Cyber Intrusions, National Security Threat to Visa System

Primer: Listing a few demonstrating how vulnerable all segments of government, personal databases and corporations have forced lower standards of national security protections. Now with the threat to the State Department U.S. Visa system, terrorists and spies may exploit software security gaps. Anyone fixing this anywhere?

Cyber attack on Office of Personnel Management

Cyber attack of Obamacare

Cyber attack on hospital systems

Cyber attack on law firms

EXCLUSIVE: Security Gaps Found in Massive Visa Database

ABCNews: Cyber-defense experts found security gaps in a State Department system that could have allowed hackers to doctor visa applications or pilfer sensitive data from the half-billion records on file, according to several sources familiar with the matter –- though defenders of the agency downplayed the threat and said the vulnerabilities would be difficult to exploit.

Briefed to high-level officials across government, the discovery that visa-related records were potentially vulnerable to illicit changes sparked concern because foreign nations are relentlessly looking for ways to plant spies inside the United States, and terrorist groups like ISIS have expressed their desire to exploit the U.S. visa system, sources added.

“We are, and have been, working continuously … to detect and close any possible vulnerability,” State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement to ABC News.

After commissioning an internal review of its cyber-defenses several months ago, the State Department learned its Consular Consolidated Database –- the government’s so-called “backbone” for vetting travelers to and from the United States –- was at risk of being compromised, though no breach had been detected, according to sources in the State Department, on Capitol Hill and elsewhere.

As one of the world’s largest biometric databases –- covering almost anyone who has applied for a U.S. passport or visa in the past two decades -– the “CCD” holds such personal information as applicants’ photographs, fingerprints, Social Security or other identification numbers and even children’s schools.

Those records could be a treasure trove for criminals looking to steal victims’ identities or access private accounts. But “more dire” and “grave,” according to several sources, was the prospect of adversaries potentially altering records that help determine whether a visa or passport application is approved.

“Every visa decision we make is a national security decision,” a top State Department official, Michele Thoren Bond, told a recent House panel.

Last year alone, the State Department received -– and denied –- visa applications from more than 2,200 people with a “suspected connection to terrorism,” a senior Homeland Security Investigations official, Lev Kubiak, told lawmakers last month.

One official associated with State Department efforts to address the vulnerabilities said a “coordinated mitigation plan” has already “remediated” the visa-related gaps, and further steps continue with “appropriate [speed] and precision.”

“[We] view this issue in the lowest threat category,” the official said, noting that any online system suffers from vulnerabilities.

But speaking on the condition of anonymity, some government sources with insight into the matter were skeptical that CCD’s security gaps have actually been resolved.

“Vulnerabilities have not all been fixed,” and “there is no defined timeline for closing [them] out,” according to a congressional source informed of the matter.

“I know the vulnerabilities discovered deserve a pretty darn quick [remedy],” but it took senior State Department officials months to start addressing the key issues, warned another concerned government source.

Despite repeated requests for official responses by ABC News, Kirby and others were unwilling to say whether the vulnerabilities have been resolved or offer any further information about where efforts to patch them now stand.

PHOTO: U.S. Customs and Border Protection test new biometric technologies with face and iris cameras at the Otay Mesa border pedestrian crossing in San Diego, Calif. on Dec. 10, 2015.Richard Eaton/Demotix/Corbis
U.S. Customs and Border Protection test new biometric technologies with face and iris cameras at the Otay Mesa border pedestrian crossing in San Diego, Calif. on Dec. 10, 2015.more +

Nevertheless, many State Department officials questioned whether terrorists or other adversaries would have the capabilities to access and successfully exploit CCD data — even if the security gaps were still open.

CCD allows authorized users to submit notes and recommendations directly into applicants’ files. But to alter visa applications or other visa-related information, hackers would have to obtain “the right level of permissions” within the system -– no easy task, according to State Department officials.

There is also continuous oversight of the database and a series of other “fail-safes” built into the process, including rigorous in-person interviews and additional background checks, the officials said.

Kirby, the spokesman, described any recent security-related findings as a product of his department’s “routine monitoring and testing of systems” to “identify and remediate vulnerabilities before they can be exploited.”

PHOTO: The U.S. Department of State non-immigrant visa application website is seen in a screen grab made on March 30, 2016.ceac.state.gov
The U.S. Department of State non-immigrant visa application website is seen in a screen grab made on March 30, 2016.

State Department documents describe CCD as an “unclassified but sensitive system.” Connected to other federal agencies like the FBI, Department of Homeland Security and Defense Department, the database contains more than 290 million passport-related records, 184 million visa records and 25 million records on U.S. citizens overseas.

Without getting into specifics, sources said the vulnerabilities identified several months ago stem from aging “legacy” computer systems that comprise CCD.

“Because of the CCD’s importance to national security, ensuring its data integrity, availability, and confidentiality is vital,” the State Department’s inspector general warned in 2011.

The database’s software and infrastructure will be overhauled in the years ahead, according to the State Department.

Internet Provider Fees Going up to Subsidize the Poor?

More government freebies and paid for without your consent via hidden communications charges in those bills in your mailbox. No legislative measures for this? Sigh….

Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve Democrats’ plan:

WSJ: The expansion of the Lifeline subsidy, which has been in the works for several years, is intended to help lower-income people who have trouble affording broadband service on their own. Many experts worry that a digital divide is emerging between lower-income and higher-income households, at a time when Internet service has become important for everything from school work to job searches to veterans benefits.

Commissioners Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel cited examples of students who lurk on sidewalks outside coffee shops or schools to take advantage of Wi-Fi hot spots to complete schoolwork assignments.

FCC approves Internet subsidies for the poor

TheHill: Millions of poor Americans will be eligible for federal subsidies to help pay the cost of Internet service after new regulations were approved in a whirlwind Federal Communications Commission (FCC) meeting on Thursday.

The FCC voted to expand its 30-year-old Lifeline program, which has offered the monthly $9.25 subsidy for voice-only phone service.

The three Democratic commissioners approved the proposal over opposition from the two Republicans, who have concerns about the program’s budget.

The vote was delayed for more than three hours as Republicans accused FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler of scuttling a late-night compromise to bring them on board.

They said they had a deal with Democratic commissioner Mignon Clyburn before it fell apart under pressure from the chairman, members of Congress and outside groups.

“I must address the elephant in the room: the delay in the meeting and rumors about a proposed cap on the Lifeline program,” Clyburn said at the meeting. She said she engaged in negotiations with Republicans but ended up backing out because the deal did not “fully achieve my vision.”

Clyburn told reporters said she is five feet two inches tall but “not easily bullied.” Wheeler gave a one word response to charges that he bullied his fellow Democrat: “Balderdash.”

The expansion is a major win for advocates who increasingly see Internet access as a necessity for education, finding a job or simply communicating. They point to the 15 percent of Americans, concentrated in poor and rural communities, who do not use the Internet.

Families will only be able to receive one subsidy per household, which they can put toward paying for home Internet, phone or smartphone service — or a combination of the three under the program. Many current participants receive free basic cell service because the $9.25 subsidy covers the entire cost, but they would have to cover the remaining cost of a broadband connection.

The mobile industry waged a late lobbying campaign to get the FCC to lower some of its minimum standards of service, which cover the Internet speed, data allowance and minutes that companies must offer to participate. They also warned against completely phasing out voice-only cellphone service. They won some concessions, including reducing the number of minutes voice-only services will have to offer starting in December.

The rules approved Thursday would set up a single national database to allow phone and Internet providers to verify whether individuals are eligible by sharing information from other lower-income programs like Social Security, Medicaid and food subsidies.

One of the priorities was removing the burden on companies to determine whether a person is eligible for a subsidy. Some said that structure encouraged abuse and put companies in the uncomfortable position of holding sensitive customer information, opening them up to extra security and liability.

“The fox is no longer guarding the henhouse,” Wheeler said.

Lifeline currently has about 13 million subscribers, only a fraction of the 40 million who are eligible. The vote Thursday imposed a budget of $2.25 billion per year. The funds come from fees imposed by the phone companies.

The FCC expects the overhaul to increase participation, and it has projected that about 7 million more people could enroll before hitting the budget ceiling.

The First Drone, bin Ladin: No Trigger to Pull

The drone was a rather experimental aircraft and used for surveillance, none at the time were armed. Why? To arm a new UAV was out of the box thinking that quickly took on a new mission, the hellfire. Furthermore, even President GW Bush had to deal with a major impediment at the time, the missile treaty.

Remember the year as you listen. America has come a very long way..

WiB: Months before the 9/11 terror attacks, U.S. Air Force captain Scott Swanson was controlling a Predator drone over Afghanistan. Swanson and his team were looking for Osama Bin Laden … and they found him.

But this was months before the Predator could fire missiles. The drone operators could only watch as the terrorist leader walked away. When the military finally gave the drones weapons, Swanson became the first Predator operator fire a Hellfire missile in combat.

This week on War College, Swanson walks us through the early history of America’s killer drone program. To learn more, Swanson recommends reading Predator: The Secret Origins of the Drone Revolution by journalist Richard Whittle.

ISIS Caliphate Cyber Army Next Soft Targets

 

Companies could be the next ISIS target

MarketWatch: Companies could become larger targets of pro-Islamic State hackers, according to a security company that analyzes the group’s online activity.

The hacking capabilities of ISIS, which has spread propaganda through online channels such as Facebook and Twitter, remain nascent and relatively unsophisticated, according to researchers at the New York-based intelligence company Flashpoint. But the group has gained supporters with hacking skills who are helping propel the group’s online campaigns, the researchers say.

“These are individuals that are hackers first, ISIS supporters second,” says Laith Alkhouri, cofounder and director of research and analysis for the Middle East and North Africa at Flashpoint. “This is definitely a problem in the U.S. for individual businesses, especially individually businesses that are catering to customers digitally.”

Alkhouri says the pro-ISIS hackers typically deface websites to post messages in support of the group to gain notoriety and spread their propaganda. Flashpoint tracked one pro-ISIS hacking group by the end of 2014 and since then, at least five different groups have emerged, typically by defacing their websites. It’s difficult to know the full scope and number of ISIS-backing hackers because they’re behind computers, he says.

Pro-ISIS hackers have in the last year targeted government agencies, universities, businesses and media outlets of all sizes, according to a report released in August by the Middle East Media Research Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit. While ISIS hacking capabilities have been considered relatively unsophisticated and focused on companies that may not have a large security apparatus, some still worry the group could bring on more skilled hackers.

For example, on Aug. 8, ISIS supporters posted messages saying “i love you Islamic State & Jihad” on the website of a Cincinnati restaurant, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute. French media outlets held an emergency meeting after hack attacks on TV5Monde’s website in April 2015, according to The Guardian.

Small or medium-sized companies with amateur websites should monitor each page to ensure a subsection of the website hasn’t been defaced with pro-ISIS messages, Alkhouri says. Often, he says, companies may not immediately realize a subsection of their website has been taken over by ISIS supporters, and the message could hurt the brand among customers. Alkhouri says the group’s attacks could escalate as the hackers seek more notoriety and publicity for their acts.

One pro-ISIS hacking group claimed it planned to take down Google, according to Newsweek, but instead posted its messages on the website of an Indian company called Add Google Online.

The Pentagon has launched an online offensive against ISIS, according to reports, in an attempt to frustrate the group’s computer and phone networks.

A prominent ISIS hacker was killed in a drone strike last year, The Wall Street Journal reported, after U.S. and British officials determined he played a key role in sharpening the group’s computer skills.

*****

Meanwhile, the FBI is on the trail stemming from the attacks in Belgium where investigations of internet and electronic communications could reveal more on the cyberwar, soft targets.

FBI examining laptops linked to Belgian militants: source

Reuters: The Federal Bureau of Investigation is examining laptop computers linked to suspects in last week’s deadly Brussels bombings as investigators work to unravel the militant network behind the attacks.

The laptops arrived in the U.S. on Friday and now are being examined by FBI experts, a U.S. government source familiar with the matter said on Tuesday.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that Belgian authorities had provided copies of laptop hard drives to the FBI. It is not yet clear whether FBI technicians have recovered any significant data from the equipment the Belgians turned over, the source told Reuters.

U.S. officials have pledged support for Belgian efforts to crack down on militants behind the March 22 suicide bomb attacks at a Brussels Metro station and the city’s Zaventem Airport and other recent attacks.

The death toll from the attack on the airport, and the subsequent bombing of a rush-hour metro train, rose to 35 on Monday, excluding the three men who blew themselves up.

On Saturday, President Barack Obama said the a team of FBI agents was helping investigators on the ground in Belgium.

U.S. officials have said that Belgium’s security and intelligence agencies are overstretched and also hampered by internal political, financial and cultural problems, including a linguistic divide between French and Flemish speaking investigators.

 

Stalking Iran and bin Ladin with a Drone

We don’t have an intelligence problem, we don’t have a signit problem, not even a humint problem, we have a lack of will which translates to a lack of strategy and a mission objective. We did get Usama bin Ladin but what was the real gain?

At least for we weary Americans, we can take some confidence that we do have technology.

The Drone that Stalked Bin Laden

AirandSpace: In 2009, after two weeks of being embedded as an independent journalist with a small team of U.S. Marines in Afghanistan, I ended up at Combat Outpost Monti, a 14-acre camp of tents, plywood huts, a few concrete bunkers and makeshift guard towers, and a helicopter landing area, all ringed by collapsible barriers. At the outpost, one of hundreds built in Afghanistan during the 13 years of NATO combat operations, the Marines were training and fighting alongside Afghan National Army soldiers. COP Monti was less than 10 miles from the Pakistan border, near the Federally Administered Tribal Areas.

RQ-170

My time with the team was just about up when they were ordered to move up the Kunar River valley on a large combat operation. I stayed behind with the Afghan soldiers and, before I managed to find a ride out, weathered a mortar and rocket attack from combatants who had undoubtedly planned the attack and stockpiled the weapons for it at a site across the border, in Pakistan. Even if the Marines had still been there, they could not have pursued the attackers. Al-Qaeda, Taliban, and other belligerents have hidden from the U.S. military in Pakistan’s tribal areas, with varying success, since Americans entered Afghanistan in 2001.

“Everybody knows that the Taliban and other groups train, raise money, plan operations, and even recruit in the tribal areas of Pakistan,” says a retired U.S. infantry officer who served two tours in Afghanistan as well as a rotation in Iraq. (All of the sources quoted in this article spoke to me on the condition that I would not name them because they do not have permission to speak on the record.) “The insurgent leadership move men and materials into Afghanistan and attack American and coalition forces and assets.” Then, he says, they scurry back to Pakistan, where U.S. forces can’t follow.

At least, not on the ground.

Since 2004, the United States has followed insurgents into Pakistan, and has spied on and sometimes killed them there. The CIA flies Predator and Reaper unpiloted aerial vehicles over the tribal districts, often with the approval of Pakistani leaders, who have enemies of their own among the militants inhabiting the country’s northwest. Some missions though are conducted without approval from Pakistan’s authorities. For those missions, the CIA needed a different aircraft.

In late 2007, reporters and observers at Afghanistan’s Kandahar Airfield discovered that a new spy had joined the team. Grainy photographs emerged of what appeared to be an unmanned flying wing. Aviation reporter Bill Sweetman (who writes a column for this magazine) nicknamed the aircraft “the Beast of Kandahar,” and the name has stuck, though the airplane doesn’t have the ferocity or power of a beast. It is an unarmed, stealthy observer designed to glide silently over its targets and transmit photos, video, and other intelligence to a worldwide network of users. The Air Force acknowledged it in 2009 and revealed its official name: the Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel.

The RQ-170 is operated by the U.S. Air Force 432nd Wing, which also operates Predators and Reapers. The 432nd, stationed at Creech Air Force Base, northwest of Las Vegas, declined to speak about the Sentinel, and a spokesperson for Lockheed Martin would state only that it is a “low-observable Unmanned Aerial System” and that its “primary mission is Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance.”

Trying to put together a picture of how the RQ-170 might have been used in the mysterious Afghanistan-Pakistan border region, I spoke to a U.S. military pilot who had flown in the 2003 Iraq war and who had later served in a senior position in an unmanned aerial vehicle unit. “At the start of [Operation Iraqi Freedom], one of our missions was to fly right up against the Iranian border, with our targeting pods slewed to the side to scan for border activity,” the pilot said. “We were right on the border, but we couldn’t cross it. Their radar had us. We were doing ISR work, trying to figure out just what, if any, activity was taking place on and as far inside their border as possible.” One type of activity the U.S. military was trying to follow and disrupt was the Iranian manufacture of devices called EFPs—explosively formed penetrators—and their distribution to enemies in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Historically, insurgencies have required bases of support outside the contested country. “When discussing the RQ-170,” the pilot continued, “you have to understand that both Pakistan and Iran are outside of the ISR grasp of a targeting pod on an aircraft flying on the border, or of satellites. Sheer distance degrades certain aspects of a satellite’s ability to observe.”

The United States needed an intelligence-gathering platform that could avoid detection by Iranian and Pakistani radars. A retired military aviator who held a senior position at Kandahar Airfield during Sentinel operations pointed out that the UAV’s size and shape give it a low radar cross-section—the measure of the amount of energy a target reflects toward the radar that illuminated it. “It’s a large airfoil, roughly 65 to 70 feet in length,” he said. “Being a main wing only, with no fuselage and tail surfaces, drastically reduces both its radar signature and aerodynamic drag.” The Sentinel has the stealthy form of the 172-foot-span B-2 bomber, but is less than half its size.

Because the Sentinel is manufactured by the company that brought us the F-22 stealth fighter and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (and, before that, the F-117, SR-71, and U-2), we can assume that its skin uses radar-absorbent materials to further diminish radar return. Although its shape and materials keep it invisible to some radars, the aviator explained, others would be able to detect the aircraft but might not be able to track or target it.

At medium altitudes, the Sentinel’s light gray color enables it to blend in with the sky. It must also be quiet enough that it won’t be heard on the ground. An aviator who held a senior position at Kandahar Airfield during the Sentinel’s operation said its sound during takeoff wasn’t loud but distinctive—different from the propeller-driven UAVs and military jets that operated from the airfield.

Kandahar Airfield

An early image of the drone, at Kandahar Airfield before 2010. (Anonymous)

Engine noise or heat can never be eliminated but can be reduced. “[A stealth UAV] would use a high-efficiency turbofan engine, and its exhaust would be spread out as much as possible, masking both heat and noise,” the aviator said. A nozzle that spreads the exhaust eliminates concentrations of heat and helps mix hot exhaust with cooler ambient air.

An earlier, short-lived Lockheed Martin stealth UAV, the RQ-3 DarkStar, used a Williams-Rolls-Royce FJ44-1A turbofan, an engine favored for 1990s-era business jets, whose manufacturers claimed noise reductions. But those reductions were due partly to a change in the jets’ takeoff and landing profiles. Flight profile, according to an expert in unmanned aerial systems, is key to maintaining low observability. He explained that to fly low over a location of interest, an aircraft would most likely be put into a shallow descent, with its engine throttled back, so that it would essentially glide over the target. After one pass, “it will turn and gently increase power, but in a geometry such that nobody at or near the target could hear.” Once back at a higher altitude, the Sentinel would, if necessary, set up for another pass. This description suggests that maintaining continuous observation of a location would require two, possibly three, Sentinels flying overlapping patterns, not a sole craft orbiting.

**********

In December 2011, one or several of the Sentinel’s stealthy protections could have failed: An RQ-170 was taken prisoner in Iran. It had been on a reconnaissance mission and landed within the country, mainly intact, a few hundred miles from its home runway at Kandahar Airfield. The Iranians seized it, put it on display, and broadcast claims that they had spoofed its guidance system. Another possibility is that the UAV lost power or that its guidance system simply malfunctioned, an explanation that several Pentagon officials offered the press in the days after the incident.

“These systems have trip wires,” an aviator explained. “They’re meant to automatically return home, or at least to friendly airspace. But you have to consider: Was there a possibility of an oversight that the Iranians figured out they could exploit?” The guidance system, he noted, likely uses a combination of GPS and inertial navigation. With inertial navigation, highly sensitive accelerometers and gyros determine a craft’s route in three axes. Inertial systems cannot be fooled, though they can drift. GPS signals and guidance systems can be jammed or fooled; receivers can be sent signals making the onboard navigation system believe that the aircraft’s home airport is hundreds of miles from where the airport really is.

In 2008, at a Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics training exercise outside Yuma, Arizona, a GPS guidance unit was accidentally spoofed, with a near-disastrous result. The unit was attached to a Containerized Delivery System, a pallet with stuff to resupply ground troops—food, ammunition, water—that had been released from a C-130 transport, and was tracking a GPS signal so it would arrive at a certain point on the ground. In the exercise with the C-130 were a number of airplanes and helicopters, many of them using electronic jamming equipment or testing electronic warfare systems. In the signal-rich environment, the CDS, instead of landing at its programmed landing point, was heading straight for the Chevy Suburban that was waiting to return the pallet to base. Seeing the CDS headed for him, the Suburban driver stepped on it, but he wasn’t fast enough; the cargo crashed into the back of the van. The driver was uninjured.

Reporters have surmised that the Sentinel was in Iran to gather information about Iranian progress in developing nuclear weapons. Satellites can detect nuclear detonations, but to passively sniff for isotopic and other signs of uranium enrichment, analysts would need a platform much closer to the ground. Although reporters have also speculated that the Sentinel, to keep from being heard, flies upwards of 50,000 feet, it probably flies much lower—to be closer to its targets of observation. “Most aircraft are inaudible above 8,000 feet,” says a Department of Defense UAV expert. He explains that if a sensor is operated at a high altitude, it needs to be much larger and heavier to obtain the same degree of accuracy as smaller, lighter ones operating at low altitudes.

He also used intelligence from the MC-12 Liberty, another King Air, this one stuffed with a more exotic sensor suite than the Predator or Guardrail has, including a “complete collection, processing, analysis and dissemination system,” according to its U.S. Air Force fact sheet. The Liberty is brought to bear when commanders want to know what’s going on inside a building, whether people are “manufacturing explosives, packaging opium, or something else,” the officer said. The MC-12 “can sniff things out based on their chemical or metallurgical signatures. They’re incredibly accurate.”

But they aren’t stealthy and can fly only in airspace where the enemy has no radar. So is the purpose of the RQ-170 to carry any combination of the instruments deployed on the Predator, Guardrail, and Liberty into places where those three aircraft can’t go? A former unmanned aircraft systems commander answered: “Yes, definitely.”

The expert pointed out the two bumps on the top of the craft: “Not one antenna but two, so it can be serving multiple, distinct tasks, simultaneously, for users all over the world.”

**********

When I left Combat Outpost Monti—on a blue and white Bell B412 helicopter flown not by the U.S. military but by a Canadian contracting company working for the military (with the call sign “Molson Air,” for the Canadian beer)—we flew for roughly 15 minutes, then landed in a field next to a compound outside a small village. I checked my GPS; we were idling about a half-mile from Pakistan. Two U.S. military personnel, wearing camouflage and helmets unfamiliar to me, climbed aboard the helicopter. We then continued the journey to Asadabad.

A model of the RQ-170, which Iran claimed to have reverse-engineered, on display in Tehran (The Office of the Supreme Leader, Iran)

After returning home, I got an inkling of what those guys in unfamiliar camouflage might have been doing there near the Pakistan border and how they may have used the RQ-170. I learned about counter-terrorism units in a program called Omega, which combined special forces with CIA teams for missions into Pakistan to conduct raids on Taliban and other insurgent and terrorist targets. Putting this information together with what my sources had described, I had little doubt that intelligence about those targets was gathered in part by Sentinels.

The joint CIA–special operations forces mission that would best show off the RQ-170’s surveillance capabilities was conducted years later, in support of the SEAL team who, on the night of May 1, 2011, flew into Pakistan on two modified Black Hawk helicopters, entered a compound in Abbottabad, and killed Osama bin Laden. U.S. government officials told Washington Post reporter Greg Miller that stealth drones had flown dozens of missions to monitor the Abbottabad compound.

My own experience in Afghanistan suggests other missions the RQ-170 might have flown. I often heard intelligence officers or patrol commanders request “a pattern of movement” or a “pattern of life” for targets and enemy forces. To provide that information, analysts would draw data from a number of types of surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft. Learning about the capabilities of these aircraft helped me understand the kind of surveillance the Sentinel might perform.

One of the most important reconnaissance aircraft collecting data for the coalitions in Iraq and Afghanistan is also one of the least known: the Northrop Grumman RC-12 Guardrail. “The Guardrail is probably the most boring-looking airplane in the Department of Defense, but in my opinion, it brings some of the most important capabilities to ground forces,” said the retired infantry officer. The RC-12 is a Hawker Beechcraft Super King Air sprouting antennas to collect signals intelligence. “Looks like a flying porcupine, with all the antennas dangling off it,” the officer said. He regularly requested the Guardrail’s listening capabilities to identify, locate, and track insurgents and to help develop ground operations. The Guardrail does not process the data it collects; instead, it transmits it via a secure satellite link to locations in the United States or, according to a U.S. Army fact sheet, in Germany or Korea, where the data is processed and the results beamed back to the aircraft, which transmits it to the commanders who requested it. It happens fast. Within a second, the system can identify an individual’s or a group’s precise location. It takes a little longer to record and analyze their transmissions.

“I’ve tasked all sorts of assets, manned and unmanned, to look at ground targets and areas of interest,” said the infantry officer. For imagery intelligence, he said, “we used Predator a lot.”

“The beauty of how intelligence gets disseminated with the systems we have in place is that you just request an intelligence product, and you get it based on classification level and need-to-know,” says the aviator who served in a senior position at Kandahar Airfield. “You don’t ask for a platform, just a product. Much of the time intelligence users won’t know they are seeing something that was sourced from a Sentinel.”

The Sentinel is one platform in a complex intelligence system that collects information from every U.S. military command around the world. Analysts at various centers process 20 terabytes of data, of all intelligence types, every day. “Once each type is processed into a product, then it gets fused together with other intelligence products to give a multidimensional picture,” the aviator says.

“Think of a compound, say in Abbottabad, Pakistan, one with some walls that imagery shows to be 16 feet high. Combine that knowledge with signals collections of those in and around the structure, learn the pattern of life, maybe pick up a tall guy walking around, and maybe do some sniffing for weapons in the compound, soak up computer noise that can be analyzed, and then put that together with some human intelligence gathered on the ground about who that tall guy is.” He laughs. “There you go.”