{"id":110401,"date":"2017-12-02T15:38:00","date_gmt":"2017-12-02T15:38:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2023-01-08T11:00:33","modified_gmt":"2023-01-08T11:00:33","slug":"no-leaks-in-on-line-f-22-comments-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/2017\/12\/02\/no-leaks-in-on-line-f-22-comments-2\/","title":{"rendered":"No Leaks in On-Line F-22 Comments"},"content":{"rendered":"<div style=\"margin-top: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px;\" class=\"sharethis-inline-share-buttons\" ><\/div><h3 class=\"post-title entry-title\" itemprop=\"name\"><\/h3>\n<div class=\"post-header\"> <\/div>\n<p>An F-22 pilot who made numerous internet posts about his  state-of-the-art aircraft did not divulge classified information,  according to an Air Force operations security (OPSEC) assessment and a  security review. Both were conducted prior to a recent briefing by the  Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI), which suggested the  on-line comments confirmed technical and operational details about the  fifth-generation fighter.<\/p>\n<p>An AFOSI spokeswoman also revealed that  a widely-circulated PowerPoint presentation on the incident was  intended for internal use, and not general release. Entitled \u201cCyber  OPSEC: An F-22 Case Study,\u201d the unclassified briefing was designed as an  in-house training tool for the OSI detachment at Davis-Monthan AFB,  Arizona. But, after its initial presentation at the Arizona base, the  briefing was quickly passed to scores of Air Force units and military  bloggers.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThere\u2019s been a lot of misinformation about this,\u201d said  Linda Card, a public affairs specialist at AFOSI Headquarters in  Washington. She emphasized that the organization did not conduct a  criminal investigation into the pilot\u2019s on-line comments, which appeared  on a popular aviation forum.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe guy did something dumb\u2014not illegal,\u201d Card observed.<\/p>\n<p>According  to the OSI spokeswoman, the organization\u2019s involvement in the matter  was limited to a classification review of material posted by the pilot,  who used the screen name \u201cDozer.\u201d OSI personnel conducted the review <a href=\"http:\/\/ww3.safaq.hq.af.mil\/organizations\/\">in conjunction with SAF\/AQL,<\/a> the Headquarters Air Force acquisition directorate in charge of special programs.<\/p>\n<p>The  classification review determined that none of the pilot\u2019s forum  comments revealed sensitive information about the F-22. SAF\/AQL is the  service\u2019s original classification authority for a number of systems that  incorporate classified technology, including the F-22.<\/p>\n<p>Card also  said that an operations security (OPSEC) study, conducted by Air Combat  Command (ACC), reached a similar conclusion. Headquartered at Langley  AFB, Virginia, ACC has been responsible for integrating the F-22 into  combat units. The Air Force\u2019s first F-22 wing is based at Langley, and  the pilot involved in the internet episode was formerly assigned there.<\/p>\n<p>During  his tour at the base, Dozer also served as the Air Force F-22  demonstration pilot, showcasing the jet at various airshows around the  country. He has also been interviewed by a number of media outlets and  appeared in TV documentaries about the stealth fighter. He is now the  commander of the first F-22 squadron based outside the CONUS, at  Elmendorf AFB, Alaska.<\/p>\n<p>The AFOSI public affairs representative  said she \u201cdid not know\u201d if agents who assembled the PowerPoint  presentation spoke with \u201cDozer\u201d as part of their research. Asked if  those agents were \u201cread into\u201d the F-22 program, Card said \u201cnot to my  knowledge.<\/p>\n<p>Personnel with that status\u2014which requires additional  security screening\u2014are privy to the most sensitive information on the  \u201cRaptor\u2019s\u201d technology and performance.<\/p>\n<p>Card confirmed that the  OSI\u2019s Davis-Monthan detachment built the briefing after receiving  information on the OPSEC study from ACC, which cited it as a \u201cgood  example\u201d of on-line security hazards. First delivered at Davis-Monthan  last month, the briefing was intended for unit training. But it quickly  circulated to other Air Force units and military bloggers, generating a  minor tempest.<\/p>\n<p>The briefing\u2019s cover slide contains a silhouette  photo of an F-22 and the shields of four military and law enforcement  agencies: the AFOSI, the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and  the Department of Homeland Security. The appearance of those shields  suggested that the presentation was a multi-agency product.<\/p>\n<p>However,  Card affirmed that none of those organizations assisted with the  briefing, or the original OPSEC study. She said that agents who prepared  the briefing decided to insert the other shields because they assist  the AFOSI in the investigation of cyber-crime and security issues. They  also participate (along with the OSI) in threat working groups, a target  audience for the cyber OPSEC briefing.<\/p>\n<p>Separately, a DHS  official in Washington stated that his organization had no involvement  with the OSI briefing or the earlier security assessments.  Representatives from the FBI and NCIS did not respond to e-mail requests  for comment.<\/p>\n<p>Much of the AFOSI presentation is devoted to  Dozer\u2019s various posts on the forum, and queries from other participants.  One of the briefing\u2019s final slides, labeled \u201cWhat Have We Learned About  the F-22,\u201d lists a wide range of technical and operational information,  ranging from aircraft lot numbers at different bases, the function of  specific flaps and doors on the jet, and \u201cweapons systems operational  details.\u201d<\/p>\n<p>But an analysis of the information, <a href=\"http:\/\/formerspook.blogspot.com\/2008\/03\/giving-it-away-on-linedissecting-opsec_06.html\">conducted by <em>In From the Cold<\/em><\/a>,  determined that virtually all of the data was already in the public  domain. One question, about the F-22\u2019s lack of a helmet-mounted sight,  could be easily answered by on-line articles dating back to the late  1990s.<\/p>\n<p>Another interrogatory, about a mock dogfight between the  Raptor and the new Eurofighter \u201dTyphoon,\u201d was also the subject of prior  press reporting and on-line speculation. An Aviation Week article\u2014easily  accessed through internet search engines\u2013provided details on the  deployment, and hinted that the Typhoons had some success in tracking  the stealthy F-22.<\/p>\n<p>Answers to other questions were also readily found, through other on-line sources.<\/p>\n<p>Card  said it was unclear why the training brief was circulated beyond the  OSI detachment at Davis-Monthan. While the 28-slide presentation is  clearly marked &#8220;unclassified\/open source,&#8221; there are no overt  indications that it was intended solely for training purposes&#8211;or that  distribution was limited to the Arizona detachment.<\/p>\n<p>In the wake  of the F-22 controversy, Air Force members have received additional  training on security hazards associated with social networking sites.  That training has been provided by public affairs specialists.<\/p>\n<p>While  cyber-crime is a major mission for the OSI, Card noted that the  organization rarely investigates OPSEC issues on blogs and message  boards. &#8220;The OSI investigates criminal cases for the Air Force,&#8221; she  said in an e-mail. &#8220;This particular situation did not warrant a criminal  investigation nor an official inquiry.&#8221;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>An F-22 pilot who made numerous internet posts about his state-of-the-art aircraft did not divulge classified information, according to an Air Force operations security (OPSEC) assessment and a security review. Both were conducted prior to a recent briefing by the Air Force Office of Special Investigations (AFOSI), which suggested the on-line comments confirmed technical and [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[1],"tags":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110401"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=110401"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/110401\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=110401"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=110401"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/cvnextjob.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=110401"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}