SpyCast 11.29.22
Ep 566 | 11.29.22

“The FBI & Cyber” – with Cyber Division Chief Bryan Vorndran (Part 2 of 2)


Andrew Hammond: Hi, and welcome to "SpyCast." I'm your host, Dr. Andrew Hammond, historian-curator here at the International Spy Museum in Washington, D.C. "SpyCast's" sole purpose is to educate our listeners about the past, present and future of intelligence and espionage. Every week, through engaging conversations, we explore some aspect of a vast ecosystem that looms beneath the surface of everyday life. We talk to spies, operators, mole hunters, defectors, analysts and authors to explore the stories and secrets, tradecraft and technology of the secret world. We are "SpyCast." Now sit back, relax, and enjoy the show.

Andrew Hammond: When Bryan Vorndran attended the FBI Academy in 2003, cyber was not on his personal radar, nor was it in Quantico's vigorous training schedule or really a part of the FBI's culture. Now, almost 20 years later, Bryan serves as the assistant director of the FBI's cyber division. This year, both the FBI's cyber division and the International Spy Museum celebrate 20 years in operation. That's 20 years of change, adaptation and progress towards our respective missions. What's changed in those 20 years? How have the tactics and strategies used in this field evolved alongside the ever-changing face of cyber? What does the FBI do in the wee small cyber hours to keep you, your business or the nation safe? Tune into "SpyCast" this week and next to find out. As Bryan says, this is not your grandparents' FBI. Remember that we provide full transcripts of each of our episodes at thecyberwire.com/podcasts/spycast. There you'll also find show notes that will direct you to resources so that you can learn more. Thank you for your continued support of "SpyCast" and we hope you enjoy this week's episode and the holidays. 

Andrew Hammond: And you mentioned the field offices. There are 56 field offices, and there's one in every state. 

Bryan Vorndran: Jeez. Now you're going to... 

Andrew Hammond: Oh, sorry (laughter). 

Bryan Vorndran: ...Test my geography. I actually don't think there is one in every state. 

Andrew Hammond: OK. 

Bryan Vorndran: There are two in some states and then some of those cover different, more large regions. 

Andrew Hammond: OK. Wow. And so there's cyber specialists in each one of those field offices. 

Bryan Vorndran: There are. 

Andrew Hammond: Yeah. And for the people that are doing the cyber in those field offices, are they doing cyber in the way that you defined at the beginning of the interview? Or they also getting involved in counternarcotics, counterterrorism, or are those separate domains? 

Bryan Vorndran: It's hard to say. Just based on the size of offices - so obviously, an office in Washington, D.C., is going to be larger than an office in Mobile, Ala. I think that's obvious. So there's the crossover of programs and threats that somebody works in a small office may be higher than they are in an office in Washington, D.C. But the number I gave you, right near a thousand - that's an accurate number of people that, year over year, are dedicated just to traditional cybercrime as I addressed it. 

Andrew Hammond: Wow. And for the - for cyber as well, you know, some of our listeners - they hear a lot about the darknet or the deep web and so forth. How much is that part of what you're doing? Is that - I mean, it seems almost obvious, this is where - all the fish are all in this barrel, let's go there and get them. Or is it - I'm sure it's much more complicated than that, but help our listeners get their head around that. 

Bryan Vorndran: Yeah. And we define that more on the computer-enabled fraud, computer-enabled crime side than we would traditionally say is a cyber crime. So certainly nothing's ever 100%, 0%. And I'm sure there are people in the FBI dedicated to working cyber that are doing some of that work. But most of that work is done in a different program. 

Andrew Hammond: OK. Wow. Help us understand how your job - so the assistant director for the cyber division, how does that relate to the other assistant directors? I'm sure there's some people that you speak to more often than others. And help us understand the type of relationships that you have just to do your job and to enable other people to do theirs. 

Bryan Vorndran: Sure. I mean, when you look at our broad investigative portfolio, there's really four core investigative portfolios. One is traditional criminal, one is - second one is counterterrorism, the third is counterintelligence and the fourth is cyber. There's obviously a host of other divisions, but those are the big four operational divisions in the FBI. My most significant crossover is undoubtedly with counterintelligence because the counterintelligence threat that proliferates here in the United States is informed by the adversary and the host governments that aren't here. And those host governments will do whatever they can to get whatever they need, whether that's through a human here in the United States or through a cyber vector. And so when we look at the threats posed by China and Russia specifically that have diplomatic presence here, it is a hybrid portfolio. And so my overlap with counterintelligence and counterintelligence overlap with cyber is very, very significant. 

Andrew Hammond: OK. Wow. And as also, like, the assistant director for counterintelligence, where they are the lead for counterintelligence across the U.S. government, does that mean that you're the lead for cyber across the U.S. government? Or is it something different? 

Bryan Vorndran: It's something different. There's - the primacy that's given to our counterintelligence program here in the United States is in policy and statute. That is not the case for cyber. The cyber ecosystem, as we call it - we joke but it's true; it's the ultimate team sport, because there are multiple players in the space for different statutory reasons, but there are multiple players in the space. So my counterpart in counterintelligence would look at his job - it is a male - his job as you just described it. I look at my job as part of a group of four people, probably, that have different roles and responsibilities in the U.S. government to synchronize and coordinate various different moving parts. 

Andrew Hammond: And who are the four people? 

Bryan Vorndran: Sure. CISA, NSA and then Cyber Command. 

Andrew Hammond: OK. And Cyber Command and NSA are both part of the U.S. military? 

Bryan Vorndran: They are. 

Andrew Hammond: CISA is the Department of Homeland Security. And FBI cyber is, obviously, FBI. 

Bryan Vorndran: Correct. Couple other notes because we do - in the traditional investigative space, we do a lot of work with Secret Service as well... 

Andrew Hammond: OK. 

Bryan Vorndran: ...Especially because of the financial crime element that bleeds into the cybercrime space. While the big four, I think that's true, there is a lot of work that we do with Secret Service. And that partnership is tremendous. We have a tremendous partnership with Secret Service both here in D.C. and in the nation, but then also significant overlap with Treasury, because Treasury is, obviously, the action arm for the U.S. government for sanctions and with OFAC and things of that sort. And so I would be remiss if I didn't call attention to the two of them because we have a lot of equity sharing with both of them. 

Andrew Hammond: And I spoke to someone when - the other day. And I was telling them that we were doing this interview. And they said to me, oh, that poor guy. He must be getting cyberattacked all of the time. Is that just too obvious a thing? Like, it would be too obvious to just attack the FBI's lead for cyber? Or - I'm sure you have to take all the usual precautions and that sort of thing. But, yeah, you're not subject to daily denial of service operations or anything? 

Bryan Vorndran: I just think it is something my family raises to me. 

Andrew Hammond: OK (laughter). 

Bryan Vorndran: I think it's just hyper-vigilance. And there's some basics of cyber hygiene that are very, very relevant, you know? And some of those are, make sure your systems are patched at all times, whether that's software hardware. And then the second one is, just don't click on anything that you don't know what it is. And I think - I truly believe that if your system is up to date on software, hardware, firmware patches, and if you don't click on anything that you don't know what it is, the ability for you to control your outcome goes way, way up. And so we talk about that. 

Andrew Hammond: I literally got a text message just before our interview saying my bank account was locked from some very dodgy-looking place. It's a jungle out there, right? 

Bryan Vorndran: It is. 

Andrew Hammond: So you join up in 2003 as not really a part of the broader architecture. And now you're the AD for the cyber division. How did you get here for this type of job? Is it like when you're a legat or a station chief or diplomat and you're getting posted to China, you go away to language school? Do you have to go away to cyber - here's the world of cyber, a kind of two-year crash course or something? Or help us understand how that shakes out. 

Bryan Vorndran: I think, for me personally, there was no succession plan, preplanning that went into where I got to eventually. Back in 2016, I started taking some certification courses in traditional cyber education that was done more for self-preparation, self-development than any other reason. And I think it was very, very helpful and preparation in hindsight, but certainly not mandatory. I think that the FBI at large wants people in these types of positions who, hopefully, make good decisions. And I think that is the No. 1 trait that is needed. And then obviously, carry forward our core values of how we treat people. And I think those two things likely are a better predictor of outcomes in terms of leadership than anything else. And so I hope I represent those more than, perhaps, having some certification. And I would hope that that's why I wound up where I did. 

Andrew Hammond: Wow. For the people that are doing cyber in the field offices, is that a separate career stream? 

Bryan Vorndran: So it is not. It is a interesting question you raise and probably one that I won't do justice to painting a clear picture for your audience. What I would say is that there are people with very, very specific, advanced cyber skills. They are in a dedicated career track, whether that's a computer scientist or a specific part of the agent cadre that makes them part of the cyber action team. But in general, and more normal than not, you are in the general special agent category. And the reason for that is the way we're set up is that if I'm in Washington, D.C., this week and I happen to get transferred, whether it's at my request deep into my career or the FBI's request, and I find myself in Minot, N.D., there's probably not a lot of cyber investigations in Minot, N.D. But there probably are a lot of cyber investigations in Washington, D.C. 

Bryan Vorndran: And so we have to remain flexible at our core, the traditional special agent intelligence analyst job classification. But what you've found and what we see more is that people have a propensity to stay in that program because they enjoy the work. So it may not be a mandate. It may not be a structural set of guideposts to push people in that direction. But the people who are getting it done have been in place for over a decade. And they love it. And the people that continue to come into the organization, we see more and more and more attracted to that type of work. 

Andrew Hammond: We'll be right back after this. 

Andrew Hammond: For cyber now as part of the FBI culture, is this also part of basic training or becoming an FBI agent or promotion courses? Is it woven into that or is it something different? 

Bryan Vorndran: Yeah, no. That's a great question. So through our traditional basic field training course that agents and analysts go through at Quantico, no different than I did, there is a block on cyber. But more importantly than that, we have built what I think is a very, very robust training curriculum. And we mandate that people that are going into the cyber squad space, the cyber program in a field office, have to go through those seven courses in the first two years. Those courses have been built by the hands and minds of the best we have. They have not been outsourced. We have pulled apart every task that an intelligence analyst, a computer scientist, a special agent, need to be able to do to be effective against the lines of effort I mentioned - investigation, intelligence, putting pressure on the threat through on-network operations - and training them to that standard. And I think certainly with any organization, there's pros and cons, good and bad, strengths, weaknesses, but I think we've done that exceptionally well. 

Andrew Hammond: Wow. And we had Frank Figliuzzi on - I think it was last year or the year before - former assistant director for counterintelligence. And he was saying that with the rise of information technology, computing and so forth, the field offices out in places like California - their stature has risen just because so much of the counterintelligence action takes place in Silicon Valley, for example. I would imagine that an analogous thing has taken place with regards to cyber. Is that correct? 

Bryan Vorndran: I think that, without going into too much detail because it just turns into too complicated a story, one of the things I love about the FBI is that at the end of the day, we're all here for the mission. And we are taught very, very early on, it's about the team. It's not about you. And that belief sticks with me today after 19 years. And I guarantee you it sticks with an overwhelming percentage of our population. And there's only one goal of that population, and that's to do the right thing, right? And so there are pockets of excellence throughout the bureau in cyber, there are pockets of excellence for drug investigations throughout the bureau. But that doesn't mean that the other people that may not be in those pockets of excellence are not in any way as capable. It just happened perhaps there's better work for that year or better work for a two-year period. 

Andrew Hammond: And I just want to talk about your partners for a little bit. 

Bryan Vorndran: So in terms of partnerships, I just think we have broad, broad partnerships in the private sector - right? - for any host of number of reasons. Think about it in this space of traditional financial crime and where those partnerships would likely lead to identify financial fraud, even think about it in terms of cybercrime and where those partnerships would typically lead in terms of infrastructure, right? But we have broad partnerships, and that is core to our strategy - right? - across all of our investigative programs. Because without those relationships and without those partnerships, there's going to be a lack of efficiency in terms of understanding what our private sector partners will see, and they will see it before we do. They will see it before we do. And that's really important to know. 

Andrew Hammond: And for the partners as well, it's interesting to me because traditionally for a lot of the roles that government agencies had, they were by default the only people that did it or they were the leading experts on it. But a lot of the skillset for cyber lies with the government - right? - it lies with the private sector. So that also seems to me unique for cyber because the leading forensic investigators are in the FBI. They're probably not in the private sector. So yeah, help me understand the position that the bureau has within that broader ecosystem, as you describe it. 

Bryan Vorndran: Yeah. What I would say is, I said before, we do consider cyber the ultimate team sport. And that crosscuts private sector as well. And when we're talking about broad campaign plannings to impose costs on our adversaries, in almost every one of those, we have partners that we're working with, sometimes private, sometimes public. And I think it's very easy for your listeners to understand. Let's use the critical infrastructure definition. Ninety percent of the U.S. critical infrastructure lies in the hands of the private sector, not in the hands of the U.S. government, whether that's pipelines, whether that's telcos, whether that's financial institutions, right? The things that make America go are in the hands of the private sector. Because of that, they are going to see the threat before we do - right? - they just are. And so those partnerships and that bilateral flow of information from us to them, it's what are we seeing from a threat picture? Where are we trying to go operationally? From them it's, hey, we're starting to see this. Are you already aware of it or not? And so tremendously important in the critical infrastructure space. 

Andrew Hammond: And another thing that I was going to ask as well was, you know, as someone that is the host of our podcast but who has also been on other podcasts, when you're a guest on a podcast, you're reacting to the questions that the other person asks. And sometimes, you get to the end. And you're like, I feel like they should have asked this. Or why didn't they ask that? So you mentioned before we came on air that you've done so many talks, interviews and so forth. What are some of the questions that you're like, why don't these AD interviewers ever ask this? There must be one or two that you're like, here's a point I really want to get across that nobody's asked. Or here's a thing that I think is really important to what we do that people just don't seem to be getting. Like, are there any of those questions or answers that you can think of at the moment? 

Bryan Vorndran: I mean, two come to mind, one about cyber and one about the FBI. I think the FBI is - one about cyber within the FBI. Cyber within the FBI, I don't think the American public has an appreciation for the talent we have at the technical level. And names don't matter. Organizations don't matter. When we removed the malware that was related to Cyclops Blink that I spoke to earlier in this conversation, multiple people called me and said, hey, I didn't know the bureau could do that, right? And I said, well, is that you didn't know we had the authorities? Or you didn't know we had the capability, technical capability? And more so, the answer is we had no idea you had the technical capability to do that. And I think that's a moment of pride for us because we have some crazy-talented people, some really, really technically capable people. And when you combine that with the strength of the organization, it's very, very powerful for the American public. The second thing I would just say is, within the bureau, I get asked a lot - hey, do you still love it? And the answer to that is yes. I love the people. I love the people. I just believe that our people stand for something a little bit different. They believe in the team. They believe in the heart of America. They believe in what's right. They believe in what's wrong. And I think the strength of that is insurmountable. And so when I talk to my family - right? - and I was at a retirement ceremony for a very good friend of mine, he brought his wife and his three kids. And he said to his three kids, I want you to be here because I think it's important for you to see what's possible when you surround yourself with good. And I think that's a tremendously important message that I still feel is critical to the FBI, part of the FBI and which has benefited me for the last 20 years, and that I know I'll look back on with the most fond, fond memories and recollection of what we stood for. 

Andrew Hammond: Why do you think the underestimation of the capabilities is there? Yeah, why... 

Bryan Vorndran: Because we're considered traditional law enforcement. 

Andrew Hammond: OK. 

Bryan Vorndran: In the eyes of so many, we're considered traditional law enforcement, that our primary goal is to put a charging instrument together, whether that's an indictment or an affidavit in support of arrest warrant, and put people in handcuffs. That is a primary responsibility of us and something that we accept and take pride in. But that's not our full scope, right? Nor is that our full set of responsibilities. And through that full set of responsibilities, we have developed some really, really deep talent, really deep talent. I would say that is the primary reason I started the conversation by saying this is not your grandparents' FBI. When we talk about cyber - right? - this is a whole new game for us. 

Andrew Hammond: How does that go with recruitment and personnel? Is that a decision that's made by the director? Or is that - the question that I'm trying to ask is, how do you develop and consolidate the FBI's cyber expertise and deepen the bench and keep developing the bench? 

Bryan Vorndran: Yeah. It's a challenge, right? When you look at our salary scale relative to the private sector, it's a huge challenge. I think those of us in this space - whether it's us or NSA, CIA as well - what you find is that people love the mission so much, so much that when they're committed, the right ones are committed almost for their life. And so certainly, recruiting and retention are very significant barriers for us. I do worry that they'll be more significant barriers for us in the future than they may be today. And that's something that we're putting a lot of time into, as I know, so are our intelligence community partners. 

Bryan Vorndran: But to your question about, is this something that I make the decision on, or the director makes a decision on, I don't think either, right? I think that we have really good people, really good people that understand my terminology, barriers to entry, for future talent acquisition, and that have really tried to understand that problem, really tried to put us in a good position. And I think we do still benefit broadly from our brand. We really do still benefit broadly from that, and I hope that stays to be the case for the next hundred years. But that, by itself, will not be enough. We will need to close the gap on pay. We will need to close the gap on other retention benefits that are broadly available in the private sector. And all of those things are conversations we have on a routine basis. 

Andrew Hammond: And for that, like, imagine there's some listener to this podcast. And they're, like, young. They're starting out their career. They want to be a force for good. Like you said, they want to - they're very interested in information technology in this type of space. What's the onboarding process like for them? Is it come back when you've done a degree in computer science, we'll have a conversation? Or is it come in as an agent first, and then we will skill you up? Or is it both? Or is it neither? 

Bryan Vorndran: Yeah, it's all of the above. 

Andrew Hammond: OK. 

Bryan Vorndran: It's all of the above. So we have people that come in with a Bachelor of Science and Computer Science right out of college and take computer scientist roles. We have people that come out with a host of degrees, to include CS degrees, that go into intelligence analyst roles shortly after their bachelor's or master's program. It does appear, anecdotally, that the intelligence analyst job classification is very, very competitive for us. And it seems most of the people coming into that have master's degrees recently. That may just be my observation of it. The agent process is a little bit different. You have to have three years of professional experience. Those years of professional experience can be inside the FBI or anywhere else, but in any scenario, there is runway before you can even apply to that process. And so, for me, I came out of private sector. For many people that I work with, they came out of private sector or started in the FBI and eventually became agents. 

Andrew Hammond: A lot of people out there, they just think everybody that's in the FBI is an FBI agent. Help our listeners understand, like, how does that shake out? I think they get their head around, in the CIA, you have analysts, and you have operations officers, then you have support personnel. But how does that shake out for the FBI? 

Bryan Vorndran: I still do recruiting where I have my undergrad from. And every year, at least once, maybe twice, myself and another - a woman in the FBI do the recruiting at our college. And it's interesting to me. She is in the lab for the FBI. She has a biology degree. And she does all traditional forensics work. And what my experience has been, as we recruit, she gets a whole lot more questions than I do, right? So I'm on the agent side. But I think it is of tremendous interest to people coming out of college, whether that's right out of college, out of a master's program or deeper into their mid-to-late 20s, or even into their 30s, to understand what else the FBI has to offer. 

Bryan Vorndran: The answer to that question is everything, whether that's computer scientists, IT specialists, physical scientists, biologists. We have Ph.D.s in psychology in our behavioral analysis units. We have people that have technical degrees for our technology needs, right? Public affairs specialist, congressional affairs specialist, the list goes on and on. With that said, the bulk of our personnel fit into two job classes, the special agent job class and the intelligence analyst job class. The intelligence analysts, as defined by the FBI, is identical to how it's defined in the intelligence community. So that is consistent across the entire IC. The utilization of that term, the roles, responsibilities, training that is required of our folks is no different than CIA's folks. 

Andrew Hammond: OK. Wow. And for the FBI as well, if people are listening to this and they're - let's say they need to contact someone from the government with regards to cyber, is it your office that they should reach out to? Or does it depend on the issue? Or is there like a clearing site that they can go to where they'll be directed to the right person? Because, I mean, you understand why just average people on the street get a little confused by this because they're busy, there seems to be so many different agencies and people doing so many different things. But where's like a - is there like 911 for a cyber issue? 

Bryan Vorndran: Yeah, there is... 

Andrew Hammond: Or even just an internist that you can phone to be directed to the consultant? 

Bryan Vorndran: Yeah. I mean, we boil it down to three real easy steps, right? No. 1 is just build a relationship with your local field office right now, right? And so, certainly - and I think the audience would understand - we can't be responsive to everyone. A two-person law firm is different than a Fortune 100 company, right? And that's just the reality of the situation for us, because we have finite resources, as does everyone else. We would ask everybody to account for that about whether you, as an organization, truly need a relationship with the FBI for a computer intrusion. 

Bryan Vorndran: But first is build a relationship. You do that through your local field office. There's any number of vectors into your local field office, whether that's the InfraGard chapter, whether that's your corporate relationship with the FBI. But that's generally easy to make happen. The second step is simply work with that FBI office to build an incident response plan for a computer intrusion. And we find this over and over and over again, those who practice - right? - no different than we would practice a fire drill with our family, those who practice are in much better position for the actual event. And No. 3 is you have to report when there is a compromise. The data that we have indicates that we only see - we, the U.S. government, not the FBI - only see about 30% of the corporate organizational intrusions that actually occur. We are ill-informed to inform the American public about the totality of the threat when we're only seeing 30%. So again, three easy steps - call your FBI field office right now. No. 2, work them into your incident response plan. And have them be there while you practice that. And No. 3, report when there's actually a computer intrusion. 

Andrew Hammond: And final question - for people that do cyber in the intelligence community all across the government, how is that all coordinated across the government? Is there an annual conference for cyber people where everybody gets together and there's some strategy or a plan that comes out of it? Or are there informal networks, you will meet up with another intelligence agency's head of cyber and you'll have, like, a working lunch or something? Yeah, help our listeners understand how it's all coordinated and how all the parts fit together. 

Bryan Vorndran: Yeah. I think, externally, it may be hard to understand, which - I think it probably is hard to understand. But internally, we have a pretty good delineation of roles and responsibilities across the U.S. government. And so what I would say is, we coordinate on lines of effort very, very frequently. And so while an outcome for us may be different than an outcome for CISA, we still have a role and a responsibility, both of us, in the same intrusion victim or the same working group. And so it's really hard to say. There is no annual conference. Generally, there haven't been working lunches - right? - to your question. But we coordinate on dedicated lines of effort, dedicated initiatives, dedicated campaigns when there are equity shares among the agencies. And I think those of us within these organizations all know each other very well. And so any of the organizations that we've talked about here literally is a phone call away from me when I step off the podcast, or from them to me. Those are very easy, mature relationships that are in place. 

Andrew Hammond: And just one final question in terms of how it plugs into the intelligence community. So if you're working counterintelligence in the FBI, I'm assuming that you've got a relationship with the National Counterintelligence Security Center, part of the ODNI. If you're working counterterrorism, you've got a connection to the National Counterterrorism Center at the ODNI. If you're doing cyber, do you have connections to both of them or a different part of that central kind of brain of the intelligence community? 

Bryan Vorndran: Certainly, we have relationships at ODNI. And a lot of work funnels through them. And that's just the nature of how we're orchestrated within the U.S. government on the IC side. So very, very significant equity holder there, especially on the intelligence side. 

Andrew Hammond: OK. So it would be the NCSC and the NCTC? Or it would be a variety? Or... 

Bryan Vorndran: Yeah, the newest one is through CTC - right... 

Andrew Hammond: OK. 

Bryan Vorndran: ...Which is the cyber threat center. But, yeah, it's part of ODNI. 

Andrew Hammond: OK. OK. 

Bryan Vorndran: And so they refer to them, if my memory is accurate - as you talk about NCTC and NCSC, they refer to those as centers. CTC would be a center within ODNI about cyber. 

Andrew Hammond: OK. Wow. 

Bryan Vorndran: And if I can just end with one thing? 

Andrew Hammond: Yeah. Yeah. Sure. 

Bryan Vorndran: I'd just like to thank you for your time. But I would be remiss if I didn't specifically call out, again, just, you know, NSA, Cyber Command, CIA, state treasury, Secret Service, CISA, you know, ODNI. All of us are in a really, really good space together. And I think that should matter to the American public, that they know that while the lines may be unclear from the outside, that we all care and that we're all working in a coordinated direction on a weekly, monthly, yearly basis - and just tremendous, tremendous partnerships and transparency from each of them. 

Andrew Hammond: Well, thanks ever so much for your time. This has been really informative for me. And I'm sure our listeners will think the same thing. 

Bryan Vorndran: Thank you. 

Andrew Hammond: Go Eagles. 


Bryan Vorndran: We say go birds. 

Andrew Hammond: (Laughter) Shows that I'm not a fan. All right, thank you. Thanks. Thanks for listening to this episode of "SpyCast." Go to our webpage, where you can find links to further resources, detailed show notes and full transcripts. We have over 500 episodes in our back catalogue for you to explore. Please, follow the show on Twitter at @INTLSpyCast. And share your favorite quotes and insights or start a conversation. If you have any additional feedback, please, email us at spycast@spymuseum.org. I'm your host, Dr. Andrew Hammond. And you can connect with me on LinkedIn. Or follow me on Twitter at @spyhistorian. This show is brought to you from the home of the world's preeminent collection of intelligence and espionage-related artifacts, the International Spy Museum. The "SpyCast" team includes Mike Mincey and Memphis Vaughn III. See you for next week's show.