US Cyber Command

The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command’s assessment of the future operational environment highlights the importance of all aspects of information on the future battlefield. Army forces operate in and among human populations, facing hybrid threats that are innovative, networked, and technologically-savvy. These threats capitalize on emerging technologies to establish and maintain a cultural and social advantage; leveraging these new capabilities for command and control, recruiting, coordinating logistics, raising funds, and propagandizing their message. To operate effectively in this emerging environment, the Army must realign its information "Aim Point." Army leaders and Soldiers must possess an in-depth understanding of how to leverage information-based capabilities to gain and maintain situational awareness. Understanding how to fight for and leverage the power of information, while denying the adversary’s ability to do the same, will be increasingly critical to success on the future battlefield.
The assessment indicates that the Army’s current vocabulary, including terms such as computer network operations (CNO), electronic warfare (EW), and information operations (IO) will become increasingly inadequate. To address these challenges, there are three interrelated dimensions of full spectrum operations (FSO), each with its own set of causal logic, and requiring focused development of solutions:
• The first dimension is the psychological contest of wills against implacable foes, warring factions, criminal groups, and potential adversaries.
• The second dimension is strategic engagement, which involves keeping friends at home, gaining allies abroad, and generating support or empathy for the mission.
• The third dimension is the cyber-electromagnetic contest, which involves gaining, maintaining, and exploiting a technological advantage.
The first and second dimensions focus on how commanders and staffs orchestrate and leverage information power to achieve their missions. The third dimension focuses on gaining and maintaining an advantage in the converging mediums of cyberspace and the electromagnetic spectrum (EMS). The Army’s construct of gaining advantage, protecting that advantage, and placing adversaries at a disadvantage is well nested within these dimensions; and contributes to the outcomes that must be achieved by unified action at the tactical, operational, and strategic levels. Current operations reinforce our conviction that concepts and capabilities are needed for each of these dimensions.
IO encompasses all three of these dimensions, but is increasingly an overburdened term which refers to any use of information. CNO and EW by themselves are insufficient to describe the full scope of the cyber-electromagnetic contest. To this end, we are undertaking a comprehensive campaign to describe fully each dimension. The first two dimensions (the contest of wills and strategic engagement), will be addressed in a forthcoming, separate concept capability plan, and followed by a capability based assessment.

Hehehe
Here comes the cyberpunk era!!!

Cyber Attack

The Pentagon is seeking technology to coordinate and bolster cyberattack capabilities through a funding experiment called “Plan X,” contract documents indicate.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency envisions new tools that will lay the foundation for launching malware and other computer espionage tools against foreign networks. “The objective of the Plan X program is to create revolutionary technologies for understanding, planning, and managing cyberwarfare in real-time, large-scale, and dynamic network environments,” reads a special notice posted August. 20.

The technology DARPA seeks is part of a larger shift at the Pentagon towards openly supporting the infrastructure for offensive strategies.

As part of Plan X, DARPA is looking to fund research to develop tools to scan and analyze the flow of information in networks to give military planners greater visibility and situational awareness for planning “cyber operations” against enemy systems, according to the notice. The agency also wants to build agile architecture that monitors damage in “dynamic, contested, and hostile network environments” and can adaptively defend against attacks and perform “weapon deployment.”

While this program is explicitly not funding vulnerability analysis or “cyberweapon generation” -- the creation of malware -- the technology developed under Plan X plausibly supports their deployment. DARPA wants technology that allows operations to be orchestrated in the same way as “the auto-pilot function in modern aircraft.” If a system can be programed to automatically repeat a certain offensive or defensive maneuver, this functionality could scale security efforts.

DARPA will seek out a team that can integrate these functions into a system and buy the infrastructure and hardware for it. “A system architecture team is also sought to lead the end-to-end Plan X system development,” the document said.

Agency officials will brief contractors on the program in separate sessions -- one open and one classified Secret -- in Arlington, Va., on September 27. A formal request for proposals will be released at the end of September.

DARPA sought $208 million in cyber spending in fiscal 2012, up from $120 million the previous year. The military’s venture capital wing plans to devote more resources to cyber research in the future. In a 2011 address Regina Dugan, then director of DARPA, said, “we will focus an increasing portion of our cyber research on the investigation of offensive capabilities to address military-specific needs.”

A new generation of government-funded malware and the infrastructure for their deployment is raising legal and ethical questions. The Pentagon, under the orders of the White House, was reported to be involved in malware attacks against Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities as far back as the Bush administration. Stuxnet, the computer worm reported to have been developed by Israel and United States and used to target centrifuges in Iran, bears similar features to Flame and Duqu, viruses also thought to have originated from state-sponsored campaigns.

Misleading title there mate... someone who didn't know better might think you are trying to tell us that they don't already have cyber attack capabilities.

As mentioned in the article they both have them and have used them.

This article is talking about

The Pentagon is seeking technology to coordinate and bolster cyberattack capabilities through a funding experiment called “Plan X,” contract documents indicate.

In other words they want the hardware and software that would allow them to hack into a network and take control of the process so that if it is blocked it can try a range of solutions to continue the attack.

The amusing thing is that if they develop this sort of stuff then their enemies are just going to develop it too they will learn how it works to protect themselves and they will be able to use it against the US... which relies more on computer networks that any other country on the planet... that is not going to backfire now is it?

However, this is the first time that they are acknowledging it in as many words . See the contract document ( in the link) . I remember posting another link in this thread where the Pentagon , also for the first time talks about the need to hire Russian hackers .

Uhh the pentagon is going through some unnecessary changes for the US. It might not be able to provide the security it had, with possibilities of unecessary foreign exchange in "coal". Developments of its proper program might need to be arrested with some more foreign welfare

Hmm, I thought they are already funding their own armies of scriptkiddieshackers to do their dirty work.

Sujoy wrote:However, this is the first time that they are acknowledging it in as many words . See the contract document ( in the link) . I remember posting another link in this thread where the Pentagon , also for the first time talks about the need to hire Russian hackers .

Hmm, I don't see how this can backfire on them.

This is a great step forward that the US has taken . Will completely revolutionize the battlefield .

Army Looks to Blend Cyber, Electronic Warfare Capabilities On the Battlefield


As part of the Integrated Cyber and Electronic Warfare, or ICE, program, the U.S. Army Research, Development and Engineering Command’s communications-electronics center, known as CERDEC, researches the technologies, standards and architectures to support the use of common mechanisms used for the rapid development and integration of third-party cyber and electronic warfare, or EW, capabilities.


http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/148914/us-army-looks-to-merge-cyber%2C-electronic-warfare.html


This is a unique system with no parallel anywhere in the world .

So the US in investing money to fight countries that are as computerised as they are, when clearly the current threat... nevermind.

The amusing thing is that they don't realise everyone else will be using components of what they develop against them at some stage and being the most net centric and connected military in the world they are actually the most vulnerable to this form of warfare.

Now that they have officially made it a thing the Russians and Chinese will need the same, though it will certainly be more useful for them as they are onl just building their net centric systems so building them with security in mind and vulnerabilities should make them stronger and safer too.

NickM wrote:This is a great step forward that the US has taken .

No it isn't, this is the Army trying to find ways to do/use things the USAF already exploits.

NickM wrote:Will completely revolutionize the battlefield .

No it won't. It's basically a new form of cyber security that they're really after. Given that the only people that the US will bomb are anyone who hasn't imported current Russian SAM systems (i.e. Libya, but not Syria), the cyber threat isn't going to be a huge problem on a battlefield. Dealing with the Chinese threat is a whole different issue and not the Army's problem to solve.

NickM wrote:This is a unique system with no parallel anywhere in the world .

No, actually: "This blending of networks and systems, known as convergence, will continue and with it come significant implications as to how the Army must fight in the cyber environment of today and tomorrow", the Army has basically figured out a new way to define (and therefore get money to implement) network-centric warfare.

Which is not new.

"Capabilities can be developed to combat EM [electromagnetic] and cyber threats individually, but this is neither time nor cost effective and simply will not scale in the long term."

...so every anti-virus program is useless. Wait...

"We leverage these facilities and our inherent core competencies in cyber, EW and signals intelligence to engage with the Army and the community at large, both academia and industry partners, to collaborate on developing and integrating relevant technologies to achieve domain superiority in a changing environment"

...and goodbye, any concept of security.  

GarryB wrote:So the US in investing money to fight countries that are as computerised as they are, when clearly the current threat... nevermind.

1. This is not actually anything new, it's just new that the Army has discovered it.

2. Aren't you paying attention? The US government and DoD are adamant that China = The New Red Menace!  

GarryB wrote:The amusing thing is that they don't realise everyone else will be using components of what they develop against them at some stage

Absolutely, and that's part of the reason why they're stupid for involving industry and academia. Anyone who doubts whether or not the DoD has the right kind of brains working for it to get this done without outside help is a complete idiot. There are people whose job it is just to think up really off the wall crap and then decide how to make it happen. Not if, but how.

White House Says US, UK to Create Joint Cyber Cell, Conduct Exercises

What Budget Cuts? US Cyber Command to Double Its Spending

Still in its infancy, US Cyber Command is set to receive a massive bump in its budget. For 2015, the cyber-security organization will receive $364 million; nearly double the $190 million it was allocated for 2014.

US Cyber Command was established to combat the growing threat of cyber warfare. The organization, in part, acts as a central hub for pulling together cyber resources. But the organization also conducts cyber-attacks against adversaries, and it’s about to receive a pretty hefty paycheck to help carry out its mission.

All in all, the US Department of Defense has fattened Cyber Command’s pocketbook by 92%. Much of the money is meant to help the fledgling arm of US Strategic Command stand on its own feet. The Pentagon plans to provide it with a total of $1 billion over the next five years.

According to budget figures obtained by Nextgov, nearly $500 million of overall funding will go toward the hiring and compensating of Cyber Command’s massive army of cybersecurity experts. It currently employs roughly 3,000, and is seeking another 3,000.

On Friday, Defense Secretary Ash Carter addressed the Cybercom employees and stressed the importance of their mission.

"That should tell you something about how vital the mission is that you all have taken on," he said, "how important it is for the security of our country and, for that matter, the security of our economy and our people in their individual lives, because cyber touches all aspects of their lives."

In total, the White House is allocating the Defense Department with $5.5 billion for cyber spending as part of fiscal year 2016. This may come as no surprise, since President Obama has made multiple decisions which highlight his growing focus on cyber-security.

Last month, The Obama administration announced the creation of a new federal intelligence center known as the Cyber Threat Intelligence Integration Center (CTIIC). That agency will be responsible for coordinating defensive strategies against hackers. Need for the CTIIC was partially highlighted by several high-profile hacks of 2014, including major security breaches at Home Depot, Target, Sony Pictures, and even the social media accounts of Central Command.

Earlier this year, President Obama also said he agreed with UK Prime Minister David Cameron, that major tech companies like Google and Apple should be pressured into cooperating with law enforcement agencies. Several tech companies have been wary of government intervention ever since the revelations of former NSA contractor Edward Snowden revealed the scale of the United States’ domestic spying apparatus.

As part of that $5.5 billion, the Air Force, alone, will receive $1.41 billion. In recent years, the Pentagon has expressed concerns that its newest fighter jets could be vulnerable to hackers. The F-35 fighter, which the US spent $400 billion developing, relies heavily on computers which could potentially be hacked by a lone individual.

"The option of not modernizing isn’t an option at all," Air Force Chief of Staff General Mark Welsh said before the Senate last month. "Air forces that fall behind the technology curve fail…And joint forces without the full breadth of air space and cyber capabilities that modern air power brings will lose."

Some have also suggested that Cyber Command should become its own military branch as the Internet continues to play such an active role. Just as governments defend the physical spaces of land, air, and water, so too, perhaps, should they defend cyberspace, however virtual it may be.

But Defense Secretary Carter insists that type of massive overhaul could be a long way off.

"We have given some thought to that," he said last Friday. "And for right now, we’re walking before we can run, [but] that’s one of the futures that cyber might have."

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/us/20150317/1019627650.html#ixzz3UgA0WfX1

Help Wanted: Pentagon Working on Creating US Cyber Reserve

The Pentagon is recruiting from the National Guard and Reserve, as well as the private sector, thousands of cyber experts who would be called up in the event of a network emergency, a top United States military official said.

The so-called “surge forces” are a part of the Defense Department’s new cyber strategy, and would help defend the energy sector, telecommunications and other critical infrastructure, Defense Principal Cyber Adviser Eric Rosenbach told a Senate Armed Forces subcommittee.

As many as 2,000 National Guard and Reserve personnel could be called to support Cyber Mission Force, one of three Cyber Command forces that would react to a cyberattack on the nation.

As military and government agencies compete with private sectors for cyber talent, the Pentagon continues to look for new ways to attract high-tech experts. That includes ramping up National Guard and Reserve recruiting efforts in places like California's Silicon Valley.

“There’s an important role for the National Guard and the Reserve,” Rosenbach said. “We want to capitalize on the expertise that folks who are in the private sector, but still want to serve their country, have.”

Rosenbach said the US is a “glass house” that should avoid launching a cyberattack against an enemy, because the DoD still does not have the capabilities and resources needed to defend against an ensuing counterattack.

"I'm very worried about how vulnerable we are, and that someone would then follow our example and just try to show the US that they could also take down part of the infrastructure to demonstrate that," he said.

"So, I think a cautious approach where we're conservative and we try to keep things stable is quite important.”

As a whole, the DoD is looking to hire 3,000 cyber experts by December 31. Cyber Command is slated to be at full capacity in fiscal 2018, with 6,200 military and civilian personnel. The force is currently about half-staffed.

Air Force Lieutenant General James K. McLaughlin, Cyber Command deputy commander, said all Guard and Reserve troops, including the cyber experts, will be trained to the same standards as active duty soldiers.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150416/1020947256.html#ixzz3XTGkZrT3

It's all getting a bit Orwellian round here. An amendment to the controversial cybersecurity bill making its way through the US Senate would allow for foreign nationals to be pursued and jailed — even if the crimes they had committed were on foreign soil, against other foreigners.

Cisa amendment would allow US to jail foreigners for crimes committed abroad

max steel wrote:It's all getting a bit Orwellian round here. An amendment to the controversial cybersecurity bill making its way through the US Senate would allow for foreign nationals to be pursued and jailed — even if the crimes they had committed were on foreign soil, against other foreigners.

Cisa amendment would allow US to jail foreigners for crimes committed abroad

So the americans are proposing another law that breaks international law just by its mere existence, like the pre-emptife strike bullshit.

That breaks, souvereignity of other states, well daily buisness for US, it breaks nations integrity of their soil, daily buisness for US and is prohibited by international law of laws can only apply to a nation and its citizens and on the soil it controls. Meaning US laws can not legally be applied to anyone not living on US soil, so that is true state terroristic law they are proposing. That is indeed orwellian, which i by the way read right now and makes to many sinister resembelence with our path they have set for us.

Senate passes controversial cybersecurity bill Cisa 74 to 21


It will allow the government to collect sensitive personal data unchecked, over the objections of civil liberties groups and many of the biggest names in the tech sector. Orwellian Era mode activated

"The Pentagon was tipped off in 2011 by a longtime Army contractor that Russian computer programmers were helping to write computer software for sensitive U.S. military communications systems, setting in motion a four-year federal investigation that ended this week with a multimillion-dollar fine against two firms involved in the work. The contractor, John C. Kingsley, said in court documents filed in the case that he discovered the Russians’ role after he was appointed to run one of the firms in 2010. He said the software they wrote had made it possible for the Pentagon’s communications systems to be infected with viruses. Greed drove the contractor to employ the Russian programmers, he said in his March 2011 complaint, which was sealed until late last week. He said they worked for one-third the rate that American programmers with the requisite security clearances could command. His accusations were denied by the firms that did the programming work.

“On at least one occasion, numerous viruses were loaded onto the DISA [Defense Information Systems Agency] network as a result of code written by the Russian programmers and installed on servers in the DISA secure system,” Kingsley said in his complaint, filed under the federal False Claims Act in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., on March 18, 2011. Asked to confirm that the Russians’ involvement in the software work led to the presence of viruses in the U.S. military’s communications systems, Alana Johnson, a spokeswoman for the Defense Information Systems Agency, declined to answer on the grounds that doing so could compromise the agency’s “national security posture.” “It’s something that we take very seriously,” Johnson said in a telephone interview on Tuesday. “The Department of Defense’s posture on cybersecurity ultimately affects national security.”

Kingsley first told a Defense Information Systems Agency official on Jan. 10, 2011, that Russians had been doing computer programming for Massachusetts-based NetCracker Technology Corporation under a federal contract, through an arrangement that corporate officials referred to as its “Back Office,” he said in his complaint. He said the work had been done in Moscow and elsewhere in Russia. The DISA official confirmed that the practice of outsourcing the work to employees in Russia violated both the company’s contract and federal regulations that mandate only U.S. citizens with approved security clearances work on classified systems, Kingsley’s complaint said. On Monday, NetCracker and the much larger Virginia-based Computer Sciences Corporation—which had subcontracted the work—agreed to pay a combined $12.75 million in civil penalties to close a four-year-long Justice Department investigation into the security breach. They each denied Kingsley’s accusations in settlement documents filed with the court.

The agency’s inspector general, Col. Bill Eger, who had investigated Kingsley’s allegations, said the case was a good example of how his office combats fraud. In a separate statement released Monday, Channing D. Phillips, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, said that “in addition to holding these two companies accountable for their contracting obligations, this settlement shows that the U.S. Attorney’s Office will take appropriate measures necessary to ensure the integrity of government communications systems.”

The $22 million contract the companies were working on dates from 2008, when the Pentagon first asked Computer Sciences Corporation to fortify and administer the computer networks of the Defense Information Systems Agency. The agency supports battlefield operations by running communication systems that enable soldiers, officers, and coalition partners to communicate in secret. Computer Sciences Corporation collected a total of $1.5 billion from the Pentagon in fiscal year 2014, according to the Federal Procurement Data System. The work at the heart of this case was part of a $613 million contract between the Defense Information Systems Agency and the corporation. Netcracker, which has done direct work for the Air Force and the General Services Administration, worked as a subcontractor on the deal......."

Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/11/04/pentagon-farmed-out-its-coding-to-russia.html

After US-Israel developed Stuxnet virus, a pair of highly complex and severely destructive, computer viruses launched at Iran’s nuclear facilities. According to a group of independent legal experts assembled at the request of NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence, the Stuxnet cyberattack was “an act of force.” Their report noted that “Acts that kill or injure persons or destroy or damage objects are unambiguously uses of force.Now:



Lethal Cyber-Warfare: Pentagon Secretly Develops Cyber Weapons Able to Killl

Major US defense contractors are competing for nearly a half-billion-dollar military contract on development of a computer code and cyber-weapons, which would be capable of harming humans in a real world.

The US troops may soon have the power to launch so-called logic bombs, instead of traditional explosive projectiles, these would essentially be able to direct an enemy’s critical infrastructure to self-destruct, likely with the loss of human life, according to Nextgov, a web-based information resource which reports on technology used by the US federal government.

Computer code capable of killing adversaries is expected to be developed and deployed, if necessary, in the near future.

Digital arms designed to kill are sanctioned under Pentagon doctrine, “Law of War Manual,” published in June.

There is a special section of the manual, Cyber Operations, which explains the application of the Law of War to cyber operations.

That means that, just as with traditional bombs and weaponry, cyber-strikes will be allowed if they have a proper legal basis, in order not to violate jus ad bellum (Latin for “right to war”) prohibitions on the resort to force.

These are essentially the same rules as for attacks employing traditional bombs or bullets.

“Cyber operations may in certain circumstances constitute uses of force within the meaning of Article 2(4) of the Charter of the United Nations and customary international law,” reads the Law of War Manual. “For example, if cyber operations cause effects that, if caused by traditional physical means, would be regarded as a use of force under jus ad bellum (Latin for ‘right to war” criteria), then such cyber operations would likely also be regarded as a use of force.”

The manual goes on to give grim examples of what might constitute acceptable uses for cyber-weapons: trigger a nuclear plant meltdown; open a dam above a populated area, causing destruction; or disable air traffic control services, resulting in airplane crashes.

Similarly, cyber operations that cripple a military’s logistics systems, and thus its ability to conduct and sustain military operations, might also be considered a use of force under jus ad bellum.

US Cyber Command (US CYBERCOM), responsible for the development of the deadly cyber weapons, is set to outsource to industry all command mission support activities, including “cyber fires” planning, as well as “cyberspace joint munitions” assessments.

Raytheon, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin – major US defense contractors — are among the companies set to compete for a $460 million contract.



I wonder what Russia is doing in cyber field. US seems quiet aggressive on cyber front.

US Intel Community Taps Encryption-Busting Tech Firm for Digital Spying

Amid growing terrorist threats from groups like ISIS and increasingly successful cyberattacks from nation states like China, the U.S. intelligence community today announced it will invest in a company that produces digital forensics software.In-Q-Tel, the IC’s technology investment arm, did not disclose how much funding it will provide the Canadian-based Magnet Forensics, but officials said they believe the company and its flagship product, the Internet Evidence Finder, are promising examples of innovation in the expanding field of digital forensics.

Internet Evidence Finder, the 4-year-old company’s most popular product, is used by 2,700 public safety organizations across 92 countries, primarily for law enforcement purposes. It recovers and analyzes unstructured data, like social media posts, text from chat rooms and emails from computers and other Web-connected devices.

The company bills its software as useful for “cybercrime, terrorism, child exploitation and insider threats,” but it’s likely the first two avenues are the most interesting for In-Q-Tel. Use cases for such technology include both predicting terrorism or cyberattacks and piecing together the digital pieces after an event.

Comments made recently by Jad Saliba, founder and chief technology officer of Magnet Forensics, suggest another interest In-Q-Tel might have in the company: mitigating encryption.

Saliba’s company collects digital evidence from devices, including the “unbreakable” iPhone, according to a report in the Toronto Star last month.

“While conducting such digital forensic investigations on (an Apple device) is becoming increasingly difficult due to increased encryption, we’re committed to continuing to innovate to support our partners in law enforcement so they can get the critical evidence they need for their investigations,” Saliba said in a statement to the Star.

Following the terrorist attacks carried out by ISIS in Paris, U.S. intelligence officials, including CIA Director John Brennan, said encryption technologies were making it more difficult to monitor terrorists.

Recently, key lawmakers proposed the first bills addressing encrypted communications, suggesting tech companies work with government to address the issue. British lawmakers considered a bill last month that would have allowed the police to force tech companies to decrypt communications.

Such legislation isn’t out of the question in America, though it would surely draw ire from privacy advocates who have more legal footing to stand on. It’s likely, though, the intelligence community wants to explore every avenue it can in exploiting encryption.

US Spies Teach Computers to Hunt For Enemy Missile Launchers

A new $10 million US intelligence project seeks to use image-search applications to single out mobile missile launchers revealed by satellite data, and alert human analysts.



At the core of the project is the idea of using machines to identify launcher-shaped objects buried within the staggering amount of digital imagery collected by US spy satellites, manned and unmanned aircraft.

A senior official in the Department of Defense explained that it is this vast amount of data that makes manual research inefficient.

The ultimate goal is to train computers spot what are called transporter-erector-launchers (TELs). North Korea used these kinds of launchers during missile tests conducted over the last few months.

According to a US defense official, the Pentagon had little warning of the mobile launch on March 18, when Pyongyang fired two Nodong missiles into the Sea of Japan.

Using machine intelligence to track sites globally, single out TELs and alert analysts of the threat would assist the Pentagon in having prior knowledge of missile launches.

TELs on the ground are hard to identify, especially when disguised as semi trucks or shipping containers. Bill Gattle, president of Harris Corp.'s Space and Intelligence Solutions division, says the key is teaching the machines to distinguish between the normal and abnormal protocols and procedures of surveillance targets.

According to Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work, this type of automation would be most beneficial at the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency, which snaps pictures from US spy satellites, processes the images and hands the data to the military and intelligence community.

US Cyber Command, NSA Undertook Ops Against Iran Prior to US Election - Report

The head of US Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) and the National Security Agency (NSA) told reporters Tuesday the US had carried out cyber ops against Iran to ensure it did not interfere with the US elections.

US Army Gen. Paul Nakasone, who heads both CYBERCOM and the NSA, told reporters Tuesday he was “very confident in actions” taken against Iran “over the past several weeks and the past several months to make sure that they’re not going to interfere in our elections,” the Washington Post reported.

However, the cyber chief gave no specific information about the operations.

Nakasone said that while they were watching for interference in the US election, “I just don’t see the levels that we had seen” in 2018. During that election, too, the wild claims about planned interference by Russia failed to materialize, leaving the media strangely silent during the November day of decision.

About two weeks before the 2020 election, US Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe and FBI Director Christopher Wray claimed that Russia and Iran had “taken specific actions to influence public opinion relating to [US] elections."

Among those claims were that the two nations had independently obtained US voter registration information, and that Iran had emailed threatening messages to voters in several US states posing as the right-wing gang Proud Boys and warning would-be voters for Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden to support US President Donald Trump instead. Ratcliffe also claimed Iran was behind a video that "implies that individuals could cast fraudulent ballots, even from overseas,” which he said was an attempt to discredit the election.

However, Ratcliffe’s conclusions came from metadata that pointed to the use of servers in countries such as Saudi Arabia, Estonia, Singapore and the United Arab Emirates, but not Iran, according to the Washington Post.

Further, the Iranian government has repeatedly denied it has any interest in swaying the US election, but if it did, it’s unclear why it would wish to help Trump win, when his administration is responsible for torpedoing a delicate detente decades in the making and implementing a crushing new “maximum pressure” campaign that has wrecked Iran’s economy and caused many Iranians to die of COVID-19 and other diseases that sanctions prevent the buying of medicines for.

The day after Ratcliffe and Wray’s announcements, the US Treasury sanctioned five Iranian entities it accused of being "components of the Government of Iran, disguised as news organizations or media outlets" and attempting to interfere in the US elections.

https://sputniknews.com/military/202011031080978519-us-cyber-command-nsa-undertook-ops-against-iran-prior-to-us-election---report/