Back in August, we wrote about how self-discipline can be one of the hardest parts of security, as illustrated by Snowden and the NSA. Just recently, Salon published an article about similar issues that plagued the CIA during the Cold War: How to explain the KGB’s amazing success identifying CIA agents in the field?
So many of their agents were being uncovered by the Soviets that they assumed there must’ve been double agents…somewhere. Apparently there was a lot of inward-focused paranoia. The truth was a lot more mundane, but also very actionable — not only for the CIA, but for business in general: two departments (in this case, two agencies) in one organization with incompatible, non-coordinated policies:
So how, exactly, did Totrov reconstitute CIA personnel listings without access to the files themselves or those who put them together?
His approach required a clever combination of clear insight into human behavior, root common sense and strict logic.
In the world of secret intelligence the first rule is that of the ancient Chinese philosopher of war Sun Tzu: To defeat the enemy, you have above all to know yourself. The KGB was a huge bureaucracy within a bureaucracy — the Soviet Union. Any Soviet citizen had an intimate acquaintance with how bureaucracies function. They are fundamentally creatures of habit and, as any cryptanalyst knows, the key to breaking the adversary’s cipher is to find repetitions. The same applies to the parallel universe of human counterintelligence.
The difference between Totrov and his fellow citizens was that whereas others at home and abroad would assume the Soviet Union was somehow unique, he applied his understanding of his own society to a society that on the surface seemed unique, but which, in respect of how government worked, was not in fact that much different: the United States.
From an organizational point of view, what’s fascinating is that the problem came from two different agencies with different missions having incompatible, uncoordinated policies: policies for Foreign Service Officers and policies for CIA officers were different enough to allow the Soviet Union to identify individuals who were theoretically Foreign Service Officers but who did not receive the same treatment as actual Foreign Service Officers. Pay and policy differentials made it easy to separate actual Foreign Service Officers from CIA agents.
Thus one productive line of inquiry quickly yielded evidence: the differences in the way agency officers undercover as diplomats were treated from genuine foreign service officers (FSOs). The pay scale at entry was much higher for a CIA officer; after three to four years abroad a genuine FSO could return home, whereas an agency employee could not; real FSOs had to be recruited between the ages of 21 and 31, whereas this did not apply to an agency officer; only real FSOs had to attend the Institute of Foreign Service for three months before entering the service; naturalized Americans could not become FSOs for at least nine years but they could become agency employees; when agency officers returned home, they did not normally appear in State Department listings; should they appear they were classified as research and planning, research and intelligence, consular or chancery for security affairs; unlike FSOs, agency officers could change their place of work for no apparent reason; their published biographies contained obvious gaps; agency officers could be relocated within the country to which they were posted, FSOs were not; agency officers usually had more than one working foreign language; their cover was usually as a “political” or “consular” official (often vice-consul); internal embassy reorganizations usually left agency personnel untouched, whether their rank, their office space or their telephones; their offices were located in restricted zones within the embassy; they would appear on the streets during the working day using public telephone boxes; they would arrange meetings for the evening, out of town, usually around 7.30 p.m. or 8.00 p.m.; and whereas FSOs had to observe strict rules about attending dinner, agency officers could come and go as they pleased.
You don’t need to infiltrate the CIA if the CIA and the State Department can’t agree on how to treat their staff and what rules to apply!
One way of looking at the problem was that the diplomats had their own goals, and they set policies appropriate to those goals. By necessity, they didn’t actually know the overall goals of their own embassies. It’s not unusual for different subdivisions of an organization to have conflicting goals. The question is how to manage those tensions. What was the point of requiring a 9 year wait after naturalization before someone could work as a foreign service officer? A different executive agency, with higher needs for the integrity of its agents, didn’t consider the wait necessary. Eliminating the wait would’ve eliminated an obvious difference between agents and normal diplomats.
But are we sure the wait wasn’t necessary? It creates a large obstacle for our adversaries: they need to think 9 years ahead if they want to supply their own mole instead of turning one of our diplomats. On the other hand, it created too large an obstacle for ourselves.
Is it more important to defend against foreign agents or to create high-quality cover for our own agents? Two agencies disagreed and pursued their own interests without resolving the disagreement. Either policy could have been effective; having both policies was an information give-away.
How can this sort of issue arise for private businesses? Too often individual departments can set policies that come into conflict with one another. For instance, an IT department may with perfectly reasonable justification decide to standardize on a single browser. A second department decides to develop internal tools that rely on browser add-ons like ActiveX or Java applets. When a vulnerability is discovered in those add-ons to the standard browser, the organization finds it is now dependent on an inherently insecure tool. Neither department is responsible for the situation; both acted in good faith within their arena. The problem was caused by a lack of any one responsible for determining how to set policies for the best good of the organization as a whole.
Security policies need to be set to take all the organization’s goals into consideration; to do that, someone has to be looking at the whole picture.