Aquarium-Leaks.Pdf
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Researching Soviet/Russian Intelligence in America: Bibliography (Last Updated: October 2018)
Know Your FSB From Your KGB: Researching Soviet/Russian Intelligence in America: Bibliography (Last updated: October 2018) 1. Federal Government Sources A. The 2016 US Presidential Election Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections. Office of the Director of National intelligence, January 6, 2017. Committee Findings on the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, July 3, 2018. Disinformation: Panel I, Panel II. A Primer in Russian Active Measures and Influence Campaigns: Hearing Before the Select Committee on Intelligence of the United States Senate, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, First Session, Thursday, March 30, 2017. (Y 4.IN 8/19: S.HRG.115-40/) Link: http://purl.fdlp.gov/GPO/gpo86393 FACT SHEET: Actions in Response to Russian Malicious Cyber Activity and Harassment. White House Office of the Press Secretary, December 29, 2016. Grand Jury Indicts 12 Russian Intelligence Officers for Hacking Offenses Related to the 2016 Election. Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs, July 13, 2018. Grizzly Steppe: Russian Malicious Cyber Activity. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, and Federal Bureau of Investigation, December 29, 2016. Information Warfare: Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service, March 5, 2018. Minority Views: The Minority Members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 26, 2018, Submit the Following Minority Views to the Majority-Produced "Report on Russian active Measures, March 22, 2018." House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, March 26, 2018. Open Hearing: Social Media Influence in the 2016 U.S. Election: Hearing Before the Select Committee on Intelligence of the United States Senate, One Hundred Fifteenth Congress, First Session, Wednesday, November 1, 2017. -
Hacks, Leaks and Disruptions | Russian Cyber Strategies
CHAILLOT PAPER Nº 148 — October 2018 Hacks, leaks and disruptions Russian cyber strategies EDITED BY Nicu Popescu and Stanislav Secrieru WITH CONTRIBUTIONS FROM Siim Alatalu, Irina Borogan, Elena Chernenko, Sven Herpig, Oscar Jonsson, Xymena Kurowska, Jarno Limnell, Patryk Pawlak, Piret Pernik, Thomas Reinhold, Anatoly Reshetnikov, Andrei Soldatov and Jean-Baptiste Jeangène Vilmer Chaillot Papers HACKS, LEAKS AND DISRUPTIONS RUSSIAN CYBER STRATEGIES Edited by Nicu Popescu and Stanislav Secrieru CHAILLOT PAPERS October 2018 148 Disclaimer The views expressed in this Chaillot Paper are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Institute or of the European Union. European Union Institute for Security Studies Paris Director: Gustav Lindstrom © EU Institute for Security Studies, 2018. Reproduction is authorised, provided prior permission is sought from the Institute and the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated. Contents Executive summary 5 Introduction: Russia’s cyber prowess – where, how and what for? 9 Nicu Popescu and Stanislav Secrieru Russia’s cyber posture Russia’s approach to cyber: the best defence is a good offence 15 1 Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan Russia’s trolling complex at home and abroad 25 2 Xymena Kurowska and Anatoly Reshetnikov Spotting the bear: credible attribution and Russian 3 operations in cyberspace 33 Sven Herpig and Thomas Reinhold Russia’s cyber diplomacy 43 4 Elena Chernenko Case studies of Russian cyberattacks The early days of cyberattacks: 5 the cases of Estonia, -
Terrorism Prevention in Russia: One Year After Beslan
Report of Agentura.Ru Studies and Research Centre / ASRC / http://studies.agentura.ru Terrorism prevention in Russia: one year after Beslan Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan Agentura.Ru Studies and Research Centre /ASRC/ http://studies.agentura.ru September 2005 1 Report of Agentura.Ru Studies and Research Centre / ASRC / http://studies.agentura.ru Agentura.Ru Studies and Research Centre / ASRC / is a Russian non-profit non-government organization providing research, analysis and commentaries covering security and terrorism issues. Founded in 2005 Centre is a research department of Agentura.Ru project (www.agentura.ru) - internet- community of journalists who wrote about intelligence and security services. Centre experts are journalists, former security and intelligence agents, victims of espionage cases, lawyers, human rights activists. Andrei Soldatov is a director of ASRC – [email protected], Irina Borogan is a deputy director of ASRC – [email protected] Contents: 1. Introduction 2. System up to Beslan • Participants and structure of fight against terrorism, • Lack of system 3. Changes in system of coordination and information exchange • The Interdepartmental exchange, • Information exchange with special services of other states, • Coordination and information exchange on the North Caucasus, • Coordination on hostage crisis, subversive and terrorist attacks 4. Changes in system of information sharing on preparing terrorist attacks • In the central device of special services, • In the North-Caucasian region, 5. Terrorism prosecution reform and reflections on subversive and terrorist attacks • Tactics of special divisions, • Expansion of new divisions, • Changes in the punishment system 6. Conclusion 7. References 2 Report of Agentura.Ru Studies and Research Centre / ASRC / http://studies.agentura.ru 1. -
The Militarization of the Russian Elite Under Putin What We Know, What We Think We Know (But Don’T), and What We Need to Know
Problems of Post-Communism, vol. 65, no. 4, 2018, 221–232 Copyright © 2018 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1075-8216 (print)/1557-783X (online) DOI: 10.1080/10758216.2017.1295812 The Militarization of the Russian Elite under Putin What We Know, What We Think We Know (but Don’t), and What We Need to Know David W. Rivera and Sharon Werning Rivera Department of Government, Hamilton College, Clinton, NY This article reviews the vast literature on Russia’s transformation into a “militocracy”—a state in which individuals with career experience in Russia’s various force structures occupy important positions throughout the polity and economy—during the reign of former KGB lieutenant colonel Vladimir Putin. We show that (1) elite militarization has been extensively utilized both to describe and explain core features of Russian foreign and domestic policy; and (2) notwithstanding its widespread usage, the militocracy framework rests on a rather thin, and in some cases flawed, body of empirical research. We close by discussing the remaining research agenda on this subject and listing several alternative theoretical frameworks to which journalists and policymakers arguably should pay equal or greater attention. In analyses of Russia since Vladimir Putin came to I was an officer for almost twenty years. And this is my own power at the start of the millennium, this master narrative milieu.… I relate to individuals from the security organs, from the Ministry of Defense, or from the special services as has been replaced by an entirely different set of themes. ’ if I were a member of this collective. —Vladimir Putin One such theme is Putin s successful campaign to remove (“Dovol’stvie voennykh vyrastet v razy” 2011) the oligarchs from high politics (via prison sentences, if necessary) and renationalize key components of the nat- In the 1990s, scholarly and journalistic analyses of Russia ural resource sector. -
Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress
Russian Military Intelligence: Background and Issues for Congress November 24, 2020 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46616 SUMMARY R46616 Russian Military Intelligence: Background and November 24, 2020 Issues for Congress Andrew S. Bowen Following Russia’s occupation of Ukraine’s Crimea region and invasion of eastern Ukraine in Analyst in Russian and 2014, many observers have linked Russia to additional malicious acts abroad. U.S. and European European Affairs officials and analysts have accused Russia of, among other things, interfering in U.S. elections in 2016; attempting a coup in Montenegro in 2016; conducting cyberattacks against the World Anti- Doping Agency and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in 2016 and 2018, respectively; attempting to assassinate Russian intelligence defector Sergei Skripal in the United Kingdom in 2018; and offering “bounties” to Taliban-linked fighters to attack U.S. personnel in Afghanistan. Implicated in all these activities is Russia’s military intelligence agency, the Main Directorate of the General Staff (GU), also known as the GRU. The United States has indicted GRU officers and designated the GRU for sanctions in response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, cybercrimes, and election interference. The Department of Justice has indicted GRU officers for cyber-related offenses against the World Anti-Doping Agency and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, NotPetya malware attacks in 2017, various cyberattacks against the 2018 Olympics, and interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. The GRU as an agency has been designated for sanctions under Executive Order 13694, as amended, and Section 224 of the Countering Russian Influence in Europe and Eurasia Act of 2017 (CRIEEA; P.L. -
Putin Saw the Panama Papers As a Personal Attack and May Have Wanted Revenge, Russian Authors Say
WorldViews Analysis Putin saw the Panama Papers as a personal attack and may have wanted revenge, Russian authors say By Adam Taylor August 28 Russian journalists Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan first published “The Red Web: The Struggle Between Russia's Digital Dictators and the New Online Revolutionaries” in 2015. In that book, the pair used investigative reporting and sharp analysis to show how the Kremlin was using the Internet to its advantage. Two years later, Russia's alleged use of covert online operations became a topic of discussion all around world. And so Soldatov and Borogan began investigating again. Now they have released a new version of their book that includes an additional chapter on the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The new chapter provides important context about Russian President's Vladimir Putin's possible motivations — as well as evidence of apparent links between WikiLeaks and the Kremlin, and details of the ongoing fallout in Russia. WorldViews conducted an interview about this new chapter with Soldatov and Borogan over email. The new edition of the book came out last week in the United States. Q: When you published the first edition of your book, could you have envisaged having to add a chapter on Russia allegedly trying influence the U.S. election? A: No, our assumption was that the Kremlin was losing the battle for control of the Internet, sticking to old, conventional methods of control. But it proved correct for the situation inside of Russia. Outside, the Kremlin used a completely different toolkit dealing with things online. -
Online Censorship in Russia and Turkey – New Social Media Legislation
FOCUS Human Rights Online Censorship in Russia and Turkey – New Social Media Legislation Barış Altıntaş, Irina Borogan, Dr. Michaela Lissowsky, Zelal Pelin Doğan, Andrei Soldatov ANALYSIS Imprint Publisher Friedrich-Naumann-Stiftung für die Freiheit Truman Haus Karl-Marx-Straße 2 14482 Potsdam-Babelsberg Germany /freiheit.org /FriedrichNaumannStiftungFreiheit /FNFreiheit Authors Barış Altıntaş, Irina Borogan, Dr. Michaela Lissowsky, Zelal Pelin Doğan, Andrei Soldatov Editor Global Themes Unit International Department Contact Phone: +49 30 22 01 26 34 Fax: +49 30 69 08 81 02 email: [email protected] Date June 2021 Notes on using this publication This publication is an information offer of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom. It is available free of charge and not intended for sale. It may not be used by parties or election workers for the purpose of election advertising during election campaigns (federal, state or local government elections, or European Parliament elections). FOCUS HUMAN RIGHTS 3 Table of contents 1. Introduction _______________________________________________________________________ 4 2. Current situation in Russia ________________________________________________________ 4 Last space for debate _________________________________________________________________ 5 3. Current situation in Turkey ________________________________________________________ 5 The “Censorship Law” No. 7253 _______________________________________________________ 6 Compliance of social media companies with the law __________________________________ -
Russia's Surveillance State Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan World Policy Journal 2013 30: 23 DOI: 10.1177/0740277513506378
World Policy Journal http://wpj.sagepub.com/ Russia's Surveillance State Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan World Policy Journal 2013 30: 23 DOI: 10.1177/0740277513506378 The online version of this article can be found at: http://wpj.sagepub.com/content/30/3/23 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: World Policy Institute Additional services and information for World Policy Journal can be found at: Email Alerts: http://wpj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://wpj.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav >> Version of Record - Sep 23, 2013 What is This? Downloaded from wpj.sagepub.com at COLUMBIA UNIV on December 2, 2014 THE LUBYANKA Russia’s Surveillance State ANDREI SOLDATOV AND IRINA BOROGAN OSCOW—In March 2013, the Bureau of Diplomatic Security at the U.S. State Department issued a warning for Americans Mwanting to come to the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia next February: Beware of SORM. The System of Operative-Investigative Measures, or SORM, is Russia’s national system of lawful interception of all electronic utterances—an Orwellian network that jeopardizes pri- vacy and the ability to use telecommunications to oppose the govern- MAARTEN DIRKSE FALL 2013 23 Downloaded from wpj.sagepub.com at COLUMBIA UNIV on December 2, 2014 REPORTAGE ment. The U.S. warning ends with a list struction might seem like overreaction, of “Travel Cyber Security Best Practices,” but far from it. Anyone who wants to at- which, apart from the new technology, tend the Olympics needs a Spectator pass, resembles the briefing instructions for a which requires registering on the official Cold War-era spy: Sochi 2014 site, a procedure that includes Consider traveling with “clean” taking a photo. -
Russia's Very Secret Services – Analysis
Russia’s Very Secret Services – Analysis Written by: Agentura By Andrei Soldatov and Irina Borogan When the Soviet Union collapsed, many observers expected its fearsome intelligence apparatus to wither as well. Instead, the post-Soviet era has seen the emergence of an even more influential collection of intelligence organizations that grew out of the two premier Soviet agencies: the KGB, which combined domestic and foreign political intelligence, and the GRU, which handled military intelligence. The prominent—even dominant—role of intelligence within contemporary Russia’s political system is a sign of the Kremlin’s growing ambitions. But it also reflects a profound fear of being outmaneuvered by the West in Russia’s traditional sphere of influence, which now comprises 10 more or less independent nations that once belonged to the Soviet Union. Within that vast territory—and in the areas that directly border it—an intense and largely invisible battle for control is being fought every day. This struggle has put the Kremlin’s intelligence agencies in direct competition with Western intelligence services, with all parties retaining some old habits left over from the Cold War. At the same time, the unique status and financial resources provided to Russia’s secret services in the early 2000s by then-President Vladimir Putin makes them even more unpredictable than their predecessor, the KGB, which was a powerful organization, but came under the firm control of the political structure. The Communist Party presided over every KGB section, department, and division. By contrast, over the last decade in Russia, the resurgent secret services have become a new elite, enjoying expanded responsibilities and immunity from public oversight or parliamentary control. -
On the Export and Resale of Russian Surveillance Technology to Post-Soviet Central Asia
COMMONWEALTH OF SURVEILLANCE STATES: ON THE EXPORT AND RESALE OF RUSSIAN SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY TO POST-SOVIET CENTRAL ASIA BY PETER BOURGELAIS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The four post-Soviet Central Asian republics discussed here—Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan— have problematic records with respect to electronic surveillance with little regard to international norms of due process, privacy, and transparency. While there have been some noteworthy victories with respect to regulating Western companies’ exports of surveillance technology to other difficult regions such as the Middle East, a different approach is needed in a region with a large Russian presence such as Central Asia. We begin with an explanation of the Russian System for Operative-Investigative Activities (SORM), a technical framework for electronic surveillance originally developed by the old Soviet KGB in the late 1980s and later copied throughout Central Asia. Then we add the main contribution of this work: a series of profiles, organized by country, of important Russian (and two Western) companies that have exported electronic surveillance equipment to the region, along with some previously undisclosed regional concerns about the security of the SORM system itself. Finally, we conclude with a discussion of possible responses from the global digital rights movement, leaving a more detailed and comprehensive action plan for future work. METHODOLOGY All of the information contained here is drawn from three sources: prior published investigative work on the subject, -
Russia's Approach to Cyber Warfare
Russia’s Approach to Cyber Warfare Michael Connell and Sarah Vogler March 2017 Select a caveat DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release: distribution unlimited. CNA’s Occasional Paper series is published by CNA, but the opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of CNA or the Department of the Navy. Distribution DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT A. Approved for public release: distribution unlimited. PUBLIC RELEASE. 3/24/2017 Other requests for this document shall be referred to CNA Document Center at [email protected]. Photography Credit: Cover art designed by Christopher Steinitz, CNA. Approved by: March 2017 Ken E. Gause, RTL International Affairs Group Center for Strategic Studies This work was performed under Federal Government Contract No. N00014-16-D-5003. Copyright © 2017 CNA Executive Summary Russia views cyber very differently than its western counterparts, from the way Russian theorists define cyberwarfare to how the Kremlin employs its cyber capabilities. The paper examines the Russian approach to cyber warfare, addressing both its theoretical and its practical underpinnings. The following is a summary of its key findings: Russian officials are convinced that Moscow is locked in an ongoing, existential struggle with internal and external forces that are seeking to challenge its security in the information realm. The internet, and the free flow of information it engenders, is viewed as both a threat and an opportunity in this regard. Russian military theorists generally do not use the terms cyber or cyberwarfare. Instead, they conceptualize cyber operations within the broader framework of information warfare, a holistic concept that includes computer network operations, electronic warfare, psychological operations, and information operations. -
Taming Online Political Engagement in Russia: Disempowered Publics, Empowered State, and Challenges of the Fully Functioning Society
International Journal of Communication 10(2016), 4661–4680 1932–8036/20160005 Taming Online Political Engagement in Russia: Disempowered Publics, Empowered State, and Challenges of the Fully Functioning Society ANNA KLYUEVA University of Houston–Clear Lake, USA This article examines the particularities of online political engagement in Russia and assesses social media potential for facilitating and empowering social movements in Russia through an examination of the political protests in 2011–2012. The case study illustrates effective mobilization and coalition building via social media during the political protests of 2011–2012, but the growing control of the Internet and online public sphere affects the publics’ ability to do so in the future. This study argues that the successes of the protest movement initiated a government crackdown on the Russian Internet and social media, with the Russian government actively seeking to tame and control communicative processes online through an increased presence of government and progovernment forces. The analysis suggests that the extensive and covert control of the online public sphere disempowers publics, making social media less capable of enabling a fully functioning society. Keywords: social media, political engagement, Russia, fully functioning society, public relations The recent political and social movements in the Arab countries, Ukraine, China, and Russia, among others, have demonstrated how the state-centric view on exercising power is being increasingly challenged by the rise of social networks and social media (Jaitner, 2013). Social media have been described as empowering, yet threatening, to the existing social and political order (Hinton & Hjorth, 2013). The realization of social media’s empowerment capabilities turned the attention of many national governments toward it.