Report No DONG-2015048 I wurunlu INSPECTOR GENERAL US Department of Defense December 8 2014 Joint CybEr Centers I NH UIU EIIHTIEEI 0n Beebe- I I 1 Second Printing 3 Report 7 of 25 if- INTEGRITY 1r EFFICIENCY it ACCOUNTABILITY EXCELLENCE dl hl ll If HUI SEW it EFFICIENCY ACCOUNTABILITY EXCELLENCE Mission Our mission is to provide independent reievant and timeiy oversight of the Department of Defense that supports the war yhter promotes integrity and efficiency - advises the Secretary of Defense and Congress - and informs the pahiic Vision Our vision is to be a modei oversight organization in the Federai Government by ieading change speaking truth and promoting exceiience a diverse organization working together as one professionai team recognized as fenders in our fieid Fraud Waste 8 Abuse Department of Defense dodig mil hotline For more information about whistleblower protection please see the inside back cover If Results in Brief F ll'n ointC IberCent-ers lilill Cyberspace Operations December 8 2014 U Objective We determined whether Combatant Commands had suf cient cyber personnel and support from U S Cyber Command to effectively conduct cyber operations in their areas of operations U Finding Combatant commanders made progress in implementing a command and control structure for cyberspace operations however additional actions are needed Additionally U S Paci c Command and U S Central Command '1111'11'111 lit -1 -I 1_1Iti in their Joint Cyher Centers and Cyber Support Element support from USCYBERCOM 11-1111 111-11 o -o -111 directed by the Joint Staff for planning integrating and cyberspace operations Speci cally I 63 USPACOM oint Cyber Center 1I-11I1 I personnel 11 - 11- - Ii ofthe tasks arid wele ofthe tasks 1 11111191101 USCENTCOM 1-11-11 tasks and 1 USCYBERCIQM did not USCENTCOM This occurred because previously validated and approved I ll'Fl I I1- I -I based on new cyber requirements visit Us at Finding cont d prioritized implementing and elding the Cyber Mission Forcest and temporary solution to task while elding Cyber Mission kilns 1 111I1 11-111 I 111 I 11 offensive defensive and Information Netwoikcyberspace I 111111 I 11151 11 I -11-11 I 11- 111 - 1 5111115 I I 41- operations 11-11 on cyberspace capabilities to execute missions U Recommendations We recommend that the Director Joint Staffdeyelop a communications strategy for disseminating incremental decisions and needed guidance We also recommend that all combatant commanders conduct a command-wide mission-impact analysis of cyberspace mission requirements needed resources and capability gaps affecting their ability to effectively implement command and control of cyberspace operations Furthermore we recommend that the Commanders U S Strategic Command and USCYBERCUM increase CSE staf ng at Combatant cyberspace operations U Management Comments and Our Response We did not receive comments from the Commanders U S European Command U S Southern Command U S Special Operations Command U S Transportation Command U S Strategic Command U S Northern Command and U S Africa Command in response to the draft report We revised recommendations based on management comments Comments from USCYBERCDM and USCENTCOM partially addressed the recommendations but further comments are required Additionally comments from the pint Staffdid not address the ofthe recommendations We request management comment on the final report by January 8 201 5 Please see the Recommendations Table on the back of this page SW SEW U Recommendations Table I Unclassified Recommendations No Additional Comments Management Requiring Comments Required Commander US Pacific Command 2 Commander U S European Command Commander LLS Southern Command Commander U S Central Command Commander LLS Special Operations Command Commander U5 Transportation Command Commander U5 Strategic Command Commander U 5 Northern Command Commander U S Africa Command Commander U S Strategic Command 3 Commander U 5 Cyber Command Director Joint Staff 1 Unclassi ed Piease provide Management Comments by January 3 2015 i 'Im- IMH- uni-1 SEW INSPECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT DEFENSE 4300 MARK CENTER DRIVE ALEXANDRIA VIRGINIA 2235 1-1500 December 8 2014 MEMORANDUM FDR DISTRIBUTION SUBIECT Joint Cyber Centers Cyberspace Operations Report No We are providing this report for review and comment Combatant commanders made progress in implementing a command and control structure for cyberspace I1 operations however further actions and resources are needed to I 41 11 that do not exist within the other war ghting domains In partiCular U S Pacific Command and U S Central Command which are recognized within as having more mature cyberspace In ll lm I I-Ilci I-lin'l I-Iiei support from cyberspace operations capabilities U S Cyber Command to I Hill I Jon I he Hon l-lici We considered management comments on a draft of this report when preparing the final report However the Commanders US Paci c Command U S European Command US Southern Command LLB Special Operations Command U S Transportation Command U S Strategic Command LLS Northern Command and US Africa Command did not comment on Recommendation 2 and the Commander U S Strategic Command did not comment on Recommendation 3 Directive 7650 3 requires that recommendations be resolved Therefore we request that the commanders provide comments on the nding and recommendations bylanuary 8 2015 U As a result ofmanagement comments we revised Recommendations 2 and 3 The Vice Director Joint Staff responding for the Director Joint Staff did not address the speci cs of Recommendation 1 The Chief Manpower Division 11 responding for the Commander U S Centrai Command partially addressed the specifics of Recommendation 2 The Deputy Commander USCYBERCOM responding for the Commander USCYBERCOM partially addressed the speci cs of Recommendation 3 We request that the Director Joint Staff the Commander US Central Command and the Commander U S Cyher Command provide additional comments on the final report by Ianuary B 2015 Although not reouired to comment the Director Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation agreed with the finding Please provide comments that conform to the requirements of Directive 7 6503 Classi ed comments must be sent electronically over the SECRET Internet Protocol Router Network Please send a PDF le containing your comments t a_ Copies ofyom' comments must have the actual signature of the authorizing of cial for your organization We cannot accept the Signed symbol in place of the actual signature Comments provided on the report must be marked and portion-marked as appropriate in accordance with Manual $200 01 If you consider any matters to be exempt from public release you should mark them clearly for Inspector General consideration We appreciate the courtesies extended to the staff Please direct questions to me at 703 699-7331 4997331 Carol N Gorman Assistant Inspector General Readiness and Cyber Operations U DISTRIBUTION U UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FDR POLICY COMMANDER U S PACIFIC COMMAND COMMANDER U S EUROPEAN COMMAND COMMANDER U S SOUTHERN COMMAND COMMANDER U S CENTRAL COMMAND COMMANDER U S SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND COMMANDER U S TRANSPORTATION COMMAND COMMANDER U S STRATEGIC COMMAND COMMANDER U S CYBER COMMAND U COMMANDER U S NORTHERN COMMAND COMMANDER U S AFRICA COMMAND DIRECTOR JOINT STAFF DOD CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER U DIRECTOR COST ASSESSMENT AND PROGRAM EVALUATION m U Contents U Introduction Objective Background on Cyberspace Operations Cyberspace Responsibilities and Requirements U Review oflnternal ll ll I ihllHIHI HI Findin Resources Combatant Command Progress Made in Implementing the Transitional Cyberspace Operations C2 Concept of Operations lf l'l'm'l l Personnel to Perform CyberSpace II USCYBERCUM unease Limited Reliance on Cyberspace Operations Recommendations Management Co mments and Uur Response 30 Unsolicited Management Comments U Appendixes Appendix A Scope and Methodology U Appendix B Key Cyberspace Events Appendix C Cyberspace Tasks Directed by Joint Staff Management Comments U S Central Command U S Cyber Command Joint Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation U Source of Classified U Acronyms and mm- Cyberspace Operations UH-F989 11 Hmli flit-L n ltg rhnnu'i CSE Requirements 54- U Introduction Ui Objective U Our objective was to determine whether Combatant Commands had suf cient cyber personnel and support from U S Cyber Command to effectively conduct cyber operations in their areas ofoperations See Appendix A for the scope and methodology and prior audit coverage related to the obiective U Background on DOD Cybersnace Dperations uses cyberspace to enable its military intelligence and business operations including the movement of personnel and material and the command and control of the full spectrum of military operations Cyberspace is one of the five domains the other domains are air land maritime and space Cyberspace unlike the other physical domains is a global domain within the information environment consisting of interdependent networks of information technology infrastructures and resident data including the lnternet telecommunications networks computer systems and embedded processors and controllers Cyberspace operations employ cyberspace capabilities to ensure access and freedom of operations in through and from cyberspace to deliver effects in any ofthe domains at times and places of DoD's choosing to deny adversaries access and freedom of operations at times and places of DoD's choosing and to sustain mission-essential segments of cyberspace networks in the face of adversary action or stressed environments Cyberspace operations are categorized under three lines of operations based on their intent 1 Offensive Cyberspace Operations Project power by the application of force in and through cyberspace 2 Defensive Cyberspace Operations Defend D01 or other friendly cyberSpace 3 ll W Information Network Operations Design build con gure secure operate maintain and sustain communications systems and networks to create and preserve data availability integrity confidentiality as well as user authentication and nonrepudiation ' U Cyberspace Responsibilities and Requirements Under the authority of the Secretary of Defense uses cyberspace capabilities to perform integrated offensive and defensive operations The Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Cyber Policy Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy integrates cyberspace operations into national and strategies develops policy related to cyber forces and employment of those forces and ensures cyber capabilities are integrated into operation and contingency plans The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ensures cyberspace plans and operations are compatible with other military plans Although the Commander U S Strategic Command is responsible for securing operating and defending the and critical cyberspace assets systems and functions against an intrusion or attack the Commander delegated most cyberspace responsibilities to the Commander USCYBERCDM The Commander USCYBERCOM has three mission areas defend the Nation against strategic cyber attacks support Combatant Command contingency and operational planning and support the security operation and defense of the The other combatant commanders operate and defend their tactical and constructed networks and integrate cyberspace capabilities into all military operations As such combatant commanders have responsibility for integrating cyberspace capabilities into their command plans and coordinating with other combatant commanders the Military Services and agencies to create fully integrated capabilities The Military Services support combatant commanders by organizing training and equipping forces in addition to securing and defending their global networks bf F6999 On May 1 2012 the Secretary ofDefense issued a memorandum TransitionalFramework for Cyberspace Operations Command and Control directing combatant commanders to establish Joint Cyber Centers using existing capabilities and personnel to standardize C2 of cyberspace operations based on the 1 full Nonrepudiation is assurance the sender of data receives proof of delivery and the recipient receives proof of the sendei s identify to prevent either from later denying they processed the data ll iv- U m March 15 2012 Joint Staff Transitional Cyberspace Operations C2 Concept ofOperations See Appendix for a timeline ofcritical cyberspace events related to combatant commanders establishing JCCs and taking responsibility for planning and integrating cyberspace into operations The Transitional Cyberspace Operations C2 Concept ofOperations requires USSTRATCDM and USCYBERCOM to directly support JCC operations through forward-deployed Cyber Support Elements Additionally it requires JCCS to perform 41 cyberspace tasks related to coordinating planning and decon icting Combatant Command cyberspace opErational requirements It also requires combatant commanders to perform 24-unique cyberspace tasks but does not specify that the JCCS are responsible for performing these tasks At U S Pacific Command llSP ht l vI jmm' Whereas the JCC at us Central Command uscenrcoM was mm 3 See Appendix for the list of 65 cyberspace tasks directed by the Joint Staff Joint Publication 3-12 Cyberspace Operations Febrilary S 2013 requires USCYBERCOM CSEs to provide JCCs with reachbaclt4 capabilities and support from USCYBERCOM and the Service Components The Joint Staff Transitional Cyberspace Operations C2 Concept ofOperations requires CSEs to perform six unique tasks to support JCCs in planning and integrating cyberspace into command operations The Chairman ofthe Joint Chiefs ofStaffissued an Execute Order to Implement Cyberspace Operations C2 Framework June 21 2013 Execute Order HHDEIE i I I-Flt'l 2 CSEs are cyberspace operations planners and subject matter experts USCENTCUM's analysis of its JCC's ability to complete cyberspace tasks was based only on 60 of the 65 Joint Staff-directed tasks because other joint directoratEs were responsible for the 5 tasks Him Reachback is performed by the CSEs as USCYBERCOM experts to facilitate communication with USCYBERCOM to enable coordinatlon deconfliction and olsupporting USCYEERCOM effects as requested by the Combatant Commands f'l Hm IliclI-ltgl i a 65 I 3 Figure 1- thmr Lit- 11 I no I 1 31 I call I 411 I-ltgr l'Af' M Mill 11 l-Ittgl Source USCYBERCOM of ease USCYBERCOM documentation defines at the operational level of warfare with a matrixed-staff organization planning and executing military cyberspace operations The primary difference between the two models is that the operational control model gives combatant commanders operational control over specific Combat Mission Forces Combat Mission Teams and Combat Support Teams The Joint Staff acknowledged that all Combatant Commands would not implement the operational control mode because of differences in each command s cyberspace mission Figure 2 on the next page describes the future C2 operational structure iz i IUII - Hr I I I -Il 'll I I55 IE5 is Halli Figure 2- h tllu l-Ilcl It Hg l I hit Ill 1 I I JimSource USCYBERCOM The Cyber Mission Forces are composed I IIn-tla I Jl-n-I In total plans to dedicate approximately fit Throughout FY 2014 USCYBERCOM and the Service Components lhllI Ilul QED ransom mini Hm I l4i1 l - Table 1 on the next page identi es the composition and missions of the CENT-CUM ll'nHll I 411 teams and the number of teams and personnel each team l V'l- l th Teams W Table 1 Composition ofthe nlh u u unn F- un-u TN lift-1M I -l ill_ USU Ill I 4W1 I My ti-HM I -Il_i l I Uffree i The Execute Order directs combatant commanders upon initial operating capability to assume operational control over Combatant Command vaer Protection Teams U Review of internal Controls Instruction 5010 40 Managers' Internal Control Program Procedures May 30 2013 requires 300 organizations to implement a comprehensive system of internal controls that provides reasonable assurance that internal controls are operating as intended and to evaluate the effectiveness ofthe controls We did not find internal control weaknesses at USPACOM USCENTCOM or USCYBERCOM related to our audit objective Although we did not identify any internal control weaknesses we found deficiencies at USPACOM USCENTCOM and USCYBERCOM that affected the commands' ability to effectively plan and integrate cyberspace into command plans and operations WIFinding Resources Needed to Effectively Plan and Integrate Combatant Command Cyberspace Operations Combatant commanders made progress in implementing a C2 structure for cyberspace operations by establishing ICCs and integrating CSEs into daily Operations However additional actions are needed in a resource-constrained environment to enable combatant commanders to effectively plan and integrate cyberspace into operations Ur I m In addition USPACUM and USCENTCOM LEM-WM 1 mm and CSE support from USCYBERCOMS directed by the Joint Staff for planning integrating and cyberspace operations Speci cally l-itll I-llL'i ninJs I ICC personneh I I Inn I in I Ins i'Im'I'ruM ll'I-Hli I Jigr tJHliIlS the tasks - I 'I- iel- fit-ll tilt Ilialli 7 01 'llLi USCENTCOM ICC personnel complete of the tasks and wer- of the tasks and ll m USCYBERCOM I till-F'JlEJ CSES at USPACOM and at the CSEs to effectively 11 l M tasks and to cyberspace operations 5 Although the Execute Order and Transitional Cyberspace Operations C2 Concept of Operations directed USSTHATEOM and USCYBERCUM to provide CSEs we focused on USCYBERCOM because it rEquested permanent billets and issued task orders to meet this requirement 4' Li m officials stated otherjoint directorates and not the ll il'i We did not assess whether the joint directorates completed these tasks GEE-W This occurred because previously validated and wwdt'mlcom l-Irl'ifl msuppm t Mel Forces and changes to the the fielding of' cyberspace environment i'Ef a WW prioritized the implementation and elding of the - Forces and - Waig i i illii' As a result USPACDM and USCENTCOM - - - - II-HJII capablhhes mu Operations and command plans I'Iu jf'thl in HJHH I 1-Iinl 4m to execute the combatant commanders missions Specifically I Pill-'15 ll lit-g USPACOM Icc personnel operational and contingency plans while I I c i'I persunnel havetlplans U Progress Made in Implementing the Transitional Cyberspace Operations C2 Concept of Operations W Combatant commanders made progress in implementing the Joint Staff ill-HI 4l ll I 41 31 Transitional Cyberspace Operations C2 Concept of perations Hf Ti Co Inbnto nt maria in I'mpiernentiny the joint Staff 1' - 1 bill I lb li ltlul l a EMJHSIMCL Hm I inIJ I Ida 2 Concept of Operotroos Hill I-Ile 111 Hill Jig lull l Mom I Ian-us I Hm I in lms II I Uta - I l-ltL l Since establishing the ICCs USPACUM and USCENTCOM began planning directing and cyberspace operations with support from forward-deployed CSEs Speci cally they began focusing on cyberspace situational awareness and incorporating cyberspace into their operational and contingency plans exercises and boards bureaus centers cells and working groups For example the Director 16 Command Control Communications and Cyber requires daily reporting and weekly cyber update brie ngs from all components and forces in the USPACDM theater to cyberspace operations and to provide the Commander USPACOM continuous situational awareness ofcyberspace issues and threats affecting the command Further the USPACOM and USCENTCOM ICCs began developing or expanding cyberspace partnerships with allies international partners and other Governmental agencies in their areas of operation For example USCENTCOM issues threat warnings to regional partners about their critical infrastructure and key t'EI ult'tihl Hill I Tit-J linlit'iILrrI-iiTiiI-i FEED 1113 ES While made progress in implementing command structures for executing the new cyber mission additional actions are needed in a resource-constrained environment to enable all l'U 1'13 5-513 4 fiddler-ml Combatant Commands to effectively plan and integrate mm We Emilia cyberspace into operations USPACOM and USCENTCOM officials stated that although they generally shared information between the commands pertaining to their progress in implementing the direct support model UCC and CSE construct they did not regularly communicate similar information with other Combatant Command ICC personnel Officials from the Joint Staffacknowledged that Hill I Iii-in ict i'lni'InI-i officials also acknowledged that Combatant Commands were not effectively 7 Boards bureaus centers cells and working groups include cross functional experts for example representation from multiple joint dlrectorates with a stake in a particular mission or task - wlthin a Combatant Command brought together to facilitate coordinate plan and execute specific missions and tasks- EEG-HEW Hill I Fiel noon i-iriici-I communicating with each other mission ll W Additionally USPACOM and USCENTCOM officials identified the need for further guidance and information from the Joint Staff to assist them in planning and integrating cyberspace into operations based on the rapidly changing cyberspace domain For example USPACOM of cials stated that additional information to better understand the genesis ofcyberspace decisions affecting Combatant Commands and guidance identifying Combatant Command authorities for planning and executing operations and sharing information with partners was needed Additionally USCENTCOM of cials stated that guidance was needed for integrating the JCCs and CSEs and for prioritizing and responding to Combatant Command threats Furthermore USCENTCOM officials stated to incorporate lessons learned from the commands that implemented JCCs to better enable the commands to identify needed ICC resources Not regularly sharing information or providing timely guidance and decisions decreased the combatant commanders ability to effectively plan and prioritize cyberspace operations in a resource-constrained and rapidly evolving domain The Joint Staff and the Commander USCYBERCDM could consider conducting regular global conferences as part of their strategy for improving communication Additionally the Joint Staff in coordination with USSTRATCOM could consider updating the Transitional Cyberspace lOperations C2 Concept ofOperations or issuing an updated Execute Order or fragmentary order to provide more timely guidance The Director Joint Staff should develop a communications strategy for disseminating incremental decisions and timely guidance affecting cyberspace command and control until the end-state for command and control of cyberspace operations is defined and achieved see-am Io' Ill I'l ll'li l I Persannel to Perform Cyberspace Tasks I I 4m I he I 11mm l-Itin hull I I 4m l-ngh PAPUM I I 411 IAIN I I I 4m Hug- 1 A resmn'm ng the EC miss-Ion has been and continues to he a challenge MHJM Hm 4m M3 IS Itn 1le I Hm NIH I My DRINK HM liHl lhrl' USDJH I f ll 1 Jim I 4hr Hf DSUJS Huh HIHH I-Hul I-lle-h lull Jim Jul IIH 1 Itcl I l-Iinl Mlle ill-l I I Jon I lie I Ill I 4l- l null-Hui I tut I ll U-U HLI Im I II Ell I'll I I 4m In 2012 USPACOM established its ICC using personnel from its 16 to accomplish the cyberspace tasks directed by the Joint Staff In addition the USPACOM 2 Intelligence and 3 Operations supported the ICE in performing the cyberspace tasks The Director I6 USPACOM recognized the need for additional staff As a result the Chief of Staff USPACOM requested a comprehensive manpower and organizational llilli ll 4h I 4lg11 I-lqc I-ltgl evaluation ofthe missions functions and required capabilities of USPACDM based on factors such as the evolving national cyber mission The results of that evaluation which were completed in April 2013 showed USPACOM mm mm perform the core JCC functions ill I 411 My i I llni l-Hyl osms I l-llgL USIJ Is In I'Iso-Js art-1 In I am lam Hm I'at'uM I-lth osp-Is I-lqzii osms ham Hm I art-I I Hui llultli Is - l-Hu'l I animals mum-1m I-llc' 1 Il-Hli liH'l'l'UM tour I osmis um Hm I lie -l ll l-llci I-Illgl II II I Me I I I uspacoM would in Fir 31 in FY 2131 in FY 2015 and FEE-autumn -II IriIr I 1qu I Mr I 5 Fin-I I ll'l I I ll'lil'li ' I'i'll'l 15 Fil ' IllI-l Hun-3 IIrlr-I I I 'mr- I I IILII lt'l I WW I Elfl I I I I' 'lJ'r'd I Mr I H-II I I l lr I I IJIIIx'n IIHIIJ 511mm I Hour-43 I It I PW Hmwast am I I U'Il-l 'Iulr IP-II-I 'tf- Irl 'Wlt' 1190 177% 1 I I- l i I I I l-Ii I mosaic l-lty l IJ lump Hum II I1 I-Iiu I-llyl llvjilJ I will 05D 15 hid I ltt-J Il Hull JIM I-llg andmeteahen USCENTCOM Integrating Cyberspace Operations USCENTCOM mm mm plan coordinate integrate and cyberspace operations Specifically the ICC performing cyberspace operations as of May 2014 Although we requested and the Chief agreed to provide an updated analysis of the JCCs ability to complete joint Staff directed tasks during the audit USCENTCOM did not conduct that assessment The most recent USCENTCOM assessment which ICC personnel completed in Fabruary 2013 7w omit-1 geoppmmaeas 65 joint Staff directed tasks and status in completing the tasks 0f signi cance USCENTCOM dldi'lti iTt'UM I mi Duriolti NIHTIIFI complete essential functions to - conduct network mission assurance and critical cyberspace Hill 31-33 infrastructure protection analysis identify critical t' - develop and integrate cyberspace op Wifj j itt 1L and #13680 identify command cyberspace forces' readiness I 'll' MN I I Jigl Hy l-H-l Md 1w Me TIM II1I II I II-J El n I If I I 411 I I I Imp Hm I 1m l'i'lJM I Tic Dull lI ll l4 IF- IIJI I JEul I I SEW The USCENTCOM ICC Chief I lhII'Iri I-Ilzn Hm I-Il-zgj I'm-1m llIJll th i H I mm It Ill I I tlqu I Hts I I 411 11 H11 I Tie U Recurring Wm Personnel During 2012 and 2013 a Joint Staff joint and Coalition Operational Analysis team conducted an initial assessment of DoD s effectiveness in implementing the Secretary of Defense-directed transitional C2 framework The Joint and Coalition Operational Analysis report Transitional Cyberspace Operations C2 Concept of Operations July 15 2013 T h l Irvere inadequately resourced Thereortprouna thauccsused matrixed-organizational constructs dual-batted personnel or augmentees to fill staf ng lTh'lI shortages F8199 As previously reported USPACUM and Budget Review process the Joint Staff provided documentation showing that seven of the nine Combatant Commands already submitted memorandums describing their '1 U A largeteer supports Combatant Command cyber targeting processes to ensure targets are integrated Into or deconflicted with plans and operations II intent Tlcl osn Is tlmii Based on information obtained from USPACUM and USCENTCOM in addition to the Joint and Coalition Operational Analysis findings and the Combatant inl Inc Hullt'lltj Command Until each Combatant Command identi es all cyberspace requirements affecting its command and conducts a thorough analysis functions Kb 1 i I i le DILD UIU l-l HIM-J these challenges will continue to exist Therefore all combatant commanders should conduct a detailed command-wide mission-impact analysis to identify all cyberspace mission requirements and tasks needed resources and capability gaps affecting their ability to effectively implement C2 of cyberspace operations USCYBERCOM CSE Requirements ES i $3 USCYBERCOM IISDIJS I-llui l-lL-gl 'Fl dl'f i'rhl Hull IN ill l-H-Il L'lfu 'l'i'ill'd l-Hgt ll lli 13 Ill 4h JED l5 1 I I-IL-H I Ill ELI I 411 I-llgi I-llil l llL'l Tlcl 3 um-am The seven Combatant Commands are USPACOM us European Command us Nonhem Command U 5 Transportation Command U S Africa Command US Special Operations Command and USSTRATCOM l'IniIH'Ir IS 1 I I its 4114 I'l'a'El'J 1-Hc'l il-Jili i -il- n I-iiui His '1 hi 1 It I 115' JR ll Ii i lici I l-ll Ii 4ch I My Millie 1m llHli Ilnl I The loint Staff Transitional Cyberspace Operations C2 Concept of Hill Tic l'J-nl'J Ulti iliHTIlEi It support JCCS In C mpleting ii their tasks These tasks are I'll 1 I Wm 3 W mum Operations requires CSE 17HII l'inii Ht qlmitTul- a Ch 1 Liaison officers have prirnaniI responsibility for supporting designated Combatant Commands and facilitating and communicating command cyberspace requirements issues and command direction with USCYBERCCIM seen-Wm -Ilcl I I I I 1 ng Hm 1 - - - I-IIHJ Hull 15 MIN huh I 4m I It USPA 10M USCENTCOM m reh'ea entire I I I URI 55 I I hi I II It I I I USU- -ll II l-IlgLIED-H I I FENTFOM 1511 15 I J-S '5 Dull tilt i ITIIEI inf I 05035 I Hm I I ILL-I I While requested through tasking orders it also and the Joint I he use-emcee es and use - I a Hill I he use-emcee - example the table shows In 731 0 me I 7m Lauu USCYBERCOM W35 I l'an peImnneL personnel at USPACOM and - ITIIH Staff Mtwl'lmrt'tjm IrI-zl El m Table 2 USE Support Provided to Combatant Commands Ill-i J I Field Du 7lil TIC-J Dal Iii ih'HTIiFl The Deputy's Management Action Group nee implementing and elding Cyber Mission Forces Although the reasons for the Deputy s Management Action Group decisions the Director Manpower and Personnel the Director Command Control Communications and Computers and Information Programs Division Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation and officials from the Joint Staffand Of ce ofthe Deputyr Assistant Secretary ofDefense for Cyber Policy stated request did m1 1m not clearly explain the differences between ICC and ml mmw mm ESE functionality Additionally they stated that the LT request tiiti request did not distinguish the forward-deployed i clenr y exploi the positions from a growth in headquarters personnel if erences etween Government Accountability Of ce report concluded that the Military Services may 1 Government Accountability Office Report 11-421 More Detailed Guidance Needed to Ensure Military Services Develop Appropriate Cyberspace Capabilities May 20 2011 Fooling have difficulty in meeting their personnel requirements in organizing training equipping and providing eyber forces because of the limited cyber workforce We recognize the need to prioritize competing requirements in a UHIJKJH resource-constrained environment However the Joint Staff iual until I osoris thla I-Hnj hi I 1 1th tlaitli Jul l-liui TESS has I'lzN l'l'HM 55' ilm l _ I mi Hm Inc I in Hui HI 4m FAUUM Ibl'lli I-Hyi l5 unmet As ofJuly 2014 USCYBERCGM provided liaison of cers to all Combatant Commands with the Exception of U S Africa Command 6W I'lii x'lt'UM Hull up Ilium-Is thin I Im I 4m ll'Il I I I I'll ll _ I 15 ll I H llnl 1-H In 1 11 nals Hum 1 WW Limited Reliance on Cyberspace Qperations Since the Secretary of Defense issued direction to standardize C2 of cyberspace operations in Mayr 2012 by requiring combatant commanders to establish JCCs and for USCYBERCDM to provide CSEs USPACOM and USCENTCOM began the process of institutionalizing cyberspace to meet Joint Staff guidance E Lh mm 1143 usliris I 41 1 Hm Hm ration hi 5 le um Hm 1 uogsnlouog I '1'ilk' ElilIirns 81 I I 'Ic-Ir I I ' lJil lJ IH hJ I I I 'l-llyl Ll-Hll her I Hc U Recommendationsr Management Comments and Our Response U Revised Recommendations As a result of management comments we revised Recommendation 2 to ensure the detailed command-wide mission-impact analysis addressed not only cyberspace tasks included in the Transitional Cyberspace Operations C2 Concept of Operations but also accounted for other cyberspace requirements and tasks affecting each Combatant Command We also revised Recommendation 3 to clarify that hi lit-HUN bl -m U Recommendation 1 We recommend that the Director Joint Staff develop a communications strategy for disseminating incremental decisions and timely guidance affecting cyberspace command and control to facilitate cross Combatant Command information sharing and to allow the combatant commanders to effectively plan and prioritize cyberspace operations and integrate Cyber Mission Forces into operations until the end-state for command and control of cyberSpace Operations is de ned and achieved for all Combatant Commands U Joint Staff Comments Hf m The Vice Director loint Staff responding for the Director Ioint Staff agreed with the report U Our Response U Although the Vice Director agreed with the report he did not state agreement or disagreement with or address the specifics ofthe recommendation on a draft of this report Therefore we request that the Director Joint Staff provide comments on the nal report by January 8 2015 U Recommendation 2 U We recommend that the Commanders U S Northern Command U S Transportation Command U S Pacific Command U S Southern Command U S Central Command U S Africa Command U S European Command U S Strategic Command and U S Special Operations Command conduct a detailed command-wide mission-impact analysis to identify all cyberSpace mission requirements and tasks needed resources and capability gaps U USCENTCOM Comments The Chief Manpower Division 11 responding for the Commander USCENTCOM agreed stating that USCENTCOM internally completed a mission-impact analysis- U Our Response Hf 508$ Although the Chief Manpower Division agreed the comments partially addressed the speci cs ofthe recommendation The workload analysis did not meet the intent ofperforming a detailed command-wide mission-impact analysis We acknowledge that initial external manpower studies were completed during 20 12 and 2013 We also acknowledge tl iatMT'm' We requested an updated workload analysis during the audit to determine ability to complete cyberspace tasks directed by the loint Staff and to determine whether ICC personnel performed other tasks to complete additional cyberspace requirements For example the 2013 Execute Order includes additional cyberspace requirements related to achieving operational control over specific Cyber Mission Forces However USCENTCOM did not provide further documentation showing 'Iif ni usI 11 31 Inn glqihuf that the command conducted a recent detailed analysis Therefore we requestthauhe Commander USCENTCOM reconsider his position and provide additional comments on the final report by January 8 2015 U Management Comments Required The Commanders U S European Command US Southern Command U S Special Operations Command U S Transportation Command LLS Northern Command and US Africa Command did not respond to the recommendation on the report We request that the commanders provide comments on the final report by January 8 2015 I U Recommendation 3 U We recommend that the Commanders U S Strategic Command and LLS Cyber Command U USCYBERCOM Comments The Deputy r Commander responding for the Commander USCYBERCOM In particular the Deputy Commander stated that I I I Ill 410 USCYBERCOM Although the Deputy Commander agreed that the I-llpl Hill l-Ilg I-lIe U Our Response Comments from the Deputy Commander partially addressed the speci cs 0f the recommendation I Hm I Ilgl I'l-Nlt'rm II-II I I-IE-H I 'ml- 'uru l'uH-zp 11 31 'l I '1 I 1 I'll UH 1'31 15 1 th mun-1 mr 1n - - llil ill I in 4m W We disagree that actions to - Therefore we request that the Commander USCYBERCDM reconsider his position and provide additional comments on the nal report by lanuary 8 2015 U Unsolicited Management Comments U Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Comments U Although not required to comment the Director Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation stated that was reviewing cyber resource issues for FY 20 16 through FY 2020 as part ofits annual Program and Budget Review The Director also stated that the Dot DIG findings about and CSE resourcing needs would be included as part of that review U Our Response We commend DOD for reviewing ICC and CSE manpower needs as part of the future budget process in light of competing requirements in a resource-constrained environment The results of the review could support DoD s ability to resolve our concerns and enable the Combatant Commands the Service Components and USCYBERCOM to effectively meet future cyberspace requirements U Joint Staff Comments Although not required to comment the Vice Director Joint Staff responding for the Director Joint Staff agreed with the report but recommended revisions to align With t LH I't'usI I no ruinous newt-a U Oar Response WW We recognise the 2013 Execute Order requires USSTRATCOM to provide In 11 I Her It Tulsa Combatant Command We understand the constraints on USCYBERCOM I My 'hulii'lli'i Imthi-r and USSTRATCOM Therefore it is essential for USCYBERCOM and I We liuiH'Ilt u tlm'inFi USSTRATCDM to begin just the liaison of cer position that is now currently staffed By continuing to make exceptions for providing CSE functionality at the I'J'icil IJHIHIJU hlr'J lH'l Mil I lln commands as training and manpower allowe 'lil - U Appendix A U Scope and Methodology We conducted this performance audit from December 2013 through September 2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain suf cient appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our ndings and conclusions based on our audit objectives We visited Headquarters USPACUM lCamp HM Smith Hawaii and Headquarters USCENTCOM MacDill Air Force Base Florida We interviewed officials from the JCCs and other joint directorates at USPACOM and at USCENTCOM to determine how the commands 0 established and resourced the - identi ed and completed Joint Staff directed tasks and other command cyberspace priorities I integrated cyberspace capabilities into operational and contingency plans and II1HI1 I- In addition we interviewed the CSEs at both commands to determine how they completed Joint Staff directed tasks and supported the JCCs in planning and integrating cyberspace into operations At USPACOM we also met with the Director 16 and the Director 12 to discuss their plans for building and sustaining cyberspace capabilities and supporting the Commander USPACOM's cyberspace missions and reaponsibilities in the theater HiHli i'lclu ll W We obtained memorandums of agreement with USCYBERCOM for CSE support external manpower assessments related to the organizational missions of each command integrated priority lists from each command identifying its cyberspace priorities Eli the USPACOM initial operating capability massage and the USCENTCOM ICC charter and internal assessments about their abilities to complete the cyberspace tasks directed by the oint Staff U We visited Headquarters Fleet Cyber Command Fort Meade Maryland and interviewed of cials to determine the command s responsibilities for supporting USPACOM cyberspace Operations at its Joint Force Headquarters-Cyber We also visited Headquarters USCYBERCOM Fort Meade Maryland and interviewed officials responsible for planning and directing cyberspace operations and fielding the Cyber Mission Forces We also met with the ChiefofStaffand the Director 18 Capability and Resource Integration Directorate to discuss their visions on how the Cyber Mission Forces would be used in support of combatant commanders cyberspace operations and efforts to fill CSEs at the Combatant Commands We obtained and reviewed USCYBERCOM manpower issue papers and its r i I lautiultii- ihii'i'IIEi Deputy Secretary of Defense memorandums Resource Management Decisions for the FY 2014- Budget Request April 10 2013 and Resource Management Decisions for the FY 2015 Budget Request March 6 2014 to determine USCYBERCOM USPACOM and authorized and funded manpower for implementing the Transitional Cyberspace Operations C2 Concept of Operations mill Mel Ill-hillti IhiUiEl-l and proposed guidance concept of operations for employing Cyber Mission We interviewed officials from the Joint Staff to determine their in il llii I I I Hui responsibilities in coordinating and issuing cyberspace requirements M W m mama and reviewed the Transitional Cyberspace Operations C2 Concept of Operations to identify USCYBERCOM and combatant commanders responsibilities for planning integrating and decon icting cyberspace operations a 2012 Air Force Personnel L'FN'l'f'I'i-l'tl 1'th ill Center Manpower Directorate study - - hitli I Hui ini HEJ combatant commander s and the Iune 21 2013 Execute Order to determine specific requirements for building a C2 of - I Hf 1198 cyberspace operations construct We also visited the 10th Staff 17 in Suffolk Virginia and interviewed of cials from the Joint and Coalition Dperational Analysis team to determine their scope methodology and results from the year-long study from 2012 through 2 13 of DoD s progress in implementing the Transitional Cyberspace Operations C2 Concept of perations U We also interviewed officials from the Of ces of the Chief Information Officer and the Deputy Assistant Secretary ofDefense for Cyber Policy and the Director Command Control Communications and Computers and Information Programs Division Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation to determine their responsibilities in issuing policy and guidance affecting cyberspace operations and cyber workforce development and training and reviewing combatant commander issue papers related to JMVP requests Furthermore we interviewed officials from Headquarters Defense Information Systems Agency to determine their responsibilities in supporting USCYBERCOM and combatant commanders' abilities to conduct defensive and operations We also interviewed officials from the Defense Information Systems Agency-Pacific to determine how the agency supported defensive and operations in the theater We also obtained and reviewed security classification guides from USPACOM USCENTCOM USCYBERCOM and the Defense Information Systems Agency to appropriately classify information and portion mark the report U Use of Computer-Processed Data We did not use computer-processed data to perform this audit U Prior Coverage During the last 5 years the Government Accountability Of ce issued five reports discussing issues affecting Combatant Command s abilities to resource and conduct cyberspace operations Unrestricted GAO reports can be accessed over the internet at http _ junior u-ul irHi'llulrW U GAO Report No 13 293 Needs to Periodically Review and Improve Visibility of Combatant Commands Resources May 15 2013 Report No 12-8 initiatives Need Better Planning and Coordination November 29 2011 U Report No 11-75 Faces Challenges in its Cyber Activities july 25 2011 U Report No 11-4-21 More Detailed Guidance Needed to Ensure Military Services Develop Appropriate Cyberspace Capabilities May 20 2011 65- Report No 10-47% Faces Challenges in its Cyber Efforts May 20 2010 Appendix - W Key Cyberspace Events Figure below identifies key events affecting combatant commander cyberspace operations from March 2012 through June 2014 Figure 3 Key EventsA ecting Combatant Command CyberSpoce Operations ll' U Appendix U Cyberspace Tasks Directed by leint Staff Table below lists the 65 41 ICC and 24 geographic Combatant Command cyberspace tasks directed by the Joint Staff and prescribed in the March 15 2012 I Tivi Transitional Cyberspace Operations C2 Concept of Operations Status of Completion Joint Staff Cyberspace Tasks USPACOM USCENTCOM as of June 2014 as of February 2013 ICC Tasks I I I 41 1 Inn I I Hill I I I13 Status of Completion USPACOM USCENTCOM as ofJune 2014 as of February 2013 Imul 1m Joint Staff Cyberspace Tasks w mun qu 51W'ne lltiirwsr I Status of Completion USPACOM uscemcom i as of June 2014 as of February 2013 ll-1U I 1 I I I 4 313 I I I JIM I 41d 411 h I 41a I 411 Joint Staff Cyberspace Tasks nrn1E L39 Status of Completion Joint Staff Cyberspace Tasks USPACDM USCENTCOM i as of June 2014 as of February 2013 C'Ef i'l'i'uhl I JIM USDJS I 4 4 I -I cl_ I I 411 ml In l ili i i Status of Completion USPACDM USCENTCOM as of June 2014 as of Februaryr 2013 13 EH My I 4m Me HIJIH 1 '4 ij Joint Staff Cyberspace Tasks iiHH Hi Fir-F Status of Completion Joint Staff Cyberspace Tasks USPACOM USCENTCOM 35 of June 2014 as of February' 2013 'lz' 'lt'tnl 1h I-ngl l-Jill l-Hu Hm I-llu It-u'nhl Iu I HEN-H 512- ll'l Management Comments U US Central Cemmand Final Report Reference I Ill I Ill ltrl 'Ilr' 3 I-UR IJIJII Il- h lflm- l- Mm iHni II l'll'll In I 3 I hnu I HAP - Ilcpull l'nljcul Nu IS II I I Ill Kin MIR L'IIlnhalmI 1m I I ILS IHSI Y'l-ll mm ID uly 53 1qu IIpcmliIInII in lhuir arc-II 1 II llrl It nding I15 glut t'yhur Suppun lilcmem l'ur 15f II I5 l j hL l putI Imksl IIiluuluIl by Il'lI-JIIlnl Hlul'l'l'nr planning integinling 3 c3 hurspacc Iapmlliuns 1' I l l1l 1 all tumluu- WIdu mi - - Recon'nnendauon 2 Revised Ila lull I 7 Junnlli 4 IUIJ I cuncur lti ndings Iv lilillud' rrpun lhI 1 Iucnmmumlaliml In missionILUM JUL I - I I m 1' lI-lIll I - 1 11 4 I Ulriil fl Inn aunt-I Ikrlaullj 4 U LLS Cyber Command UF DEFENSE- wauwn IIMI- mm Juan I RI ply Io- Ml L'Imlrunn Innui'hlut Ul' mf mhcu Sum I 3hr I1 uprI-II Rrhh'r rc ILFI Tina-H - l miu I lel ilIr Iu it Hit TJIIDIH l'cpul'l rcII-rcncI-Ii shun gar-ling ISSUE 'Hh'l'u Ct MI is A 1hr an-nrt citrs u-ancd nu euiiNr mum - l'l action In IIJI I ber Iuppun Ea-mam lt il I In Iln I I'alldnunnul Ihmnuu H'l-n In Jul nmum ed In ll Harmon- 1 Punch I ILllmu h lIiIltlx Inez ulufalcd in In mmucd ll Imp mil open-1mm muting I'll-I'm mu Inmdul v 11 II II Sum and 1 II Ian-Ilt hv 'v Final chm't Ri fli l't ll l Recommendation 3 Revised U LLS Cyber Command cont d IUEU 1'15 Hut-1 N II A ditcuunl uh In IN Lark Irl uull'ltl'Em n In mhltu' nnrr-r II le In Implculzm u Illiunrl Ih um recommendalmn- dining fl l nun-IN Incl 1- cu mu ItLt' urpmlu-iulc m I11 ulhlul comm lm Lhn 11mm i1 luulunanl IcnrrulJ' ALI l-uvu n In l'ullg In 2 55 I'1mm um uudlliunnl Ii-um nhulrhed dung nunpuu I and the lien-Jun mph-n MI- I I - U Joint Staff 1 mi JOINT STAFF OI IJJSM Ref-k5 1' nd- Ir NM gm 1 I l'iHT'l-t In HM Ill I ll I 'Hcl ILIU 'Hh NI lliJlai' I In I Tic 'luElOlii luli llEl ijnI Nu 'ylumpuw U lemlmn I Ihnnk you I'm ilw In uml nu sulhit'ci 110 If 'ilull 11 and uITcn um I-r Wu rcculmm nd Ihal me Uh Mum-g um I I H 1116 Sup- hm In 411 Vanuatu-yd um unnmu urand Imming all-m and in Mammy 'r'umml- 3th H nppm -Icmml In dilcnl i nmlutml I In planning and has- mu- inlu uI uJu-Ins I J mni puml n mm-1 5 that Mun-rilcnrul INA icc Juim Hlal'l' l' Final chm t Reference Revised r- U Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation OFFICE OF THE SEER ETHHY OF DEFENSE rm DEF ms Penman atrial-Inoc- 3 can mama-rm MEMORANDUM FUR DEPARTMENT GP DEFENSE INSPECTOR GENERAL SIJHIECT Dal Gr net-a Report on Joint Cybet Demetri rtunir Inn-view at 11 51 it 1 Er lerH I 1m CybenpaccOmutiuns Ind reunn-rrnenduthrm in the rel-run Ihcnr In lac urel'ul A the draft repun mutually point out the mtut prioritize in marruruo-cmumimtl The ls currently its ll -l rll l and Budget Review which Iwill include renaming issues related to lm manner for Year this information is prc-dacisiunal and cannot be shim until Ihc President s lludgcl been submitted to chart-u will rah inln consideration lhu in lire dull Dun rcp-nrl we run'w my issues relating In or Cylrur Support Elemenls I concur with the nding Ira written in the mall pun hul commenting or in the dull Ihc has Pma m Hill BMW Review roars for Final Yum 2016-2020 int mulch rt fa lam M Morin Director 1 UI Mn Iv-J iwi H Source of Classified Information Source 1 U Department of Defense Strategy for Operating in Cyberspace TO USA FVEY Declassified Date May 26 2036 Generated Date May 2011 Source 2 0int Publication 3-12 Cyberspace Operations Declassified Date September 25 2034 Generated Date February 5 2013 Source 3 U S Cyber Command Cyber Force Concept of Operations Version 3 4 Declassified Date November 20 2038 Generated Date March 3 1 20 14 Source 4 Declassified Date June 22 2038 Generated Date lune 21 2013 Source 5 U Cyber Mission Force Concept of Operations REL TO USA FVEY Declassified Date December 11 2037 Generated Date January 16 2014 Source 6 SW FY 2014 2016 Cyber Mission Force Fielding Timeline Declassified Date May 1 2039 Generated Date Undated Source 7 f j Cyber Paci c Task Crosswalk All 259 Tasks Declassified Date June 28 2039 Generated Date June 30 2014 it now an um SEW h 3 in ame 1 mm mauon Source 8 ICC Joint Manpower Validation Board Declassified Date August 14 2038 Generated Date August 14 2013 Source 9 U Transitional Cyberspace Operations C2 Concept of Operations Study Report Declassified Date July 15 2038 Generated Date July 15 2013 Source 10 83 Email from_ Concerning U S Northern Command s Requests for Manpower for PBR16 Declassified Date Undated Generated Date June 3 2014 Source 11 USPACOM CSE Binder Declassified Date June 22 2038 Generated Date Undated Source 12 OSDUS HJHH Ike 1 4 3 Declassified Date June 12 2037 Generated Date June 12 2012 Source 13 MU I IJHU l -Hg Declassified Date June 18 2037 Generated Date June 18 2012 Source 14 Air Force Cyber Command Reclama on USCYBERCOM Task Order 12-1387 for USPACOM CSE Personnel Sourcing Declassified Date December 12 2037 Generated Date December 12 2012 jmiit'f 45 mfaijitjuw Source 15 Army Cyber Command Request for Relief of Tasking for USPACOM CSE Personnel Declassified Date May 15 2038 Generated Date May 15 2013 Source 16 WAG Fleet Cyber Command USPACOM CSE Personnel Support Reclama Declassified Date October 1 2038 Generated Date October 1 2013 Source 17 Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Joint and Coalition Warfighter Support Action Memo FY 2014-2018 Joint Manpower Validation for Military Intelligence Program Requirements Declassified Date July 20 2037 Generated Date July 20 2012 OIG huh CYBERCOM 3 lo Bub Source 18 U Email fro Documentation ontaining USCYBERCOM Manpower Declassified Date February 3 2039 Generated Date February 3 2014 Source 19 U USCYBERCOM Manpower Brief to the IG Audit Team TO USA FVEY Declassified Date May 7 2038 Generated Date January 15 2014 Source 20 USCYBERCOM Task Order 13-0747 Establishment and Presentation of Cyber Mission Force Teams in FY 2014 Declassified Date October 11 2038 Generated Date October 11 2013 Source 21 WOW CSE Manpower In Support of USPACOM Cyber Pacific Declassified Date Undated Generated Date January 18 2014 SEW lai'lon Source 22 U USCYBERCOM Briefing from Chief Plans Division Declassified Date May 10 2038 Generated Date Undated Source 23 SJ-Email from_ Regarding USPACOM Plans Declassified Date June 25 2024 Generated Date June 25 2014 Source 24 WW USCENTCOM Responses to OIG Follow up Declassified Date March 3 2024 Generated Date Iune 9 2014 Source 25 U Transitional Cyberspace Operations C2 Concept of Operations Study Final Brief Declassified Date July 15 2038 Generated Date July 15 2013 Source 26 89 2014 U S Africa Command JMVP Request Declassified Date Undated Generated Date May 27 2014 Source 27 U U S Special Operations Command Submission for FY 2016 President s Budget Request 8 Declassified Date February 1 1 203 8 Generated Date May 29 2014 Source 28 W USPACOM ICC Manpower Issue Paper Submitted to Of ce of the Secretary of Defense Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation Declassified Date November 19 2038 Generated Date November 20 2013 Source 29 Egg Hla Hie Declassified Date September 27 2023 Generated Date Undated scan-3m Timur-w Source 30 679 USCENTCOM Capability Gap Analysis Declassified Date March 3 2024 Generated Date Undated Source 31 891 Cyber Paci c Task Crosswalk Assessments with Mission Capability and Task Attribution Transitional Cyberspace Operations C2 Concept of Operations Only Declassified Date April 30 2039 Generated Date June 13 2014 Source 32 Response to IG Inquiry Cyber Pacific Task Analysis Letter Declassified Date June 6 2024 Generated Date June 6 2014 Source 33 W Extract from the Commander USCENTCOM Integrated Priority List Priority 7 USCENTCOM Full Spectrum Cyberspace Operations Declassified Date March 3 2024 Generated Date Undated Source 34 U USCENTCOM Science and Technology Integrated Priority List Synopsis for Supporting Requirements for 11 of the FY 16-20 Integrated Priority Lists 5 NF Declassified Date April 10 2024 Generated Date Undated Source 35 U USCENTCOM 2014 Science and Technology Support Requirements 5 NF Declassified Date April 10 2014 Generated Date April 10 2014 Source 36 Declassified Date October 4 2038 Generated Date October 4 2013 Source 37 W USCENTCOM ICC Charter Declassified Date February 22 2038 Generated Date March 14 2013 Source 38 U Operations Deputies Tank Review of USCYBERCOM Manpower Request Declassified Date July 1 2037 Generated Date July 25 2012 Source 39 U Resource Management Decisions for the FY 2014 Budget Request 8 NF Declassified Date April 10 2038 Generated Date April 10 20 13 Source 40 U Resource Management Decisions for the FY 2015 Budget Request NF Declassified Date March 6 2039 Generated Date March 6 2014 Source 41 USCENTCOM CSE Personnel Support Reclama from Commander Fleet Cyber Command Declassified Date October 1 2038 Generated Date October 1 2013 Source 42 USCYBERCOM Instruction 5200 07 Cyber Mission Forces Security Classification Guide Declassified Date September 1 2023 Generated Date November 26 2013 Source 43 Government Accountability Office Report GAO-10-479C DOD Faces Challenges in Its Cyber Efforts Declassified Date May 6 2020 Generated Date May 2010 Tim ml lit-3 53 T'iliull'l' 'IIiiH'lIL'Iium U Acronyms and Abbreviationg C2 Command and Control ESE Cyber Support Element Information Network JCC Joint Cyber Center IMVP Joint Manpower lu alidation Process US Central Command USCVBERCOM U5 Cyber Command USPACDM U54 Pacific Command USSTRATCOM U S Strategic Command 9W Whistleblower Protection U S DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE The Winstiebiower Protection Enhancement Act oj'2012 requires the inspector Generai to designate a Win'stiebimver Protection Ombudsman to educate agency empioyees about prohibitions on retaiiation anti rights anti remedies against retaliation for protected disclosures The designated ombudsman is the Dot Hotline Director For more information on your rights and remedies against retaiiation visit For more information about D00 6 reports or activities please contact us Congressional Liaison congressional dodig mil 303 604 3324 Media Contact 703 604 8324 Update Reports Mailing List Twitter twitter comeoD_lG DOD Hotline dodigmilihotline r-I-r-nr-r-I InlnF nhl l I DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE INSPECTOR GENERAL 4800 Mark Center Drive Alexandria VA Defense Hotline 1 800 424 9098