Excerpted from @War: The Rise of the Military-Internet Complex by Shane Harris. Out now from Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
Bright twenty- and thirtysomethings clad in polo shirts and jeans perch on red Herman Miller chairs in front of silver Apple laptops and sleek, flat-screen monitors. They might be munching on catered lunch—brought in once a week—or scrounging the fully stocked kitchen for snacks, or making plans for the company softball game later that night. Their office is faux-loft industrial chic: open floor plan, high ceilings, strategically exposed ductwork and plumbing. To all outward appearances, Endgame Inc. looks like the typical young tech startup.
It is anything but. Endgame is one of the leading players in the global cyber arms business. Among other things, it compiles and sells zero day information to governments and corporations. “Zero days,” as they’re known in the security business, are flaws in computer software that have never been disclosed and can be secretly exploited by an attacker. And judging by the prices Endgame has charged, business has been good. Marketing documents show that Endgame has charged up to $2.5 million for a zero day subscription package, which promises 25 exploits per year. For $1.5 million, customers have access to a database that shows the physical location and Internet addresses of hundreds of millions of vulnerable computers around the world. Armed with this intelligence, an Endgame customer could see where its own systems are vulnerable to attack and set up defenses. But it could also find computers to exploit. Those machines could be mined for data—such as government documents or corporate trade secrets—or attacked using malware. Endgame can decide whom it wants to do business with, but it doesn’t dictate how its customers use the information it sells, nor can it stop them from using it for illegal purposes, any more than Smith & Wesson can stop a gun buyer from using a firearm to commit a crime.
Endgame is one of a small but growing number of boutique cyber mercenaries that specialize in what security professionals euphemistically call “active defense.” It’s a somewhat misleading term, since this kind of defense doesn’t entail just erecting firewalls or installing antivirus software. It can also mean launching a pre-emptive or retaliatory strike. Endgame doesn’t conduct the attack, but the intelligence it provides can give clients the information they need to carry out their own strikes. It’s illegal for a company to launch a cyberattack, but not for a government agency. According to three sources familiar with Endgame’s business, nearly all of its customers are U.S. government agencies. According to security researchers and former government officials, one of Endgame’s biggest customers is the National Security Agency. The company is also known to sell to the CIA, Cyber Command, and the British intelligence services. But since 2013, executives have sought to grow the company’s commercial business and have struck deals with marquee technology companies and banks.
Endgame was founded in 2008 by Chris Rouland, a top-notch hacker who first came on the Defense Department’s radar in 1990—after he hacked into a Pentagon computer. Reportedly the United States declined to prosecute him in exchange for his working for the government. He started Endgame with a group of fellow hackers who worked as white-hat researchers for a company called Internet Security Systems, which was bought by IBM in 2006 for $1.3 billion. Technically, they were supposed to be defending their customers’ computers and networks. But the skills they learned and developed were interchangeable from offense.
Rouland, described by former colleagues as domineering and hot-tempered, has become a vocal proponent for letting companies launch counterattacks on individuals, groups, or even countries that attack them. “Eventually we need to enable corporations in this country to be able to fight back,” Rouland said during a panel discussion at a conference on ethics and international affairs in New York in September 2013.
Rouland stepped down as the CEO of Endgame in 2012, following embarrassing disclosures of the company’s internal marketing documents by the hacker group Anonymous. Endgame had tried to stay quiet and keep its name out of the press, and went so far as to take down its website. But Rouland provocatively resurfaced at the conference and, while emphasizing that he was speaking in his personal capacity, said American companies would never be free from cyberattack unless they retaliated. “There is no concept of deterrence today in cyber. It’s a global free-fire zone.” One of Rouland’s fellow panelists seemed to agree. Robert Clark, a professor of law at the Naval Academy Center of Cyber Security Studies, told the audience that it would be illegal for a company that had been hacked to break in to the thief ’s computer and delete its own purloined information. “This is the most asinine thing I can think of,” Clark said. “It’s my data, it’s here, I should be able to delete it.”
To date, no American company has been willing to say that it engages in offensive cyber operations designed to steal information or destroy an adversary’s system. But former intelligence officials say “hack-backs”—that is, breaking into the intruder’s computer, which is illegal in the United States—are occurring, even if they’re not advertised. “It is illegal. It is going on,” says a former senior NSA official, now a corporate consultant. “It’s happening with very good legal advice. But I would not advise a client to try it.”
A former military intelligence officer said the most active hack-backs are coming from the banking industry. In the past several years banks have lost billions of dollars to cybercriminals, primarily those based in Eastern Europe and Russia who use sophisticated malware to steal usernames and passwords from customers and then clean out their accounts.
In June 2013, Microsoft joined forces with some of the world’s biggest financial institutions, including Bank of America, American Express, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Credit Suisse, HSBC, the Royal Bank of Canada, and PayPal, to disable a huge cluster of hijacked computers being used for online crime. Their target was a notorious outfit called Citadel, which had infected thousands of machines around the world and, without their owners’ knowledge, conscripted them into armies of “botnets,” or clusters of infected computers under the remote control of a hacker, which the criminals used to steal account credentials, and thus money, from millions of people. In a counterstrike that Microsoft code-named Operation b54, the company’s Digital Crimes Unit severed the lines of communication between Citadel’s more than 1,400 botnets and an estimated 5 million personal computers that Citadel had infected with malware. Microsoft also took over servers that Citadel was using to conduct its operations.
Microsoft hacked Citadel. That would have been illegal had the company not obtained a civil court order blessing the operation. Effectively now in control of Citadel’s victims—who had no idea that their machines had ever been infected—Microsoft could alert them to install patches to their vulnerable software. In effect, Microsoft had hacked the users in order to save them. (And to save itself, since the machines had been infected in the first place owing to flaws in Microsoft’s products, which are probably the most frequently exploited in the world.)
It was the first time that Microsoft had teamed up with the FBI. But it was the seventh time it had knocked down botnets since 2010. The company’s lawyers had used novel legal arguments, such as accusing criminals who had attacked Microsoft products of violating its trademark. This was a new legal frontier. Even Microsoft’s lawyers, who included a former U.S. attorney, acknowledged that they’d never considered using alleged violations of common law to obtain permission for a cyberattack. For Operation b54, Microsoft and the banks had spied on Citadel for six months before talking to the FBI. The sleuths from Microsoft’s counter-hacking group eventually went to two Internet hosting facilities, in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, where, accompanied by U.S. marshals, they gathered forensic evidence to attack Citadel’s network of botnets. The military would call that collecting targeting data. And in many respects, Operation b54 looked like a military cyberstrike. Technically speaking, it was not so different from the attack that U.S. cyber forces launched on the Obelisk network used by al-Qaida in Iraq.
Microsoft also worked with law enforcement agencies in 80 countries to strike at Citadel. The head of cybercrime investigations for Europol, the European Union’s law enforcement organization, declared that Operation b54 had succeeded in wiping out Citadel from nearly all its infected hosts. And a lawyer with Microsoft’s Digital Crimes Unit declared, “The bad guys will feel the punch in the gut.”
Microsoft has continued to attack botnets, and its success has encouraged government officials and company executives, who see partnerships between cops and corporate hackers as a viable way to fight cybercriminals. But coordinated counterstrikes like the one against Citadel take time to plan, and teams of lawyers to approve them. What happens when a company doesn’t want to wait six months to hack back, or would just as soon not have federal law enforcement officers looking over its shoulder?
The former military intelligence officer worries that the relative technical ease of hack-backs will inspire banks in particular to forgo partnerships with companies like Microsoft and hack back on their own—without asking a court for permission. “Banks have an appetite now to strike back because they’re sick of taking it in the shorts,” he says. “It gets to the point where an industry won’t accept that kind of risk. And if the government can’t act, or won’t, it’s only logical they’ll do it themselves.” And hack-backs won’t be exclusive to big corporations, he says. “If you’re a celebrity, would you pay someone to find the source of some dirty pictures of you about to be released online? Hell yes!”
Undoubtedly, they’ll find a ready supply of talent willing and able to do the job. A survey of 181 attendees at the 2012 Black Hat USA conference in Las Vegas found that 36 percent of “information security professionals” said they’d engaged in retaliatory hack-backs. That’s still a minority of the profession, though one presumes that some of the respondents weren’t being honest. But even those security companies that won’t engage in hack-backs have the skills and the knowhow to launch a private cyberwar.
A former NSA official says that in his estimation, the best private security firms today are run by former “siginters,” or experts in signals intelligence, which is the collection and analysis of electronic communications. These experts are using not just electronic intelligence but also human sources. From their NSA days, they learned to follow trends and conversations in Internet chat channels frequented by hackers, and how to pose as would-be criminals looking to buy malicious software.
One private security executive says some of the best intelligence on new kinds of malware, hacking techniques, and targets comes, not surprisingly, from the biggest source of spying and theft against the United States—China. Rick Howard, who before he became a private cyber sleuth ran the Army’s Computer Emergency Response Team, says he stayed in regular contact with hackers and cyberweapons dealers in China when he was in charge of intelligence for iDefense, a private security firm. His sources told iDefense what was the latest malware on the street—as in the United States, it was sold through gray markets—who the major players were, and what targets were on the hackers’ lists. Hacking is a human business, after all.
Until 2013, Howard was the chief information security officer for TASC, a large security firm that runs its own “cybersecurity operations center.” TASC is located on a sprawling office campus in Chantilly, Virginia, near the corridor of tech companies that has made Washington one of the richest metropolitan areas in the United States. TASC’s offices, spread out over three buildings, resemble an NSA installation. The halls are lined with doors marked “Classified,” and the entrances are protected by keypad locks and card scanners. Stepping inside those secure rooms, you would find it hard to know for sure whether you were in Chantilly or Fort Meade.
Many former NSA hackers aren’t afraid to talk about their time in the government. In fact, they publicize it. Brendan Conlon, who worked in the elite Tailored Access Operations, or TAO group, the NSA’s best hackers, founded a cybersecurity company called Vahna, according to his LinkedIn profile, “after 10 years of Offensive Computer Network Operations with the National Security Agency.” Conlon began his career developing software implants, then moved on to TAO, where he was chief of the Hawaii unit. He also worked in the NSA’s hunting division, which is devoted to tracking Chinese hackers. A graduate of the Naval Academy, he served with the NSA three times in Afghanistan and worked on hacking missions with the CIA. Vahna touts its employees’ “years of experience inside the intelligence and defense cyber communities” and claims to have “unparalleled capabilities to assess vulnerability in your information security, mitigate risk across your technology footprint, and provide tactical incident response to security breaches.” In other words, all the things that Conlon was trained to do for the NSA, he can now do for corporations.
Over the past several years, large defense contractors have been gobbling up smaller technology firms and boutique cybersecurity outfits, acquiring their personnel, their proprietary software, and their contracts with intelligence agencies, the military, and corporations. In 2010, Raytheon, one of the largest U.S. defense contractors, agreed to pay $490 million for Applied Signal Technology, a cybersecurity firm with military and government clients. The price tag, while objectively large, was a relative pittance for Raytheon, which had sales the prior year totaling $25 billion. In 2013 the network-equipment giant Cisco agreed to buy Sourcefire for $2.7 billion in cash, in a transaction that reflected what the New York Times called “the growing fervor” for companies that defend other companies from cyberattacks and espionage.
After the acquisition was announced, a former military intelligence officer said he was astounded that Cisco had paid so much money for a company whose flagship product is built on an open-source intrusion detection system called Snort, which anyone can use. It was a sign of just how valuable cybersecurity expertise had become—either that or a massive bubble in the market, the former officer said.
But the companies are betting on a sure thing—government spending on cybersecurity. The Pentagon cybersecurity budget for 2014 is $4.7 billion, a $1 billion increase over the previous year. The military is no longer buying expensive missile systems. With the advent of drone aircraft many executives believe the current generation of fighter aircraft will be the last ones built to be flown by humans. Spending has plummeted on the big-ticket weapons systems that kept Beltway contractors flush throughout the Cold War, so they’re pivoting to the booming cyber market.
Excerpted from @War: The Rise of the Military-Internet Complex by Shane Harris. Copyright © 2014 by Shane Harris. Used by permission of Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Co. All rights reserved.