Tag: spy

Posted on

A Ghost in the Machine: Chinese FIS Covert Collection Devices in Solar Inverters

espionage, spy, sabotage, subversion, intelligence, counterintelligence, counterespionage, c. constantin poindexter

National security operatives have found communication devices embedded within Chinese-manufactured solar power inverters and batteries, again raising significant concerns about the security of critical energy infrastructure. These devices, capable of bypassing established cybersecurity measures, appear to be capable of remote manipulation. Successful exploitation could lead to widespread power grid disruption. The following is my take on the technical aspects of the devices, design and data transmission methodologies, the potential locations of data collection receivers, and if their deployment aligns with known Chinese Foreign Intelligence Service (FIS) models and methodology. The following is based on my review of NON-CLASSIFIED INFORMATION.

The integration of renewable energy sources into U.S. power grids has been a cornerstone of our efforts to combat climate change. Central to this integration are power inverters, devices that convert direct current (DC) from solar panels and wind turbines into alternating current (AC) suitable for distribution across the power grid. We now have a really disconcerting development: the discovery of rogue communication devices within Chinese-manufactured inverters and batteries.

Device Composition and Integration

Investigations have revealed that certain Chinese-made solar inverters and batteries contain undocumented communication modules, including cellular-like mechanisms. These components are not listed in product specifications and are capable of establishing independent communication channels, effectively bypassing existing cybersecurity firewalls . The presence of such modules allows for potential remote access and control. (More about this in the counterintelligence section below.) These devices are covertly integrated into the hardware of the inverters and batteries making detection challenging during normal inspections. Their design suggests a deliberate effort to conceal them. The functionalities that can be activated remotely are also a BIG red flag. The integration of these components indicates a high level of sophistication and planning, aligning with tactics observed in state-sponsored cyber-espionage and sabotage operations.

Communication Channels

The devices appear to utilize various communication methods to transmit data, including cellular networks, perhaps local bluetooth-like transmission and potential satellite communications. The use of satellite communication modules such as the Iridium 9603 allows for global coverage and low-latency transmission. This feature would enable remote control capabilities even in areas with limited terrestrial network access .

Data Exfiltration and Command Reception

These communication modules can facilitate both the exfiltration of data from the energy platforms and the reception of remote commands. This bidirectional communication capability poses enormous risks because of the potential extraction of sensitive information and the execution of commands that could disrupt or damage energy infrastructure.

Potential Locations of Data Collection Receivers

The specific locations of collection receivers are classified, however, the nature of the communication methods suggests that data could be transmitted to centralized servers managed by entities affiliated with or under the influence of Chinese FIS. The use of satellite communications makes the identification of data endpoints complicated, as signals can be received from literally any point on the globe. The Chinese station in Cuba would be convenient, however, given China’s extensive global infrastructure and technological reach, it is plausible that transmissions could be routed through multiple international nodes before reaching a final collection point.

Alignment with Chinese Foreign Intelligence Service Models

China’s National Intelligence Law mandates that all organizations and citizens support, assist, and cooperate with state intelligence operations. This legal framework provides Chinese FIE with broad authority to compel companies to integrate surveillance and data collection mechanisms into their products. The deployment of rogue communication devices in energy infrastructure aligns with this model, facilitating intelligence gathering and potential sabotage capabilities. Chinese FIS operations employ a combination of cyber and HUMINT tactics to penetrate foreign systems. The integration of clandestine communication devices into critical infrastructure represents yet another example of these tactics, blending hardware manipulation with cyber capabilities. These tactics are consistent with the strategy of the Ministry of State Security and the People’s Liberation Army’s intelligence units that seek to enhance China’s advantages through technological means.

Implications for Global Energy Security

The discovery of these devices in solar components has grave implications for U.S. energy grid security. The potential for remote manipulation of power systems threatens not only the stability of national grids but also the safety and well-being of populations reliant on consistent energy delivery. The erosion of trust in international supply chains is also a grave peril, leading to increased protectionism and damage to global trade relationships. The integration of undocumented communication devices into Chinese-manufactured solar inverters and batteries represents a grave security concern. The technical sophistication of these components, coupled with their potential alignment with Chinese FIS objectives, underscores the need for new scrutiny and enhanced TSCM practices with regards to foreign-manufactured critical infrastructure components.

The Counterintelligence View

This is a bit technical so bear with me. There is a method to the madness. Problem 1: Inverters are generally equipped with ARM Cortex-M or Cortex-A series microcontrollers that serve as the core processing units for power conversion and monitoring. The covert components appear to use separate, low-power System-on-Chip (SoC) devices (think “MediaTek MT6261D or Espressif ESP32-S3 series”) which deploy onboard baseband processors capable of handling GSM/3G/4G/LTE communications. These SoCs are preloaded with proprietary firmware and operate outside the visibility of the host inverter firmware. These covert devices appear to use integrated RF transceivers on GSM bands, contain embedded GPS modules for geolocation, and have I2C or UART interface capability for stealth data siphoning from inverter controller. Unless there is a simple process for detecting the very small loss of power or disabling the cellular capability, the entire product must be scrapped. Jamming transmissions is not a feasible countermeasure considering the enormous geographic dispersion of a popular solar system component.

A transmission requires a collection part, a transmitter, something that functions as an antenna, and a power source. Problem 2: There is a redundant power supply path. Some units tap the inverter’s DC bus (48V nominal) deploying step-down DC-DC converters to deliver the 3.3V/5V required by the communication hardware. So, the shit-rogue device can acquire and/or broadcast even if the main inverter is powered down (assuming there is residual DC input from the solar panels or battery storage). Sophisticated design is evidenced by minimal-energy storage to allow burst transmissions, EMI shielding to reduce signatures and transient suppression to avoid triggering protective circuits. Again, there may not be any feasible technical countermeasure other than tossing the entire thing in the garbage.

Problem 3: Perhaps the most concerning feature is the presence of covert communication interfaces. The presence of miniature embedded GSM modules that can transmit over mobile networks is a clear indicator of the device’s true purpose. These can be paired with internal PCB-trace antennas which makes detection extremely difficult without picking the entire product apart and/or conducting a full-spectrum TSCM RF analysis. Some units, notably ones used in off-grid or critical infrastructure installations, contain Iridium 9603 transceivers. The Iridium Short Burst Data (SBD) service enables low-latency two-way messaging literally anywhere on Earth. BLE 4.0/5.0 (“Bluetooth”) modules are sometimes embedded to allow nearby short-range device pairing, enabling covert firmware updates or configuration changes via proximity-based access. From a counterintelligence perspective this one is the easiest to detect as it requires the presence of field operatives.

Problem 4: Collection and hijack are extremely problematic. The rogue devices are capable of silently intercepting inverter data via UART snooping of RTU traffic between the inverter controller and grid management mechanisms. RS-485 differential signal bridging architecture in these devices allows simultaneous passive read and active command injection. So, not only can they passively collect performance, grid sync, and telemetry but also insert remote commands (think “demand spikes, phase shifts, or false trip signals”) which could destabilize grid operations. Countermeasure? The garbage bin.

In truth, we are fortunate to have discovered this attempt to compromise these components. Once operational, detection would have been extremely difficult. The unclassified exhibits demonstrate very sophisticated anti-forensic features. They present obfuscated PCB silkscreening or black conformal coating as a physical deception, RF shielding within inverter chassis grounding, no identifiable MAC addresses and time-triggered sleep cycles which makes TSCM useless unless the sweep is conducted at the exact moment of a transmission. Encrypted communication via proprietary, obfuscated firmware (AES-128 in CTR) further points a finger at a sophistication attributable to state-level FIS. China’s intelligence doctrine views everything; commerce, academia, and even kids’ toys as vectors and to their advantage. Chinese “unrestricted warfare” doctrine, i.e., any mass-produced consumer or industrial good may serve as a channel for acquisition or disruption, explains the rogue components in solar inverters, another part of a larger, systematic effort to weaponize supply chains and exploit technological dependencies.

~ C. Constantin Poindexter, Master in Intelligence Studies, Graduate Certificate in Counterintelligence, CISA/NICCS OSINT Certified

References

Reuters. (2025, May 14). Rogue communication devices found in Chinese solar power inverters. Retrieved from: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/climate-energy/ghost-machine-rogue-communication-devices-found-chinese-inverters-2025-05-14/

TechRadar. (2025, May 14). Chinese energy tech exports found to contain hidden comms and radio devices. Retrieved from: https://www.techradar.com/pro/security/chinese-energy-tech-exports-found-to-contain-hidden-comms-and-radio-devices

DIY Solar Forum. (2025, May 14). Rogue Chinese communication devices found in Solar inverters. Retrieved from: https://diysolarforum.com/threads/rogue-chinese-communication-devices-found-in-solar-inverters.104871/page-4

Wikipedia. (2025, April). National Intelligence Law of the People’s Republic of China. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Intelligence_Law_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China

Jamestown Foundation. (2024, March). Foreign Intelligence Hackers and Their Place in the PRC Intelligence Community. Retrieved from: https://jamestown.org/program/foreign-intelligence-hackers-and-their-place-in-the-prc-intelligence-community/

Posted on

The DeepSeek Threat: A Counterintelligence and National Security Concern

deepseek, intelligence, counterintelligence, espionage, counterespionage, export control, spy

Artificial intelligence (AI) is emerging as a transformative force in global economic, technological and military domains. Among the newest threats in the domain of adversarial AI is “DeepSeek,” a China-based generative AI platform. According to the bipartisan House Select Committee on the CCP, DeepSeek poses a serious national security risk to the United States, and I pose a grave counterintelligence one as well. I agree with the Committee’s four primary findings regarding DeepSeek and have included here some corroborating evidence and light analysis of the platform’s broader counterintelligence implications.

I. Data Funnel to the PRC through Military-Linked Infrastructure

DeepSeek funnels Americans’ data to the PRC through backend infrastructure connected to a U.S.-sanctioned Chinese military company. This is consistent with open-source cybersecurity and export control reporting. DeepSeek is affiliated with Beijing DeepSeek Technology Co., which maintains close technical cooperation with state-controlled firms like Tsinghua Tongfang Co., a subsidiary of China Electronics Corporation (CEC), a company sanctioned by the U.S. Department of Defense for its affiliation with the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). U.S. officials have long warned that Chinese firms (even ostensibly private ones) are legally required under China’s 2017 National Intelligence Law to support state intelligence activities. Thus, even passive collection of user queries and metadata from American users can be directly routed to China’s military-civil fused architecture. Cloud traffic analysis tools confirm that some of DeepSeek’s endpoints resolve to IP addresses controlled by Alibaba Cloud and Huawei Cloud, two platforms repeatedly identified for surveillance and data harvesting risks.

II. Covert Propaganda Alignment with CCP Objectives

DeepSeek’s second threat involves covert manipulation of search and response results to align with CCP propaganda. Chinese 2021 ‘Regulations on Recommendation Algorithms’ mandates that AI systems uphold “core socialist values.” Content analysis of DeepSeek’s outputs reveals alignment with these mandates. For instance, when queried about events such as the Tiananmen Square massacre or Uyghur internment camps, DeepSeek either deflects, omits content, or offers CCP-aligned narratives. This contrasts with U.S.-based LLMs that provide factual accounts supported by open-source citations. This form of algorithmic censorship mirrors practices deployed by Baidu and Sogou and serves as a soft power tool for narrative control.

III. Theft of U.S. AI Models through Distillation Techniques

The Committee finds that DeepSeek likely used model distillation to unlawfully replicate U.S. LLMs, a postulate supported by emerging AI security analyses. Distillation, a process whereby a smaller model is trained to mimic a larger one, is legal when trained on open data but when done using unauthorized API access or scraping against licensed outputs, it constitutes intellectual property theft. Reports from AI security firm Mithril Analytics suggest that DeepSeek’s model shows pattern duplication, formatting, and semantic behavior strikingly similar to OpenAI’s GPT-3.5 and Anthropic’s Claude-1.6 This aligns with China’s broader strategy of intellectual property misappropriation, which the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative has labeled a “national policy.”

IV. Use of Prohibited NVIDIA Chips in Defiance of U.S. Export Controls

The fourth finding, that DeepSeek operates on advanced U.S.-made chips which circumvent export restrictions, reflects a broader problem of enforcement challenges in U.S. semiconductor control policy. According to internal supply chain tracking data and reporting from The Information and Reuters, DeepSeek appears to operate on thousands of NVIDIA A100 and H100 GPUs. These high-performance chips were restricted for export to China under the Biden Administration’s 2022 CHIPS Act enforcement measures. Nevertheless, Chinese AI companies have procured these processors through shell companies and resellers in Singapore, Hong Kong, and the UAE. The massive computing power needed to train and operate a GPT-scale model would be nearly impossible without these restricted components, confirming that DeepSeek benefits from illicitly obtained U.S. hardware.

Counterintelligence Threat of DeepSeek

DeepSeek poses a significant and multifaceted counterintelligence threat to the United States and its allies. The platform’s capacity to collect metadata, behavioral data, and potentially personally identifiable information (PII) from Americans creates an intelligence bonanza for Chinese FIS. Unlike traditional espionage, AI systems like DeepSeek operate invisibly and at scale, accumulating user data that can be used for profiling, influence operations, and further AI training purposes that effectively turn every American interaction into an exploitable data point.

DeepSeek represents a vector for information warfare. By manipulating answers to politically sensitive questions, promoting false equivalency in authoritarian narratives, and suppressing democratic values, the platform operates as a digital emissary of the CCP’s ideological and subversive goals. Such influence is subtle, persistent, and if not countered, capable of reshaping discourse as we have observed within our own political discourse.

The use of stolen U.S. intellectual property to build DeepSeek creates long-term strategic disadvantage. This is not a new peril. Not only does IP theft compromise American innovation, but it enables a hostile foreign power to accelerate its AI capability with limited investment. The widespread use of DeepSeek in academic or research settings could further enable China to monitor cutting-edge developments in Western institutions of higher education, R&D laboratories and to conduct surveillance on American professionals for recruitment by Chinese FIS or its allied FIEs.

Further, the misuse of restricted U.S. technology in DeepSeek is a direct challenge to the U.S. export control regime. The failure to prevent such chips from reaching adversarial AI projects undermines the deterrent effect of these restrictions and signals enforcement vulnerabilities to other hostile actors. This threat is potentially multiplicative as the CCP may allow restricted technology delivery to other state and non-state threat actors.

These grave threats demand a comprehensive counterintelligence and more broadly, national security strategy, one that includes aggressive export control enforcement, increased funding for AI provenance tracking, sanctions against companies that enable illicit procurement, and public awareness campaigns warning users of the risks posed by foreign AI platforms. Data is NOT merely informational. It is strategic. DeepSeek, if left unchecked, could be the spearhead of the CCP’s broader ambition to dominate the next frontier of digital power.

~ C. Constantin Poindexter, MA in Intelligence Studies, Graduate Certificate in Counterintelligence, JD, NICCS/CICS Certified OSINT

Footnotes

U.S. Department of Defense. “DOD Releases List of Additional ‘Communist Chinese Military Companies’ Operating in the U.S.” (2020).

National Intelligence Law of the PRC, Articles 7 and 10 (2017).

Recorded Future. “Chinese Cloud Providers and the Global Data Exfiltration Risk.” (2023).

Cyberspace Administration of China. “Provisions on the Administration of Algorithmic Recommendation for Internet Information Services.” (2021).

Freedom House. “China’s Model of Digital Authoritarianism.” (2022).

Mithril Analytics. “Behavioral Fingerprinting of LLMs: Identifying Unauthorized Model Replication.” (2024).

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative. “2023 Special 301 Report on Intellectual Property Rights.”

The Information. “Inside China’s Underground Chip Market.” (2024).

Reuters. “Exclusive: China’s AI Firms Bypass U.S. Chip Ban with Grey Market Imports.” (2024).

Posted on

Disinformation as “Insurgency”, an American Constitutional View

disinformation, misinformation, espionage, counterespionage, counterintelligence, spy, subversion, psyops

I read with a great deal of interest Jacob Ware’s article “To fight disinformation, treat it as an insurgency” that appeared recently in The Strategist, an Australian Strategic Policy Institute publication. I have always held my own ideas about disinformation, more specifically “inoculation” as a countermeasure and recommending instruction from a very young age much as grade schools do in the baltic states. Ware’s article tackles the subject matter as a ‘control social media’ issue. I do not disagree with the importance of media responsibility for moderation of certain types of content, Ware appropriately identifies “overlook[ing] the important role of digital consumers”, but doubles down on content control. The article suggests that social media companies, as central nodes in the information ecosystem, must be pressured into moderating content more aggressively as much as the importance of digital consumers themselves being hardened against manipulation (“inoculation” as I have written in previous scholarship”. Control, compelling in its framing, raises some not insignificant constitutional issues in the context of the United States, particularly with regard to the First Amendment’s protections of speech, association, and press.

Framing Disinformation as Insurgency: Strategic and Legal Ramifications
Ware’s analogy between insurgencies and disinformation campaigns conveys the existential threat that hostile narratives, particularly those that foreign actors pose to democratic stability. Comparing disinformation actors to terrorist insurgents invites the application of military-style containment and suppression tactics, perhaps even the “cyber-kinetic” removal of bad actors (i.e., content moderation and bans), the targeting of ideological hubs (e.g., online communities, networks, influencers, etc.), and critically, the enforcement of norms through government-backed initiatives.

In the U.S. legal context, much of this may be a non-starter. Insurgents and terrorists operate outside the protection of constitutional law, whereas digital speakers, however misinformed or malicious, are presumptively entitled to the protections of the First Amendment. The Constitution does not permit the government to silence unpopular, false or even offensive ideas unless they meet strict criteria for incitement, true threats, or defamation. This legal boundary sharply limits the government’s ability to treat digital speech as a national security threat without triggering robust judicial scrutiny, even if that information is objectively dangerous disinformation.

Section 230 and Platform Immunity: The Epicenter of the Debate
The article criticizes Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (1996), which shields internet platforms from liability for user-generated content. This statute is often viewed as the legal linchpin that enabled the growth of the modern internet, on the whole a pretty positive thing. Ware argues that these protections prevent platforms from being held accountable and serve as a digital safe haven for malign actors. From a policy standpoint, this critique doesn’t hold much merit. Critics across the political spectrum argue that Section 230 incentivizes platforms to prioritize engagement and profit over truth and social stability, however, repealing or modifying Section 230 would not directly authorize government censorship. It WOULD expose platforms to civil liability for failing to moderate. Any new federal statute that imposes content-based restrictions or penalties would need to meet all prongs of the constitutional free speech tests and modern U.S. jurisprudence. The courts have routinely ruled that platforms are private entities with their own First Amendment rights therefore even in the absence of Section 230, the government would not be able to compel social media companies to carry or remove specific content unless it satisfies narrow constitutional exceptions.

Free Speech: A Distinctly American Commitment
A central theme in the article is the frustration that American-style free speech doctrines allow dangerous ideas to circulate freely online. Ware writes from an Australian perspective. The article praises the European Union’s Digital Services Act and Australia’s eSafety initiatives as superlative regulatory models. Under those statutory regimes platforms face stiff penalties for failing to suppress harmful content. These approaches may appear pragmatic but they clearly represent a sharp divergence from U.S. legal culture.

The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment prohibits government abridgement of speech, including offensive, deceptive, or politically inconvenient speech. In United States v. Alvarez (2012), the Supreme Court struck down a federal law criminalizing false claims about military honors, holding that even deliberate lies are constitutionally protected unless they cause specific, fixable harm. Further, in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the Court established that even advocacy of illegal action is protected unless it is directed to inciting imminent lawless action AND is likely to produce such action. So, even under the noble pretext of national defense, any proposal that seeks to directly regulate speech must reconcile with this robust jurisprudence. Foreign governments might be able to implement speech controls without constitutional constraints. We cannot. The U.S. must address disinformation through less intrusive, constitutionally sound means.

Counterinsurgency in a Civilian Space: Policing Thought and Risking Overreach
Ware’s counterinsurgency metaphor extends beyond moderation into behavioral engineering, winning the “hearts and minds” of digital citizens. This vision includes public education, civilian fact-checking brigades, and a sort of civic hygiene campaign against harmful content. Although such measures may be effective as psychological operations (PSYOPs), the distinction between persuasion and indoctrination must be carefully managed in a free society.

There is legitimate concern that state-sponsored resilience campaigns could slip into propaganda or viewpoint discrimination, especially when political actors define what constitutes “disinformation.” The inconvenient truth is that the label of “misinformation” has been applied inconsistently, sometimes suppressing legitimate dissent or valid minority viewpoints. The First Amendment’s commitment to a “marketplace of ideas theory” assumes that truth ultimately prevails in open debate, not through coercive narrative management.

There is another danger. Using the tools of counterinsurgency, even rhetorically, raises alarms about militarizing civil discourse and legitimizing authoritarian measures under the guise of “national security.” In Boumediene v. Bush (2008), the Court warned against extending military logic to civilian legal systems. Applying wartime strategy to cultural or political disputes in the civilian cyber domain risks undermining the very liberal values the state claims to protect.

An Appropriate Role for Government
Despite consitutional guardrails, the federal government is not powerless. Several constitutionally sound measures remain available. These approaches avoid entangling the government in the perilous business of adjudicating truth while still defending the information ecosystem.:

Transparency Requirements – Congress can require social media companies to disclose their moderation policies, algorithmic preferences, and foreign funding sources without dictating content outcomes.

Education Initiatives – Civics education and media literacy programs are constitutionally permissible and could help inoculate the public against disinformation without coercion.

Voluntary Partnerships – The government can engage with platforms voluntarily, offering intelligence or warnings about malign foreign influence without mandating suppression.

Targeting Foreign Actors – The government can lawfully sanction, indict, or expel foreign individuals and entities engaged in coordinated disinformation campaigns under laws governing espionage, foreign lobbying, or election interference.

Ware’s comparison of disinformation to insurgency is strategically evocative, but its prescriptive implications clash with foundational American principles. The First Amendment might seem inconvenient, but it was designed to prevent precisely the kind of overreach that counterinsurgency measures invite. Democracies do not defeat authoritarianism by adopting its tools of censorship and narrative control. If the United States is to confront the threats of disinformation effectively, it must do so in a way that affirms rather than undermines what makes us distinctively American. Educating, not censoring; persuading, not suppressing; and building durable civic institutions capable of withstanding the torrent of falsehoods without succumbing to the lure of government-controlled truth are imperative. Freedom remains the best antidote to tyranny ONLY if we remain vigilant in its defense.

~ C. Constantin Poindexter,

  • Master of Arts in Intelligence
  • Graduate Certificate in Counterintelligence
  • Undergraduate Certificate in Counterintelligence
  • Former I.C. Cleared Contractor
Posted on

The Peril of Pentagon Orders Russian Cyber Defense ‘Stand Down’

cyber, cyber operations, cyber threat, espionage, counterespionage, counterintelligence, russia

It if doesn’t frighten you, it should. “The Trump administration has ordered the United States to end offensive cyber operations targeting Russia, . . . (US News, Mar. 2025) Russia, or more particularly the Russian FIE poses a grave threat to U.S. national security. Threats posed by this state-actor and its state-supported proxies are grave both in terms of capability and intent. Russia has consistently demonstrated its capacity to execute sophisticated cyber operations targeting governments, corporations, critical infrastructure and individuals. The perils are multi-dimensional, including espionage, cyber warfare (or “war in the grey”), information operations, subversion, ransoming and economic disruption. Examples of Russia’s malign and nefarious cyber activity are plethora however recently the U.S. and Ukraine seem to enjoy the brunt of Putin’s ire. Here are some points to consider:

1. State-Sponsored Cyber Warfare

  • Russia’s GRU Unit 74455, a/k/a “Sandworm” conducts offensive cyber operations, often targeting critical infrastructure the U.S., its allies and shared economic interests.
  • The 2017 NotPetya attack caused over $10 billion in global damages, hitting Maersk, FedEx, and other major commercial concerns. This agent was designed for penetration of a particular type of accounting software used in Ukraine. While not specifically targeting the U.S., the global fallout of NotPetya getting into the wild is instructive. In financial terms, it was among the greatest events of “collateral damage during war” ever recorded.
  • Russian hackers have targeted Ukraine’s energy sector repeatedly. They have demonstrated a clear ability to take down critical infrastructure. Evidence of Russian FIS’s penetration of U.S. utilities, likely in search of weakness to exploit or to leave ‘back doors’ for future exploitation, has also been detected. Notably, Dragonfly 2.0, a Russian state-sponsored hacking group (also known as Energetic Bear), successfully infiltrated U.S. energy sector systems, including nuclear power plants.

2. Cyber Espionage

  • Groups like APT29 (Cozy Bear) and APT28 (Fancy Bear), linked to Russian FIE have hacked into government agencies. They have repeatedly compromised U.S. official networks. The SolarWinds penetration in 2020 is instructive.
  • Ongoing efforts to steal classified or proprietary information from defense, aerospace, and technology sectors save Russia billions in research and development. From 2020 to 2021, Russian hackers compromised multiple U.S. defense contractors that provide support to the Department of Defense (DoD), U.S. Air Force, and Navy APT28 “Fuzy Bear” stole information related to weapon systems (including fighter jets and missile defense technologies, communications and surveillance systems, naval and space-based defense projects.

3. Election Interference & Disinformation

  • Russia has weaponized social media. Troll farms such as the Internet Research Agency and more rescently AI-home-cooked content spread disinformation and misinformation to masssive audiences.
  • Russian cyber actors hacked the DNC and Clinton campaign, leaking emails via WikiLeaks in efforts to subvert the U.S. political process.
  • Operation Project Lakhta was ordered directly by Vladimir Putin. This was a “hacking and disinformation campaign” to damage Clinton’s presidential campaign.
  • The Justice Department seized thirty-two internet domains used in Russian government-directed foreign malign influence campaigns (“Doppelganger”).

4. Ransomware & Financial Cybercrime

  • Russia harbors cybercriminal groups like Conti, REvil, and LockBit, which launch ransomware attacks on U.S. hospitals, businesses, and municipal corporations.
  • Many ransomware gangs operate with tacit Kremlin approval—as long as they don’t target Russian entities. For instance, REvil’s malware is designed to avoid systems using languages from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), which includes Russia. This evidences a deliberate effort to steer clear of Russian entities.

5. Potential for Cyber Escalation

  • Russia has declared NATO and the West and its “main enemy”. The risk of cyber retaliation is real. Russia has the capability to conduct supply chain attacks, disrupt banking systems, and interfere with military communications.
  • In 2020, Russian state-sponsored cyber actors compromised the software company SolarWinds, embedding malicious code into its Orion network management software. This supply chain attack affected approximately 18,000 organizations, including multiple U.S. government agencies and private sector companies. This was a surveillance mechanism which allowed Russia to monitor internal communications and exfiltrate sensitive data from the software users.
  • In 2008 Russia deployed specialty malware (“Agent.btz“) which penetrated the U.S. Department of Defense’s classified and unclassified networks. The breach, considered one of the most severe against U.S. military computers, led to the establishment of U.S. Cyber Command to bolster cyber defenses.

Conclusion

The Russian cyber threat is persistent, evolving, and highly strategic. The West has cyber defenses and deterrence strategies in place (like sanctions and counter-hacking operations) however the current Administration’s order to terminate much of that effort cripple U.S. national security.

Quick to react to reporting of the DoD’s posturing, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) tweeted, “CISA’s mission is to defend against all cyber threats to U.S. Critical Infrastructure, including from Russia. There has been no change in our posture. Any reporting to the contrary is fake and undermines our national security.” Comforting however the words of a confidential source within CISA present a different picture. “A recent memo at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (Cisa) set out new priorities for the agency, which is part of the Department of Homeland Security and monitors cyber threats against US critical infrastructure. The new directive set out priorities that included China and protecting local systems. It did not mention Russia, . . . analysts at the agency were verbally informed that they were not to follow or report on Russian threats, even though this had previously been a main focus for the agency.” (Guardian, Mar. 2025)

Russia is one of our most aggressive cyber adversaries as well as being recongnized by most nations as a ‘cyber threat pariah’ (i.e., most vocally by NATO, the EU and the U.N.). Given the President’s position on Russia, it’s impossible to say that U.S. continues to harden critical infrastructure, surveil Russian FIE cyber efforts and accomplish effective countermeasures. Russia’s offensive cyber capabilities will remain a major security challenge for the foreseeable future. The question is, are we willing to handicap our efforts to meet our adversaries with robust cyber capability or simply turn our heads away.

Posted on

The Challenge of Spying on China

spy, spies, espionage, counterespionage, intelligence, counterintelligence,carlyle poindexter, constantin poindexter

The WSJ article on Wednesday (Challenge of Spying on China) is a sad reminder of the United States Intelligence Community’s apparent failure to accomplish any broad covert or clandestine penetration of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in recent history. The lack of HUMINT human intelligence sources (HUMINT) with meaningful access and placement deprives us of insight into Chinese decision making, immediate strategic threat intelligence and perhaps more importantly, gravely impairs U.S. offensive counterintelligence operations.

Moving beyond the obvious difficulties with HUMINT operations within the PRC, reminiscent of the Cold War hostile operational environments, the Intelligence Community is overdue for a paradigm shift in human asset recruitment methodology. For the better part of the last century, the United States Intelligence Community relied on a steady flow of “walk-ins”, volunteers from opposing foreign intelligence services or governments that offered their countries’ secrets. Intelligence officers enjoyed a large degree of success based on a fairly global perception that Americans were the “good guys”, representatives of the land of fairness, equality and justice, qualities that stood in stark contrast to the ruthless and despotic republics from whence they came. Unfortunately, the mystique has faded leaving outsiders to wonder if the values that we promote to the world are nothing more than a hypocritical farce. Mass diffusion of the “Big Lie” throwing fair elections into question, an attempted coup d’etat by an outgoing president, and military involvement under highly questionable intelligence assessments erode the view once held that the United States is the “shining beacon to the oppressed”.

Chinese citizens enjoy a better standard of living than at any time in China’s history. China can rightfully boast that it is a world power and its population can justifiably be proud of its progress. Personal financial success and pride in country promote loyalty. That there is no broad internal rejection of onerous mass surveillance, social credit controls and ethnic cleansing as is the case with the Uyghurs, is a testament to the PRC’s ability to deny facts, deceive its population and prevent the import of non-PRC approved “truths” about freedom and justice within China. The Chinese cultural tendency to identify with the collective rather than the individual is likewise amplified by the PRC’s massive social control machine, with opposing or antagonistic perspectives effectively blocked by the Great Firewall or simply drowned out of public discourse by the volumes of Party-approved propaganda. The PRC’s strategy has created an environment that is more resistant to traditional intelligence recruitment techniques such as economic coercion, ideology exploitation and ego-stroking. Chinese intelligence service recruiters lean on the cultural affinity of ethnically Chinese living in the United States to turn them into spies, coerce them by alluding to what might become of their families living in China or deploy the time-tested technique of guanxi to achieve intelligence asset recruitments. United States intelligence officers do not enjoy a parallel or equivalent.

FBI Director Wray stated, “We’ve now reached the point where the FBI is opening a new China-related counterintelligence case about every 10 hours.” The threat is grave and our twentieth-century countermeasures, techniques and tradecraft are not appropriate for what many in the Intelligence Community deem the greatest threat to United States national security. Retooling, reimagining the intelligence recruitment cycle and modernizing the way that we approach the recruitment of sources is imperative.