Homeland Security Protection Measures on the Move

Posted on by

These legislative actions have long been sitting on desk tops waiting for the right moment to introduce and pass, now over to the Senate. When fully passed, it will be a great launch of additional security for the new DHS Secretary, John Kelly.

House Passes 17 Sweeping Bipartisan Bills to Enhance Homeland Security

Assuring that the “House Committee on Homeland Security continues its efforts to shield the homeland and protect Americans right out of the gate in the 115th Congress,” committee chairman Michael McCaul’s (R-TX) office said Tuesday “the House passed 17 Committee bills that touch on a wide array of homeland security issues—from the security of our border, transportation and cyber networks, to counterterrorism, first responder capabilities and ensuring the Department of Homeland Security [DHS] runs efficiently.

“The 17 bills that passed the House today are all unified in their purpose to better protect our homeland and our people,” McCaul said in a statement, noting, “These bills improve our border security, transportation security and cybersecurity defenses, enhance first responder capabilities and streamline the management efficiency of [DHS]. My committee is working to get common sense legislation signed into law as soon as possible and make our country safer by doing so.”

Six of the bills passed Tuesday were sponsored by Democrats, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS), ranking member of the House Committee on Homeland Security, pointed out.

Thompson said his legislation, the “Department of Homeland Security Clearance Management and Administration Act … which previously passed the House in 2015, makes specific reforms in how DHS identifies positions that warrant clearances, how it investigates and homeland security manages its security clearance processes. Specifically, it addresses dates for clearances, and how it administers its adjudications, denials, suspensions, revocations and appeals processes.”

“This legislation … seeks to improve how DHS manages its clearance process at all stages—from decisions on whether to designate positions as requiring clearances to ensuring uniformity in how clearances are adjudicated, suspended, denied and revoked. My bill will make DHS a leader among federal agencies with respect to security clearance and position designations practices. It is critical we put DHS on a path to right-sizing the number of classified positions in its workforce. I thank my colleagues for supporting it and urge the Senate to recognize the necessity to pass this legislation.”

The 17 passed by the full House include:

The DHS Acquisition Documentation Integrity Act of 2017, introduced by Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ). It would require the DHS Secretary to request component heads to maintain specific types of acquisition documentation.

The DHS Stop Asset and Vehicle Excess (SAVE) Act, introduced by Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA), would direct the Under Secretary for Management of the Department of Homeland Security to make certain improvements in managing DHS’s vehicle fleet.

The Medical Preparedness Allowable Use Act, introduced by Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to codify authority under existing grant guidance authorizing the use of Urban Area Security Initiative and State Homeland Security Grant Program funding for enhancing medical preparedness, medical surge capacity and mass prophylaxis capabilities.

The Border Security Technology Accountability Act of 2017, introduced by Rep. Martha McSally (R-AZ), would strengthen accountability for deployment of border security technology at DHS and for other purposes.

The Counterterrorism Advisory Board Act of 2017, introduced by Rep. John Katko (R-NY), would establish a board in the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate and integrate departmental intelligence, activities, and policy related to counterterrorism.

The Transit Security Grant Program Flexibility Act, introduced by Rep. Dan Donovan (R-NY), would clarify certain allowable uses of funds for public transportation security assistance grants and establish periods of performance for such grants, and for other purposes.

The Cyber Preparedness Act of 2017, introduced by Rep. Dan Donovan (R-NY), would enhance preparedness and response capabilities for cyberattacks and bolsters the sharing of information related to cyber threats.

The United States-Israel Cybersecurity Cooperation Enhancement Act of 2017, introduced by Rep. James Langevin (D-RI), would establish a grant program at DHS to promote cooperative research and development between the United States and Israel on cybersecurity.

The Fusion Center Enhancement Act of 2017, introduced by Rep. Lou Barletta (R-PA), would enhance the partnership between DHS and the National Network of Fusion Centers.

The Securing the Cities Act of 2017, introduced by Rep. Dan Donovan (R-NY) would establish the Securing the Cities program, which will enhance the ability of the United States to detect and prevent terrorist attacks and other high consequence events utilizing nuclear or other radiological materials that pose a high risk to homeland security in high-risk urban areas.

The Airport Perimeter and Access Control Security Act, introduced by Rep. William Keating (D-MA), would require the Transportation Security Administration to update risk assessments at airports—specifically along airport perimeters and points of access to secure areas—and report to Congress strategic plans to increase security measures.

The Department of Homeland Security Insider Threat and Mitigation Act of 2017, introduced by Rep. Peter King (R-NY), would require the DHS Secretary to establish an insider threat program within the department.

The CBRN Intelligence and Information Sharing Act of 2017, introduced by Rep. Martha McSally (R-AZ), would amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to establish chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear intelligence and information sharing functions of DHS’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis and to require dissemination of information analyzed by the department to entities with responsibilities relating to homeland security.

The Department of Homeland Security Support to Fusion Centers Act of 2017, introduced by Rep. Martha McSally (R-AZ), would require an assessment of fusion center personnel needs.

The First Responder Access to Innovative Technologies Act, introduced by Rep. Donald Payne Jr. (D-NJ), reported this week by Homeland Security Today, would direct FEMA to develop a uniform process for reviewing grant applications seeking to purchase equipment or systems that do not meet or exceed applicable national voluntary consensus standards using funds from the Urban Area Security Initiative or the State Homeland Security Grant Program.

The Gains in Global Nuclear Detection Architecture Act, introduced by Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA), would direct DHS’s Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) to develop and maintain documentation that provides information on how the Office’s research investments align with gaps in the Global Nuclear Detection Architecture and the research challenges identified by the DNDO Director.

The Department of Homeland Security Clearance Management and Administration Act, introduced by Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), would improve the management and administration of the security clearance processes throughout DHS.

The House also passed the First Responder Identification of Emergency Needs in Disaster Situations Act sponsored by Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX).

*** When it comes to cyber and cyber protections, things are not so rosy.

The extent to which the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) National Cybersecurity and Communications Integration Center (NCCIC) has taken steps to perform each of its 11 statutorily required cybersecurity functions — such as being a federal civilian interface for sharing cybersecurity-related information with federal and nonfederal entities — the degree to which the center has adhered to the 9 principles required by the National Cybersecurity Protection Act of 2014 to perform its cybersecurity functions “is unclear because the center has not yet determined the applicability of the principles to all 11 functions, or established metrics and methods by which to evaluate its performance against the principles,” according to new Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit report.

NCCIC manages programs that provide data used in developing 43 products and services in support of its functions, including monitoring network traffic entering and exiting federal agency networks, and analyzing computer network vulnerabilities and threats. NCCIC products and services also are provided to its customers in the private sector; federal, state, local, tribal and territorial government entities; and other partner organizations. For example, NCCIC issues indicator bulletins, which can contain information related to cyber threat indicators, defensive measures and cybersecurity risks and incidents, and help to fulfill its function to coordinate the sharing of such information across the government.

GAO reported it “identified instances where NCCIC had implemented its functions in accordance with one or more of the principles. For example, consistent with the principle that it seek and receive appropriate consideration from industry sector-specific, academic, and national laboratory expertise, NCCIC coordinated with contacts from industry, academia and the national laboratories to develop and disseminate vulnerability alerts.”

But, “On the other hand,” GAO said it “also identified instances where the cybersecurity functions were not performed in accordance with the principles. For example, NCCIC is to provide timely technical assistance, risk management support and incident response capabilities to federal and nonfederal entities; however, it had not established measures or other procedures for ensuring the timeliness of these assessments. Until NCCIC determines the applicability of the principles to its functions and develops metrics and methods to evaluate its performance against the principles, the center cannot ensure that it is effectively meeting its statutory requirements.”

GAO said it further “identified factors that impede NCCIC’s ability to more efficiently perform several of its cybersecurity functions. For example, NCCIC officials were unable to completely track and consolidate cyber incidents reported to the center, thereby inhibiting its ability to coordinate the sharing of information across the government. Similarly, NCCIC may not have ready access to the current contact information for all owners and operators of the most critical cyber-dependent infrastructure assets. This lack could impede timely communication with them in the event of a cyber incident.”

GAO warned that, “Until NCCIC takes steps to overcome these impediments, it may not be able to efficiently perform its cybersecurity functions and assist federal and nonfederal entities in identifying cyber-based threats, mitigating vulnerabilities and managing cyber risks.”

In its written comments on a draft of GAO’s audit, DHS concurred with all nine recommendations.

DHS “also provided details about steps that it plans to take to address each of the recommendations, including estimated time frames for completion. If effectively implemented, these actions should enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of NCCIC in performing its statutory requirements,” GAO reported.

To more fully address the requirements identified in the National Cybersecurity Protection Act of 2014 and the Cybersecurity Act of 2015, GAO recommended that the DHS Secretary take the following nine actions:

  1. Determine the extent to which the statutorily required implementing principles apply to NCCIC’s cybersecurity functions.
  2. Develop metrics for assessing adherence to applicable principles in carrying out statutorily required functions.
  3. Establish methods for monitoring the implementation of cybersecurity functions against the principles on an ongoing basis.
  4. Integrate information related to security incidents to provide management with more complete information about NCCIC operations.
  5. Determine the necessity of reducing, consolidating, or modifying the points of entry used to communicate with NCCIC to better ensure that all incident tickets are logged appropriately.
  6. Develop and implement procedures to perform regular reviews of customer information to ensure that it is current and reliable.
  7. Take steps to ensure the full representation of the owners and operators of the nation’s most critical cyber-dependent infrastructure assets.
  8. Establish plans and time frames for consolidating or integrating the legacy networks used by NCCIC analysts to reduce the need for manual data entry.
  9. Identify alternative methods to collaborate with international partners, while ensuring the security requirements of high-impact systems.

 

Gibridnaya Voina vs. President Trump

Posted on by

Russia looks for weakness, they have found it. The War College understands and warns that Russia is at war with the West, is the West paying attention? Some are, others not so much. The White House relented or was ‘all-in’ from the beginning.

War has changed in the 21st century and combat is not always kinetic. Russia’s battlefields are the internet, financial markets and television airwaves. The goal is not necessarily to take and hold territory but to expand Russia’s sphere of influence and achieve political goals.

This is hybrid warfare, or gibridnaya voina, the much hyped and discussed way of war. But, as intelligence expert Mark Galeotti tells us on this week’s War College, Moscow’s conception of hybrid war isn’t new – it’s a reaction to and an Eastern adaptation of American military strategy during the Cold War. The goal is simple – expand Russian soft power to make the world more agreeable to the Kremlin’s point of view.

US eases sanctions against Russian Federal Security Service

“All transactions and activities” with participation of the Russian Federal Security Service are now authorized.
***

Related reading: Russian Hacking, We knew Because we had an Inside Operative(s)

So, it was the Kremlin’s political/diplomatic coup and it worked. Meanwhile, Trump authorized the U.S. Army to bolster Europe and NATO.

cyber_gl1 by zerohedge on Scribd

 

Obamas Partying in Caribbean with Richard Branson, Plotting

Posted on by

At least the entire Bush family held their pledge in the smooth transfer of power and respect for the Office of the Presidency. There were a few times Dick Cheney spoke out, yet he has and was careful to not to intrude with few exceptions over terror and diplomatic failures. Obama and his team are clearly plotting and his post presidency staff is working the ranks remaining inside the Beltway.

  More here from Political Insider

The Obamas, who traveled from a long weekend in Palm Springs to the islands on Branson’s private jet last Monday, were spotted on a neighboring British Virgin Island.

The pair are believed to be staying at one of Branson’s private islands. He owns both Necker and the recently opened eco-resort Moskito Island.  

Yesterday the former President released a statement through a spokesperson, rather than directly through his Twitter account, in response to Trump’s travel ban.

‘President Obama is heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country,’ according to a statement released by his post-presidential office.

‘Citizens exercising their Constitutional right to assemble, organize and have their voices heard by their elected officials is exactly what we expect to see when American values are at stake,’ Obama said. 

Obama, who said he would jump into the political fray when ‘core issues’ are at stake, invoked ‘comparisons to President Obama’s foreign policy decisions. More here.

Plotting

Politico:

Barack Obama and his aides expected to take on President Donald Trump at some point, but they didn’t think it would happen this quickly.

Now they’re trying to find the right balance on issues that demand a response, and how to use Obama to deliver the selective pushback. Obama and his team are monitoring what’s happening at the White House, and not ruling out the possibility that Obama will challenge Trump more forcefully in the coming months, according to people who’ve been in contact with the former president.

It depends on Trump. It also depends, the people close to the former president said Monday, on whether speaking out would just set him up to have no effect and be dismissed, and result in empowering Trump more, which is a very real worry for them.

From his vacation spot in the Caribbean, Obama has been keeping up with news from Washington and the protests around the country. Friends and former aides have been emailing and talking to him. His staff at his post-presidential office, still unpacking its boxes, told him about the reporters who kept asking, even in Trump’s first week as president, whether enough had happened already to meet his threshold to speak up.

He decided he finally had to say something about the immigration executive order that’s sparked outrage across the country. But he decided he couldn’t say it himself—not yet, at least.

The result was an extraordinary statement Monday from an Obama spokesperson that “President Obama is heartened by the level of engagement taking place in communities around the country.”

But Obama won’t weigh in on Trump’s firing deputy attorney general Sally Yates for refusing to enforce the executive order that sparked the statement, wary of getting drawn in to every battle.

Democrats are desperate for leadership, but some fear the battle could become all about him. There are frustrations over Obama’s handling of the party, and how he insisted on a low-drama transfer of power.

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) took a long pause when asked if he’d want to see Obama out more forcefully.

“I wouldn’t be opposed if he spoke out,” Lieu said. “I just don’t know what effect it would be.”

“In hindsight, I believe it was wrong for Barack Obama to normalize Donald Trump,” Lieu added.

Lieu isn’t the only one with hesitations. Several Democratic officials passed on the chance to say if Obama’s decision to wade in was a positive.

By focusing in the statement Monday on the efforts of protesters, Obama tried to draw a connection to the call to action to his supporters in his farewell address three weeks ago in Chicago. By including a line that “American values are at stake,” Obama issued a reminder of what would pull him in more.

What they don’t want, though, is for Obama to become the face of the anti-Trump movement.

“The only way that our values get reinstated is if people take this responsibility on themselves,” said Eric Schultz, a former White House aide who’s serving as a senior adviser to the former president’s office.

Obama knows there are many much more drastic measures that he might want to speak out on, and he’s saving more direct intervention for maximum impact, people familiar with his thinking say. He knows he only gets one chance at it being the first time that he takes on Trump himself.

“He’ll know the right time,” said one person involved. “He will have the best sense of when he needs to do it directly.”

That means there won’t be a statement from Obama on Trump’s Supreme Court pick, or on other more standard issues of the political fray, with the former president continuing to be concerned both about sticking to the tradition of giving deference to successors and worried that being too active will keep a new generation of Democrats from rising up.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra said he shared the concerns that Obama becomes the face of the opposition or makes it seem purely partisan.

“At the end of the day we have to have an all-hands-on-deck policy here to deal with this moving target,” Lieu said, but “I would welcome and acknowledge and accept whatever President Obama decides to do.”

Obama’s closest aides, though, have been speaking up with increasing force.

“Trump is succeeding in uniting the country — against him. Above all, he cares about his popularity. Will his yes men ever challenge him?” wrote Obama’s friend and former Education secretary, Arne Duncan.

Using Twitter so that they can get their thoughts out in a completely controlled way, they’ve hit him on the immigration executive order, the White House statement for Holocaust Remembrance Day that purposefully left out mention of the six million Jews killed and the reorganization of the National Security Council to elevate Trump chief strategist Steve Bannon.

Susan Rice, Obama’s former national security adviser, called the NSC move “stone cold crazy,” wondered about “what sickness enables” the Holocaust statement without the reference to the Jews and called the refugee order “nuts.”

Ben Rhodes, the former deputy national security adviser and now serving as a foreign policy adviser to Obama in his post presidency, slammed Trump and his White House for comparing Friday’s executive order to actions Obama took in 2011 to add screening to Iraqis after learning of a direct threat.

“This is a lie,” Rhodes wrote. “There was no ban on Iraqis in 2011. Anyone pushing that line is hiding behind a lie because they can’t defend the EO.” In another tweet, Rhodes added that Trump is doing “precisely what Obama argued against over and over and over again in 2015-2016.”

“I immigrated to US as 9yo & became UN ambass; other diplomats marveled @familiar American story. Now they’re horrified by unAmerican madness,” wrote Samantha Power, Obama’s former ambassador to the United Nations.

Another common question posed by former Obama aides: How would Republicans have reacted if Obama had done what Trump had, such as issue a Holocaust Remembrance Day statement that doesn’t specifically mention Jews?

“Just imagine the response if Pres. Obama did that,” Rice wrote.

“If Obama omitted the Jewish people from a statement on the Holocaust are we really supposed to believe the RNC wouldn’t have been critical?” Rhodes wrote.

Monday night, former Attorney General Eric Holder, another friend of Obama’s, spoke up for Yates.

“For standing up for what is right,” read the text over the photo of her he tweeted, “#THANKYOUSALLY.”

Flynn Lays Gauntlet to Iran Due Recent Violations

Posted on by
Iran violating United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231. General Flynn, the White House National Security Advisor has announced the gauntlet. NSC, General Flynn did not declare what the responses would be or consequences to be applied now or in the near future.
Image result for iran missile launch filephoto
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
February 01, 2017

Statement by the National Security Advisor

“Recent Iranian actions, including a provocative ballistic missile launch and an attack against a Saudi naval vessel conducted by Iran-supported Houthi militants, underscore what should have been clear to the international community all along about Iran’s destabilizing behavior across the Middle East.

The recent ballistic missile launch is also in defiance of UN Security Council Resolution 2231, which calls upon Iran “not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic missile technology.”

These are just the latest of a series of incidents in the past six months in which Houthi forces that Iran has trained and armed have struck Emirati and Saudi vessels, and threatened U.S. and allied vessels transiting the Red Sea.  In these and other similar activities, Iran continues to threaten U.S. friends and allies in the region.

The Obama Administration failed to respond adequately to Tehran’s malign actions—including weapons transfers, support for terrorism, and other violations of international norms.  The Trump Administration condemns such actions by Iran that undermine security, prosperity, and stability throughout and beyond the Middle East and place American lives at risk.

President Trump has severely criticized the various agreements reached between Iran and the Obama Administration, as well as the United Nations – as being weak and ineffective.

Instead of being thankful to the United States for these agreements, Iran is now feeling emboldened.

As of today, we are officially putting Iran on notice.”

In the 114th Congress, legislation passed the House known as the Iran Accountability Act H.S. 5631 that included the following action and text in part:

TITLE I—SANCTIONS WITH RESPECT TO ENTITIES OWNED BY

IRAN’S REVOLUTIONARY GUARD CORPS

Sec. 101. Imposition of sanctions with respect to the IRGC.

Sec. 102. Additional sanctions with respect to foreign persons that support or

conduct certain transactions with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard

Corps or other sanctioned persons.

Sec. 103. IRGC watch list and report.

Sec. 104. Imposition of sanctions against Mahan Air.

Sec. 105. Modification and extension of reporting requirements on the use of

certain Iranian seaports by foreign vessels and use of foreign

airports by sanctioned Iranian air carriers.

TITLE II—IRAN BALLISTIC MISSILE SANCTIONS

Sec. 201. Expansion of sanctions with respect to efforts by Iran to acquire ballistic

missile and related technology.

Sec. 202. Expansion of sanctions under Iran Sanctions Act of 1996 with respect

to persons that acquire or develop ballistic missiles.

Sec. 203. Imposition of sanctions with respect to ballistic missile program of

Iran.

Sec. 204. Expansion of mandatory sanctions with respect to financial institutions

that engage in certain transactions relating to ballistic

missile capabilities of Iran.

Sec. 205. Disclosure to the Securities and Exchange Commission of activities

with certain sectors of Iran that support the ballistic missile

program of Iran.

Sec. 206. Regulations.

TITLE III—SANCTIONS RELATING TO IRAN’S SUPPORT OF

TERRORISM

Sec. 301. Special measures with respect to Iran relating to its designation as

a jurisdiction of primary money laundering concern.

****

In part from Bloomberg:

Iran confirmed for the first time that it recently carried out a missile test and told other nations not to meddle in its defense affairs, hours after the U.S. called the launch unacceptable and vowed to act.

Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan on Wednesday said the test was part of Iran’s ongoing defense program, according to Tasnim news agency. “We have no other aim but to defend our interests and in this path we will neither seek permission nor allow anyone to interfere.”

The launch, in just the second week of Donald Trump’s presidency, is the first test of the new U.S. administration’s policy on the Islamic Republic. A United Nations resolution that endorses world powers’ 2015 nuclear deal with Iran calls on it not to undertake any activity related to ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear weapons, including launches using such ballistic technology. Iran has maintained it does not have a nuclear weapons program.

Image result for iran missile launch

After an emergency meeting of the Security Council on Tuesday that the U.S. called to discuss the missile issue, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley said Iran’s launch was “absolutely unacceptable.” The U.S. is “not going to stand by, you will see us call them out as we said we would and we will act accordingly,” she said, without elaborating.

 

 

Russian Hacking, We knew Because we had an Inside Operative(s)

Posted on by

This Executive Order is in draft form and does not include Russia, which is quite curious. The question of ‘why’ must be asked based on information noted below.

The Trump administration’s draft of the executive order on cybersecurity obtained by the Washington Post by April Glaser on Scribd

Those people involved in internet forensics and that track hackers, malicious code, malware, ransomware and intrusions are all dedicated to finding the cracks in code and even more finding the hackers while further understanding their code and patterns. I get emails about this topic every day that include a variety of global companies operating in this realm.

Back in December of 2015, ODNI James Clapper announced Russian intrusions into several American infrastructure locations. This was before the announcement of Russian intrusions into the U.S. political apparatus. In can be presumed the United States has long had the help of operatives inside adversarial countries, most of all Russia. Spies are out there and further, it is estimated there are 100,000 foreign spies inside the United States as of this moment. Heh, before Barack Obama left his presidency, he did expelled many Russians and closed two Russian compounds.

IN 2014, U.S. Cyber operations quietly penetrated Russian systems without declaring in specific language the exact operations.

In 2014, National Security Agency chief Adm. Mike Rogers told Congress that U.S. adversaries are performing electronic “reconnaissance” on a regular basis so that they can be in a position to disrupt the industrial control systems that run everything from chemical facilities to water treatment plants.

“All of that leads me to believe it is only a matter of when, not if, we are going to see something dramatic,” he said at the time.

Rogers didn’t discuss the U.S.’s own penetration of adversary networks. But the hacking undertaken by the NSA, which regularly penetrates foreign networks to gather intelligence, is very similar to the hacking needed to plant precursors for cyber weapons, said Gary Brown, a retired colonel and former legal adviser to U.S. Cyber Command, the military’s digital war fighting arm. More here.

It is unclear if we have recruited people inside Russia to work on the behalf of the United States, but clues tell us we did, with success.

In part from RFEL: At the simplest level, two FSB officers working in cyberdefense, Sergei Mikhailov and Dmitry Dokuchayev, as well as Ruslan Stoyanov, a former Interior Ministry official who works for the cyber security company Kaspersky Lab, are reportedly being charged with espionage.

According to Russian media reports, Mikhailov is suspected of alerting U.S. intelligence to the FSB’s connection to a Russian server-rental company called King Servers.

Last year, the U.S.-based cybersecurity firm ThreatConnect had identified King Servers as the nexus for hacking attacks against the United States.

If U.S. intelligence did indeed have a highly placed source like Mikhailov, it would explain why it was able to conclude with such a high degree of confidence that Russia was behind the cyberattacks during the election campaign.

The timing of the arrests and the timing of the decision by former U.S. President Barack Obama to declassify and make public parts of the U.S. intelligence report on the alleged Russian hacking also makes sense.

Mikhailov was arrested in December. And the U.S. released the intelligence report a month later, in January.

If Mikhailov was indeed a source, then Washington would have been reluctant to declassify its intelligence for fear of compromising him.

After he was arrested, this, of course, would no longer be an issue.

So far, so straightforward. Until it isn’t.

Leaks to the Russian media have also connected Mikhailov and his subordinate Dokuchayev to a hacker group known as Shaltai-Boltai, or Humpty Dumpty, which in the past has released embarrassing material about top Russian officials.

Vladimir Anikeyev, the founder of Shaltai-Boltai, has also been arrested, but is not being charged with espionage.

Moreover, Russian media reports claim that Dokuchayev is actually a former hacker known as Forb, who was serving a prison sentence for credit-card theft when he was recruited by the FSB, where he held the rank of major.

As Leonid Bershidsky notes in his column for Bloomberg, “parallel to their official duties, officers often run private security operations involving blackmail and protection. If Mikhailov ran such a business out of the FSB’s Information Security Center, he wouldn’t stand out among his colleagues.”

And it’s also not unusual for the FSB to recruit former hackers. In fact, it’s pretty much standard practice.

This is where the story diverts into the murky world of FSB officers and their civilian collaborators monetizing their positions and forming protection rackets.

“An FSB officer, recruited from the hacking community, can use his rank and position to obtain compromising material and sell it to wealthy clients. A team profiting from these opportunities can include both officers and civilians,” Bershidsky writes.

“The Russian government can hire such a team through intermediaries if it needs something sensitive done — but so can foreign intelligence services. It’s a murky world in which actors are both predator and prey. The Kremlin enjoys access to brilliant and unscrupulous people; the downside, of course, is that they may be hard to control.”

If you follow this line of logic, then it’s easy to imagine that Mikhailov and Dokuchayev inadvertently or unwittingly sold information exposing King Server’s FSB connections to a front for U.S. intelligence.

But the fact of the matter is we simply don’t know.

And if things aren’t confusing enough yet, there is also the matter of the bitter personal and clan rivalries in the shadow world of the Russian security services.

In a recent post on his blog KrebsOnSecurity, Brian Krebs, author of the book Spam Nation: The Inside Story Of Organized Cybercrime, suggested the whole affair might be traced to a personal rivalry between Mikhailov and Pavel Vrublevsky, an Internet businessman whose partner owns King Servers.

Mark Galeotti, an expert on Russia’s security services and a senior research fellow at the Institute of International Relations in Prague, notes that the FSB’s Information Security Center, which Mikhailov headed and where Dokuchayev was his subordinate, has emerged as “a pivotal agency” and “a source of power.”

And this makes it a prime arena for fierce rivalries and power plays.

“This is probably an intelligence leak that is being cleared up. But the question is: why now? And I wonder if domestic politics explains the leaking of the information now. It could be a rebuke to the FSB for having messed up,” Galeotti said on last week’s Power Vertical Podcast.