Extremely Compartmentalized Information?
July 24th, 2013Update: 12 October 2014: “Exceptionally Compartmented Information,” or ECI
Via: The Intercept:
The National Security Agency has had agents in China, Germany, and South Korea working on programs that use “physical subversion” to infiltrate and compromise networks and devices, according to documents obtained by The Intercept.
The documents, leaked by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, also indicate that the agency has used “under cover” operatives to gain access to sensitive data and systems in the global communications industry, and that these secret agents may have even dealt with American firms. The documents describe a range of clandestine field activities that are among the agency’s “core secrets” when it comes to computer network attacks, details of which are apparently shared with only a small number of officials outside the NSA.
“It’s something that many people have been wondering about for a long time,” said Chris Soghoian, principal technologist for the American Civil Liberties Union, after reviewing the documents. “I’ve had conversations with executives at tech companies about this precise thing. How do you know the NSA is not sending people into your data centers?”
Previous disclosures about the NSA’s corporate partnerships have focused largely on U.S. companies providing the agency with vast amounts of customer data, including phone records and email traffic. But documents published today by The Intercept suggest that even as the agency uses secret operatives to penetrate them, companies have also cooperated more broadly to undermine the physical infrastructure of the internet than has been previously confirmed.
In addition to so-called “close access” operations, the NSA’s “core secrets” include the fact that the agency works with U.S. and foreign companies to weaken their encryption systems; the fact that the NSA spends “hundreds of millions of dollars” on technology to defeat commercial encryption; and the fact that the agency works with U.S. and foreign companies to penetrate computer networks, possibly without the knowledge of the host countries. Many of the NSA’s core secrets concern its relationships to domestic and foreign corporations.
Some of the documents in this article appear in a new documentary, CITIZENFOUR, which tells the story of the Snowden disclosures and is directed by Intercept co-founder Laura Poitras. The documents describe a panoply of programs classified with the rare designation of “Exceptionally Compartmented Information,” or ECI, which are only disclosed to a “very select” number of government officials.
—
Update: Extremely Compartmented Information?
I’ve received emails from three people who claimed to have had TS/SCI backgrounds who all explained this situation the same way. I won’t post their emails, but it was all right out of the Wikipedia pages for Classified information in the United States, Sensitive Compartmented Information and Special Access Programs. Feel free to go through all of that if you want, but the point is: This is all well known information.
None of these people had ever heard of Extremely Compartmentalized Information. One of these people suggested that Extremely Compartmentalized Information might refer to some variety of Special Access Program.
Now, IB came across a reference to extremely compartmented information on this page from Sans Institute:
Of course, the ability to collect from more and more log sources, does come at a cost; the Snare infrastructure needs to be robust enough to deal with the rapid increase in log volume, and we also need to continually come up with effective ways to present the information to people who have to manage the security of the source data. As Snare finds it’s way into systems that protect extremely compartmented information, our customers have also asked us for a few extra features in our agent and server infrastructure, such as strong encryption, and verifiable delivery.
Close, but no cigar. Extremely compartmented information isn’t extremely compartmentalized information, which is what we’re after.
I found “extremely compartmented” in the right context used in the Nomination of Robert M. Gates: Hearings Before the Select Committee on Intelligence of the United States Senate, One Hundred Second Congress, First Session, on Nomination of Robert M. Gates, to be Director of Central Intelligence, Volume 2, page 24.
Again, close, but both of these examples could just be describing special access stuff that only a handful of people have been read into.
—
Update: Not Sensitive Compartmented Information
You guys are funny. Good try, though. The earliest reference I could find to SCI on Cryptogon is from 2003. There might be earlier ones.
You’ll have to go back to the drawing board to get my 10 bucks. 😉
The term we’re after here, again, is ECI, “Extremely Compartmentalized Information,” not SCI, “Sensitive Compartmented Information.”
—
In more than two decades of following information related to U.S. intelligence agencies, covert operations, etc. I have definitely never seen any reference to, “Extremely Compartmentalized Information.”
Bounty: I will pay US$10 to anyone who can provide me with any reference to the term, “Extremely Compartmentalized Information,” used within the context of the United States government information classification system, but not referencing Snowden. Let’s say that it has to be something printed before 2013.
Returning to the CNN piece, read on and you’ll see that the bogeymen are changing their behavior to make NSA’s job harder *wink*:
U.S. officials have said that terror groups are aware of the Snowden leaks and are responding internally, like adjusting communications and security.
Let me get this straight: Because of Snowden, and not Klein-Binney-Tice-etc., “The Terrorists” are no longer using the likes of Yahoo Instant Messenger to plan their strikes against The Great Satan?
You would have to be an imbecile with amnesia to believe this.
Anyway, 10 bucks for that pre-2013, non-Snowden-related reference to “Extremely Compartmentalized Information.” Make me pay.
Via: CNN:
U.S. intelligence now believes Edward Snowden did not gain access to the “crown jewels” of National Security Agency programs that secretly intercept and monitor conversations around the world, CNN has learned.
The Obama administration is reviewing what the admitted leaker of classified information actually got his hands on and what damage he may have caused.
The ongoing damage assessment indicates he did not gain access to what is called ECI or “extremely compartmentalized information,” according to a U.S. official familiar with the review.
…
U.S. officials have said that terror groups are aware of the Snowden leaks and are responding internally, like adjusting communications and security.
NSA Director Keith Alexander said last week the United States has concrete proof terrorists are making changes and taking actions that are going to “make our job harder.”
Is it just butt covering? Or does this really exist? Would those with SCI creds know about the existence of the ECI echelon?
This article about a Booz Allen Hamilton contractor seems to indicate, publicly anyways, that TS/SCI was the highest clearance possible in 2008:
http://tbo.com/news/security-experts-question-army-reservists-top-secret-clearance-245680
Which of course doesn’t mean that unpublicly there could be a higher level.
IIRC Christopher Dorner claimed to have TS/SCI clearance in his manifesto.
Sure seems like there is a lot of people with TS/SCI credentials. A Google search of LinkedIn professionals further confirms this suspicion.
If SCI clearance is relatively widespread, wouldn’t it make sense that there exists a more limited echelon of information? Does to me…
But I can’t find any reference to it.
I don’t doubt that there’s a world beyond TS/SCI, but what I do doubt is that I’m going to read anything about it on CNN.
The way I see it, either that CNN story is a bunch of bullcrap or their “source” let all of us know about some previously unknown-to-the-public tier of classified information.
I’m going with the bullcrap theory for now.
I’ve been away for a few days but I can tell you Kevin ECI is not an official classification of information in the US Govmint. This classification of information DOES NOT EXIST.
Things that come to mind are:
Classified
UNSI
NOFORN
Sensitive
You can go to the DOD website if you wish to find all of these hunky-dory techo terms, but I don’t expect you’ll be paying ten bucks out to anyone.
Thanks, Eileen. I’ve been contacted by several people who have been involved with that world and it’s the same story again and again: If it exists, they have never encountered it.