both academia and from Treadstone 71’s experience in building cyber intelligence programs at Fortune 500 organizations worldwide.

Treadstone 71

888.714.0071 – osint@treadstone71.comhttp://www.planetreg.com/T71IntelTraining

We Are in a State of Cyber Cold War?

Wisdom begins with the definition of terms – Socrates

Many believe that we are not in some sort of state of cyber warfare. Many believe that it is only influence operations. These are the same people who are selling you security technologies and services to protect your environment. They believe calling our current state cyber war is hype. They fact that they believe this is demonstrated in their technologies that have double and triple downed on solutions that do not work. Solutions based solely on see, detect, and arrest. A paradigm proven over the past 20 years to be a paradigm of failure. The game of many a vendor (not all) is to generate revenue off your fear. A fear that can be remedied if we fix information security by first starting to fix information technology (see Cyber Security Predictions – Not Reality TV – Just Daytime Entertainment). One of the problems we have is standard taxonomy and glossary. Most do not have an understanding of the basics of intelligence and war. Most feel the need to apply physical characteristics to cyber actions in order for those actions to be taken as some sort of warfare. This is a major misnomer. My request here is for you to read the limited glossary items below. Once you have read these items, think of where we are today with respect to cyber security. If after reading and applying critical thinking to the terms and our current state of cyber security you do not believe we are in a state of cyber cold war, then provide some well thought out comments as to what state we are in fact in.

Information Operations (IO). The integrated employment of the core capabilities of electronic warfare, computer network operations, psychological operations, military deception, and operations security, in concert with specified supporting and related capabilities, to influence, disrupt, corrupt or usurp adversarial human and automated decision making while protecting our own. (JP 1-02)

           This includes five core capabilities incorporated into IO

  1. Electronic warfare is any action involving the use of the electromagnetic spectrum or directed energy to control the spectrum, attack of an enemy, or impede enemy assaults via the spectrum.
  2. Computer Network Operations (CNO)
    1. Comprised of computer network attack, computer network defense, and related computer network exploitation enabling operations (JP 1-02)
  3. Psychological operations
    1. Planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of foreign governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. The purpose of psychological operations is to induce or reinforce foreign attitudes and behavior favorable to the originator’s objectives. (JP 1-02 and JP 3-13.2)
  4. Military Deception
    1. Actions executed to deliberately mislead adversary military decision makers as to friendly military capabilities, intentions, and operations, thereby causing the adversary to take specific actions (or inactions) that will contribute to the accomplishment of the friendly mission. (JP 1-02)
    2. According to JP 3-13.4, Counterintelligence provides the following for MILDEC planners:
    3. Identification and analysis of adversary intelligence systems to determine the best deception conduits;
    4. Establishment and control of deception conduits within the adversary intelligence system, also known as offensive CI operations;
    5. Participation in counterdeception operations;
    6. Identification and analysis of the adversary’s intelligence system and its susceptibility to deception and surprise; and
    7. Feedback regarding adversary intelligence system responses to deception operations.
  5. Operations Security

*******

Treadstone71 2017 Cyber Intel Courses – http://www.planetreg.com/T71IntelTraining

*******

OPSEC is a five-step iterative process that assists an organization in identifying specific pieces of information requiring protection and employing measures to protect them.

  1. Identification of Critical information: Critical information is information about friendly intentions, capabilities and activities that allow an adversary to plan effectively to disrupt their operations. U.S. Army Regulation 530-1 has redefined Critical Information into four broad categories, using the acronym CALI- Capabilities, Activities, Limitations (including vulnerabilities), and Intentions.This step results in the creation of a Critical Information List (CIL). This allows the organization for focus resources on vital information, rather than attempting to protect all classified or sensitive unclassified information. Critical information may include, but is not limited to, military deployment schedules, internal organizational information, details of security measures, etc.
  2. Analysis of Threats: A Threat comes from an adversary – any individual or group that may attempt to disrupt or compromise a friendly activity. Threat is further divided into adversaries with intent and capability. The greater the combined intent and capability of the adversary, the greater the threat. This step uses multiple sources, such as intelligence activities, law enforcement, and open source information to identify likely adversaries to a planned operation and prioritize their degree of threat.
  3. Analysis of Vulnerabilities: Examining each aspect of the planned operation to identify OPSEC indicators that could reveal critical information and then comparing those indicators with the adversary’s intelligence collection capabilities identified in the previous action. Threat can be thought of as the strength of the adversaries, while vulnerability can be thought of as the weakness of friendly organizations.
  4. Assessment of Risk: First, planners analyze the vulnerabilities identified in the previous action and identify possible OPSEC measures for each vulnerability. Second, specific OPSEC measures are selected for execution based upon a risk assessment done by the commander and staff. Risk is calculated based on the probability of Critical Information release and the impact if such as release occurs. Probability is further subdivided into the level of threat and the level of vulnerability. The core premise of the subdivision is that the probability of compromise is greatest when the threat is very capable and dedicated, while friendly organizations are simultaneously exposed.
  5. Application of Appropriate OPSEC Measures: The command implements the OPSEC measures selected in the assessment of risk action or, in the case of planned future operations and activities, includes the measures in specific OPSEC plans. Countermeasures must be continually monitored to ensure that they continue to protect current information against relevant threats.The U.S. Army Regulation 530-1 refers to “Measures” as the overarching term, with categories of “Action Control” (controlling one’s own actions); “Countermeasures” (countering adversary intelligence collection); and “Counteranalysis” (creating difficulty for adversary analysts seeking to predict friendly intent) as tools to help an OPSEC professional protect Critical Information.

Offensive Cyber Operations. Programs and activities that through the use of cyberspace, 1) actively gather information from computers, information systems or networks or 20 manipulate, disrupt, deny, degrade, or destroy targeted adversary computers, information systems, or networks. (NSPD-38)

Cold War – a state of political hostility between countries characterized by threats, propaganda, and other measures short of open warfare – a conflict or dispute between two groups that does not involve actual fighting.

2017-01-16_18-37-11.jpg

Cyber War – the use of computer technology to disrupt the activities of a state or organization, especially the deliberate attacking of information systems for strategic or military purposes. Cyber warfare involves the actions by a nation-state or international organization to attack and attempt to damage another nation’s computers or information networks through, for example, computer viruses or denial-of-service attacks.

Try this link for more definitions https://ccdcoe.org/cyber-definitions.html

To repeat. think of where we are today with respect to cyber security. Apply critical thinking to the terms and our current state of cyber security. Assess our relationship with Russia. Provide some well thought out comments as to what state we are in fact in if you believe we are not in a state of cyber cold war with Russia. If we are not, then how would you define our current state?

Treadstone 71

 

 

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: