DarkGovernment

NR-1 Secret Mission Submarine Retires

NORFOLK, Va. — Its oven was actually a toaster taken out of a P-3 Orion. It had no shower, and there were four racks for 11 sailors. The officer in charge slept on the deck behind the conn. And since the Nixon administration, the elite crew of the NR-1 could live on the bottom of the ocean for up to a month at a time.

National Geographic magazine called it “The Navy’s Inner Space Shuttle,” and in many ways, the now retired nuclear-powered, deep-submergence boat capable of 3,000-foot dives was just that.

“I’ve been in it for a month, and it gets a little ripe,” said Robert Ballard, sea explorer and former Navy man who, among scores of other finds, discovered the wreck of the Titanic in 1985 and John F. Kennedy’s PT 109 in 2003.

Although he didn’t use the NR-1 for those missions, he was aboard for countless explorations, and with its deactivation Nov. 21, he said he hates to see this one-of-a-kind ship retire.

“We’ve lost an asset, and it’s too bad,” Ballard told Navy Times.

Launched in Groton, Conn., in January 1969, for years NR-1 was a secret submersible built to dive so deep it had wheels for moving along the ocean floor. Because of its nuclear reactor, its dwell time was not limited by batteries like other submersibles. But it was not fast, managing a little more than 3 knots submerged.

“That’s more than fast enough to operate near the ocean floor,” said Cmdr. John McGrath, NR-1’s final officer in charge. “I’m a big fan of the ship. I think it’s an incredible chapter in Navy history.”

In its time, NR-1 was manned by nuclear-qualified submariners who passed an interview with the director of naval nuclear propulsion, currently Adm. Kirkland Donald. McGrath is rarer still among this small fraternity of submariners, having previously served as NR-1 engineer from 1997 to 2000. He came back in 2007 and will oversee the yearlong process of de-fueling the sub’s nuclear reactor before its voyage to the Navy’s submarine graveyard in Puget Sound, Wash.

In its nearly 40-year career, the NR-1 was called for countless missions — from searching for wrecked and sunken naval aircraft to finding debris from the space shuttle Challenger after its loss in 1986.

On its final deployments, McGrath said, the NR-1 was still conducting “highly classified military missions.”

The real loss with the passing of the NR-1, according to Ballard, will be its highly advanced sonar. Unlike the system on an attack submarine, which is directed at the entire water column, NR-1’s sonar was pointed downward and could, as McGrath put it, detect an “empty soda can buried in the sand a mile away.”

In addition to having wheels, NR-1 was also unique in that it had three portholes and 29 external lights to illuminate the depths, along with 13 cameras, hooks, grips and a robotic arm.

It could dive deep because it was built with a very rigid hull and narrow hips — its beam was only 12½ feet. And unlike a combat submarine, it had very few “mechanical hull penetrations,” so while that made it stout, the ship could not discharge such things as wastewater while submerged.

“The limiting factor is the capacity of the toilet tank,” McGrath said. “Living conditions were a little primitive.”

Refueled once in its service life, the NR-1 still had some years left on the clock, but “it reached the end of its service life,” McGrath said. “A lot of our suppliers and logistic sources have long since gone out of business.”

It was taken out of service Nov. 21 in Groton at a ceremony attended by former NR-1 officers in charge Adm. Jon Greenert, current commander of U.S. Fleet Forces, and retired Adm. Edmund Giambastiani, who left the Navy in 2007 as the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Ballard said he rode the sub with Giambastiani in the early 1980s, when Ballard was trying to prove to the Navy that it could use subs such as the NR-1 to lurk on the ocean floor and wait for targets at certain strategic chokepoints.

Before transferring to the Navy, Ballard was commissioned as an Army officer in 1965 with a geology degree, and he appreciated the value of terrain the way an infantryman does. He took that knowledge into the cold depths.

“During the Cold War, we tried to box up the Russians, whether it was along the Greenland-Iceland gap or the entrance to the Bosporus [Straits], or the entrance to Gibraltar,” he said. “The idea was chokepoints … where you’re in the terrain and [the enemy is] really silhouetted above your head.”

He said the Navy didn’t buy his concept.

But as for other possible NR-1 missions, such as checking the taps on Soviet undersea communication cables, Ballard keeps true to the silent service.

“I have no comment,” he said.

Tags: nr-1, nr1, secret sub, secret submarine, sub, submarine

U.S. Military Computers Infected by Worm

The Defense Department’s geeks are spooked by a rapidly spreading worm crawling across their networks. So they’ve suspended the use of so-called thumb drives, CDs, flash media cards, and all other removable data storage devices from their nets, to try to keep the worm from multiplying any further.

The ban comes from the commander of U.S. Strategic Command, according to an internal Army e-mail. It applies to both the secret SIPR and unclassified NIPR nets. The suspension, which includes everything from external hard drives to “floppy disks,” is supposed to take effect “immediately.” Similar notices went out to the other military services.

In some organizations, the ban would be only a minor inconvenience. But the military relies heavily on such drives to store information. Bandwidth is often scarce out in the field. Networks are often considered unreliable. Takeaway storage is used constantly as a substitute.

The problem, according to a second Army e-mail, was prompted by a “virus called Agent.btz.” That’s a variation of the “SillyFDC” worm, which spreads by copying itself to thumb drives and the like. When that drive or disk is plugged into a second computer, the worm replicates itself again — this time on the PC. “From there, it automatically downloads code from another location. And that code could be pretty much anything,” says Ryan Olson, director of rapid response for the iDefense computer security firm. SillyFDC has been around, in various forms, since July 2005. Worms that use a similar method of infection go back even further — to the early ’90s. “But at that time they relied on infecting floppy disks rather than USB drives,” Olson adds.

Servicemembers are supposed to “cease usage of all USB storage media until the USB devices are properly scanned and determined to be free of malware,” one e-mail notes. Eventually, some government-approved drives will be allowed back under certain “mission-critical,” but unclassified, circumstances. “Personally owned or non-authorized devices” are “prohibited” from here on out.

To make sure troops and military civilians are observing the suspension, government security teams “will be conducting daily scans and running custom scripts on NIPRNET and SIPRNET to ensure the commercial malware has not been introduced,” an e-mail says. “Any discovery of malware will result in the opening of a security incident report and will be referred to the appropriate security officer for action.”

“The USB ban should be effective in stopping the worm,” Olson says. Asked if such a wide-spread measure was a bit of over-kill, Olson responded, “I don’t know.”

“I know this [is an] inconvenience,” e-mails one Michigan Army National Guardsman. “This has been briefed to the CoS [Chief of Staff] of the ARMY. This is not just a problem for Michigan, and is effecting operations around the world. This is a very serious threat and should be treated as such. Please understand that this is a form of attack, and we need to have patience in dealing with this issue.”
The military relies heavily on the use of removable storage devices to store information since bandwidth is often scarce out in the field and networks are often considered unreliable.

What’s causing the problem?

It is speculated that a virus named Agent.btz is the culprit. It’s a variation of the “SillyFDC” worm which spreads by copying itself to thumb drives. When the drive or disk is plugged into a second computer, the worm replicates itself again — on the PC. Once installed it automatically downloads malicious software code from the Internet. (Source: f-secure.com)

Eventually, some government-approved drives will be allowed back under certain “mission-critical,” but unclassified circumstances.

See: US Military Report on Computer Threat

Tags: army, computer virus, cyber war, DOD, malware, Military, military computer, virus, worm

China Pissed Over U.S. Congressional Report

China had a less than happy reaction to a US congressional report that accused Beijing of developing sophisticated cyber warfare and militarising its space program. The annual China report to Congress of the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission was aimed at misleading the public and impeding bilateral cooperation, foreign ministry spokesman Qin Gang said.

“The commission has all along seen China through dark glasses and has deliberately attacked China with slanderous accusations aimed at misleading public opinion and obstructing the development of Sino-US relations,” Qin said.

“The report is unworthy of rebuttal and the aims of the commission are doomed to failure,” he said in a statement on his ministry’s website.

The report issued in Washington Thursday accused China of developing a sophisticated cyber warfare program aimed at penetrating US computer networks to extract sensitive information.

“China has an active cyber espionage program,” the report said.

“China is targeting US government and commercial computers.”

The panel also criticized Beijing of exercising “heavy handed government control” over its economy and “continuing arms sales and military support to rogue regimes” such as Sudan, Myanmar and Iran.

The commission also issued a warning about China’s space program. “China continues to make significant progress in developing space capabilities, many of which easily translate to enhanced military capacity,” it said.

Qin urged the commission to stop issuing such reports and refrain from interfering in China’s internal affairs.

Tags: beijing, china, cyber war, cyber warfare, cyberwar, qin, space weapons, weapon, Weapons

Congress Warns of China’s Cyber Pursuits

China has developed a sophisticated cyber warfare program and stepped up its capacity to penetrate US computer networks to extract sensitive information, a US congressional panel warned on Thursday.”China has an active cyber espionage program,” the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission said in its annual report to the US Congress. “China is targeting US government and commercial computers.”

In its 393-page report, the panel also criticized Beijing for exercising “heavy-handed government control” over its economy and “continuing arms sales and military support to rogue regimes” such as Sudan, Myanmar and Iran.

The commission also issued a warning about China’s space program. “China continues to make significant progress in developing space capabilities, many of which easily translate to enhanced military capacity,” it said.

“Although some Chinese space programs have no explicit military intent, many space systems — such as communications, navigation, meteorological, and imagery systems — are dual use in nature,” the commission said.

The commission, which was established by Congress in 2000 to analyze the economic and national security relationship between the two nations, said China was investing heavily in cyber warfare.

“Since China’s current cyber operations capability is so advanced, it can engage in forms of cyber warfare so sophisticated that the United States may be unable to counteract or even detect the efforts,” the commission said.

It said Chinese hacker groups may be operating with government support.

“By some estimates, there are 250 hacker groups in China that are tolerated and may even be encouraged by the government to enter and disrupt computer networks,” the commission said.

It quoted Colonel Gary McAlum, chief of staff for the US Strategic Command’s Joint Task Force for Global Network Operations, as saying China has recognized the importance of cyber operations as a tool of warfare and “has the intent and capability to conduct cyber operations anywhere in the world at any time.”

“China is aggressively pursuing cyber warfare capabilities that may provide it with an asymmetric advantage against the United States,” the commission said. “In a conflict situation, this advantage would reduce current US conventional military dominance.”

The commission recalled that unclassified US military, government and government contractor websites and computer systems were the victims of cyber intrusions in 2002 codenamed “Titan Rain” and attributed to China.

And earlier this month The Financial Times, citing an unnamed senior US official, reported that Chinese hackers — possibly with backing by the Beijing government — had penetrated the White House computer network and obtained emails between government officials.

The commission made 45 recommendations to Congress including possible “additional funding for military, intelligence and homeland security programs that monitor and protect critical American computer networks.”

On the economic front, the commission said “China relies on heavy-handed government control over its economy to maintain an export advantage over other countries.”

“The result: China has amassed nearly two trillion dollars in foreign exchange and has increasingly used its hoard to manipulate currency trading and diplomatic relations with other nations,” it said.

“Rather than use this money for the benefit of its citizens — by funding pensions and erecting hospitals and schools, for example — China has been using the funds to seek political and economic influence over other nations,” said Larry Wortzel, chairman of the commission.

Beijing’s “continuing arms sales and military support to rogue regimes, namely Sudan, Burma, and Iran, threaten the stability of fragile regions and hinder US and international efforts to address international crises, such as the genocide in Darfur,” the commission added.

The commission acknowledged some progress by China, specifically its adherence to non-proliferation agreements and involvement in the six-party talks to dismantle North Korea’s nuclear weapons production capacity.

But it criticized China’s use of prison labor to produce goods for export and an “information control regime” that it said regulates the print and broadcast media, Internet, entertainment and education.

Full Report: 2008-annual-report-to-congress-concerning-china (PDF)

Tags: annual report, china, congress, cyber attack

Cyber warfare needs Rules of Engagement

The rapid advancement of cyber attacks and the emergence of cyber warfare have caught government and military leaders around the world off guard. Decision making in time requiring defensive measures or military crisis is guided by doctrine and rules of engagement, but in the case of cyber attacks and cyber warfare they do not currently exist. The complexities and unique characteristics of cyber warfare mandate establishing Cyber Attack and Warfare Rules of Engagement (CAWRoE).

Cyber warfare is different than the conventional war in many ways. It is this difference that will challenge the minds of experts around the world when they attempt to create cyber warfare doctrine and ROE. To frame this discussion, below you will find two definitions that put this challenge in context.

Definition - Cyber Warfare & Terrorism - “The premeditated use of disruptive activities, or the threat thereof, against computers and/or networks, with the intention to cause harm or further social, ideological, religious, political or similar objectives. Or to intimidate any person in furtherance of such objectives.” Source: This definition was published in the U.S. Army Cyber Operations and Cyber Terrorism Handbook 1.02. This definition was written by Kevin Coleman back in 2004 for an online article.

Definition - Rules of Engagement - Rules of engagement date at least to the Middle Ages in Europe. In military terms this refers to a directive issued by a military authority controlling the use and degree of force, esp. specifying circumstances and limitations for engaging in combat. The directive delineates the limitations and circumstances under which forces will initiate and prosecute combat engagement with other forces encountered. Source: This definition is based on multiple authorities’ sources and combined to clearly articulate ROE.

NOTE– After months of research, we will soon publish a paper that addresses the question: “What constitutes an act of cyber war?”

History has shown that ROE are often over controlled and regulated by politicians and military leaders. It is anticipated that this will also be the case as it relates to cyber attacks and warfare. In addition, commanders and government leaders at all levels must understand the situation, complexities and uncertainty they face.

The increase in complexity, technical aspects and difficulty in tracing the cyber attacks back to the aggressor will combine to increase the difficulty of creating the ROE for cyber. Careful crafting of cyber ROE is required to diminish ambiguities that could caused delays in actions when the use of force is required and will surely lead to increased implication on the United States.

Cyber attack and warfare rules of engagement will undoubtedly require hundreds of pages to establish a decision framework. That being said, there are a few critical areas that will pose the most significant challenge to policy makers. One of these areas will be the level of confidence in the identification of the entity behind an attack on a nation. Tracing and tracking cyber attacks back to those responsible is not an easy task. Usually this takes months or years not minutes and hours. Current intelligence and surveillance capabilities will provide only minimal assistance in this effort. Although promising research on tracking and tracing cyber attacks is currently underway and advances are occurring on a regular basis, we are far from being able to rapidly identify the party or parties behind the attack with the high degree of confidence and hard evidence necessary to launch an offensive cyber response. At the present time, the newness of cyber attacks and weapons coupled with their potential, but unproven power and the uncertainty about how they might be used, have pushed the decision around the response to cyber attacks all the way to the top and in the hands of the President of the United States.

Conclusion
Over 140 countries around the world have cyber weapons development efforts underway but lack a comprehensive doctrine and legal framework for responding to cyber attacks as well as using offensive cyber weapons against attackers and adversaries. President-elect Barack Obama’s national security team will have to rapidly establish the rules of engagement as they relate to cyber attacks and all out cyber warfare. His national security team is said to include: Sarah Sewall, Tom Donilon, Wendy R. Sherman, Michelle A. Flournoy, John P. White, Robert R. Beers, Clark Kent Ervin, Gayle E. Smith, Aaron Williams, John O. Brennan and Judith A. (”Jami”) Miscik.

The United States Military has an expansive arsenal of sophisticated cyber weapons at its disposal, policy makers have yet to define the rules of engagement that govern when and how to use them. In a briefing earlier this year I said: “This is totally uncharted territory for policy makers. The characteristics of cyber attacks coupled with the operational aspects of cyber weapons make this a unique challenge.”

This remains the case and time is growing short before the next significant cyber attack is launched. Cyber warfare requires new rules of engagement.

See How the Air Force is Developing a Cyber Defense Plan

Tags: air force navy, cyber attack, cyber defense, cyber war, cyber warfare