Stratfor Hacked, 200GB Of Emails, Credit Cards Stolen, Client List Released, Includes MF Global, Rockefeller Foundation

Tyler Durden's picture

This Christmas will not be a happy one for George Friedman (who incidentally was the focus of John Mauldin's latest book promotion email blast) and his Stratfor Global Intelligence service, because as of a few hours ago, hacking collective Anonymous disclosed that not only has it hacked the Stratfor website (since confirmed by Friedman himself), but has also obtained the full client list of over 4000 individuals and corporations, including their credit cards (which supposedly have been used to make $1 million in "donations"), as well as over 200 GB of email correspondence. And since the leaked client list is the who is who of intelligence, and capital management, including such names as Goldman Sachs, the Rockefeller Foundation and, yep, MF Global, we are certain that not only Stratfor and its clients will be waiting with bated breath to see just what additional troves of information are unleashed, but virtually everyone else, in this very sensitive time from a geopolitical point of view. And incidentally, we can't help but notice that Anonymous may have finally ventured into the foreign relations arena. We can only assume, for now, that this is not a formal (or informal) statement of allegiance with any specific ideology as otherwise the wargames in the Straits of Hormuz may soon be very inappropriately named (or halfway so).

Chronology of releases from AnonymousIRC starting early this afternoon:

And the kicker:

Anon promises that much more is coming:

  • has enough targets lined up to extend the fun fun fun of throught the entire next week.

How the Stratfor site looked minutes after the hack:

Full letter from George Friemdan to clients as of an hour ago:

The full client list as released in a pastebin by Anonymous of all the alleged clients sorted by company name, can be found here. As this is merely an extracted column from a far larger database, we are confident much more very sensitive information, as the bulk of the companies are either in the intelligence or money management business, will be released shortly.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
High Plains Drifter's picture

happy chanukah....ha ha ha .......

Oh regional Indian's picture

And where is the cock's tail DV? 

Between his legs right now if I was a betting man.

This is all a part of the unfolding pattern of disclosure. WHen everyoen is naked, suddenly the emperor does not look so bad anymore, eh?

Wishing everyone a deeply deliberative time.

ori

/fractal-animal-hypnotic/

Hive Raid's picture

Graced again by The Oracle of Calcutta.

TD: "Hows that working out for you?"

TD: "What?"

TD: "Being clever."

chumbawamba's picture

This is the best part:

"We have learned that Stratfor’s web site was hacked by an unauthorized party."

Do they otherwise authorize people to hack their website?

I am Chumbawamba.

XitSam's picture

Department of Redundancy Department

UncleFurker's picture

 

Yes they do. They're called security consultants.

 

 

Ying-Yang's picture

Interestingly enough, it appears that one of the reasons why Anonymous was able to attack the website was because Stratfor neglected to encrypt the credit card and other personal information about its subscribers. This has BoingBoing blogger Rob Beschizza perplexed:

 

It’s true that websites are like storefronts, and that it’s more or less impossible to stop determined people from blocking or defacing them now and again.

Here, however, it looks like Stratfor left private files in the window display, waiting to be grabbed by the first guy to put a brick through the glass.

Now, I’m not America’s premier intelligence and security research group, and I’m not a member of its national IT security planning task force. But I’m pretty sure that putting unencrypted lists of credit card numbers and client details on public-exposed servers isn’t quite explained by “no matter what you do, every system has some level of vulnerability.”

POPO..... it's the news baby! ZH is where we get news. Don't popo in your own pool.

UP Forester's picture

Worked for Sony, didn't it?

Popo's picture

Let's be clear:   ZH reprints Stratfor stories REGULARLY.   Why?  Because here on ZH, we too want to know where the war-drums are beating.  Just two weeks ago, ZH reprinted Stratfor's US Navy positions map for the Gulf region.  Frankly,  I find that information to be very important -- And I'm not sure where else I (or Tyler) would get it.

I'm not sure why Anonymous felt the need to attack a private publication.  But IMHO that is an attempt at limiting free speech -- which is ironically what Anonymous themselves stand for.    Hypocrisy at it's finest.

And Tyler:  You should clarify your position on this story.   An attempt to attack a publication which is protected under the first amendment is not something that ZH has *any* business showing support for.  For ZH too, this is hypocrisy.   (Particularly when it's a publication that you regularly reprint maps and data from)

When Anonymous speaks -- we *hope* the media and the world at large will listen.   But if Anonymous tries to silence other voices?   i'm sorry: No.  That's when Anonymous loses my support completely.   

File this operation under "Lame".  Anonymous just lost points in public opinion -- and that's not something they can afford to do.

 

 

BigDuke6's picture

I liked your post but don't fucking ask ZH to 'declare its position'.
You read
You learn.
You prepare in your own way.

Popo's picture

Completely disagree.  What I'm reading here seems to be support for a small gang of people to attack private property and attempt to limit free speech with which they disagree.    (And why does ZH provide a link to the stolen data, exactly?)

While I may want Fox News to shut up,  I do not under any circumstances advocate actually 'shutting them up'.   That's a very slippery slope towards somewhere we do not want to go.   What if some quasi-government organization decided to take down ZH because they disagreed with it?   And what if they took user data?

IMHO -- Tyler needs to clarify ZH's posiiton on attacking publications and aggressively limiting freedom of speech.   Because this move by Anonymous is bullshit.

Popo's picture

Having to provide a dictionary to explain your cleverness = fail

You might want to look up "blade" while you're at it.

 

 

BorisTheBlade's picture

Not that ad hominem argument with internet identity means anything, but thanks, further proves the point. Look up ad hominem yourself please, since you mind me putting the references.

Popo's picture

Sigh.   I believe it is you that doesn't understand what an ad hominem attack is.  An ad hominem attack is an attempt to avoid the *actual* argument by attacking the arguer.

You haven't made an argument.   If you can make intelligent responses other than  "Lol butthurt" -- I'll actually respond to you.

Until then,  I'll keep treating you like an unintelligent troll.

BorisTheBlade's picture

It is getting better and better, first time to internet?

Popo's picture

Is that supposed to be an English sentence?

Lndmvr's picture

I thought the original remark was about our own governments attempts to smother our free speech and yada yada.

DavidC's picture

Boris,
Shut up.

Popo made some good points, whether or not you agree with them.

DavidC

Socrate's picture

«And why does ZH provide a link to the stolen data, exactly?»

Because it is already been made public. Why not repost already public stuff. It is not ZH's fault that Stratfor ignore the presence of encryption technology and the need for securing private data.

M3$$ w1th t3h b3$t....

Popo's picture

That's like saying "It wasn't my fault she was dressed so sexy..."

I'm sure you have no idea in how many ways your argument fails legally.  But suffice to say:  Your argument = profound fail.

Oh wait... I just read your last sentence.  I'm arguing with a 13 year old...

BorisTheBlade's picture

troll more carefully bro, on a long enough timeline it becomes obvious. and no, it wasn't anybody's fault she was dressed so sexy, you wouldn't be born if she wasn't. merry LulzXmas

IrritableBowels's picture

Assuming a classical intellectual philosopher's name for avatar and then misspelling it: FAIL

farmjohnny's picture

Atempting to put a square peg, (freedow of speach issue), into a round hole,(this hack)? doesnt hold appear to hold water. Next.

 

Popo's picture

Silly comment.   In your magical corner of the universe this was not a politically motivated action?  

As one of the Tyler's said above:  "And incidentally, we can't help but notice that Anonymous may have finally ventured into the foreign relations arena."

If Anonymous is making political statements with aggressive actions -- you can't turn around and claim that this is just a "hack".  It wasn't.  You know that.


Silversinner's picture

We,the people,are at war with these

institutions.I support all attempts

to expose,reveal,undermine their position.

They already spy on us 24/7,so lets

use their weapons against them,see

nothing wrong in that,it's called self defence.

 

 

 

Popo's picture

We the people are at war with Stratfor?  Uh... don't speak for me bro.  

Yes,  we the people are at war with the banking system, the oligarchy, the military industrial complex and a whole host of other baddies...  But like our founding fathers, I believe that the press should be left out of the fray.  For better or for worse, they need to be unfettered.

 

UP Forester's picture

Naaaaahhhh.  Stratfor has to be on the up-and-up, just look at the prime players, from Bloomberg on the 15th:

http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/people.asp?privcapId=11017435

 

And why Austin?  Because that's where all the companies not related to CIA and .gov data-mining are located.

http://www.statesman.com/business/technology/for-austin-a-new-wave-of-data-centers-1739697.html

Hell, they've even got courses on how to do it:

http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/dml/

sessinpo's picture

What this may lead to is an eventual war between hacking groups. Not the traditional black hats versus white hats (white hats generally expose weaknesses so that their employer can try to fix it before a hacking occurs). Instead grey hats versus black hats. Another group with the expertise and knowledge to go after Anonymous beyond the scope of law enforcement as we know it. Hired guns in the new wild west.

barkingbill's picture

a bit anal aren't we aptly named popo? otherwise known as rear-end. 

killedbyshortvol's picture

It's not clear to me how ZH or Anonymous is "aggressively limiting freedom of speech".  What am I missing?

Joseph Jones's picture

Oh ya, sure...I'd hate to see someone remove a weapon from the hands of someone annihilating a large group of people.  

Anyone thinking free speech exists in a meaningful way in the USA is wrong.

I'd give anonymous money if I could find them.  God bless them all.  Stop reading here if you don't understand or largely disagree with the editorial stance.  

Any security industry enthusiastically supported by Bill O'Reilly and the Zionist pig Fox News owner needs to be taken down fast, soon, and often.  

chistletoe's picture

actually

 

there is quite the conumdrum here.

 

I myself admit to spending hours and hours in contemplation of the conumdrum,

 

why do TPTB allow ZH to continue to do all that it does?

 

Consider the fate of Wikileaks.certainly "they" could shut it down if they wished,

though it might take a little more than just a highly-paid duplicitous prostitute to do it ....

 

Come upo with your own answer, but don't post it here ....

RiverRoad's picture

Here's my answer:  They're too busy reading ZH to shut it down.

Raging Debate's picture

I really liked your last comment Popo. Good job in this latest comment too about pointing out how we should strive for a higher standard in defending the 1st Amendment. Here was my write up on it: http://ragingdebate.com/browse-articles/government-and-politics/stratfor-hacked-200gb-of-emails-credit-cards-stolen-client-list-released-includes-mf-global .

Sorry Tyler, if you want the power of the 1st Amendment you have to also become a standard-bearer of it. I am from one of the orphan generations, we are all dealing with demographic imbalance and how banking attempted a solution to it. Just a different method of attempting to force spending as ageing people stockpile ahead of decrepency when they can't produce. Blame is dumb, we should blame people from 1870 that their generation lived longer than the next one? 

I read a bunch of the comments already, that Polizesta commentator sure is acting purposely provocative, what do you call those again? What Popo is trying to do is tell you to police yourself so the authorities don't have to.  

ZH will have a tough time shedding its branding at some point but we are all left guessing if the branding will change, or such bright people will be motivated past just being on defense and do some problem solving, become part of society. That is genius that we are left guessing on intent. It actually hasn't or ever changed.

The branding here, Fight Club is about gleefully destroying the supply chains. In the movie, the glee of fighting and getting prepared were reserved for those that have polluted the supply chains, control them and making the world slums. The movie was to show how little respect these people had for themselves because society had ignored them for so long anyway that having something to lose wouldn't even register to begin with. The glee is about their own oppression coming to an end. It is dark and cryptic because how much the society suffers in the process is irrelevant. The theme is to attempt to reach leaders that you don't want to live in this world, similar to Clockwork Orange almost.

That right or wrong, those men owning and perverting the supply chains have to be taught lessons and that when all else fails to reach them that violence becomes the only answer.

Because of the branding, the service has a shelf life and it seems like many people have become anamored with the service but have forgotten or never understand what the theme of the branding was. Now, if it were me I would kill the Fight Club brand and keep the financial, hedging brand (domain name, ZH). Combining the two brands worked in 2008 for reasons that no longer do and this comment is already too long...  

sgt_doom's picture

"...attempt to limit free speech ...."

Listen moron (Popo), did you happen to read the client list, halfwit?

Frist Capital, LLC (Billy Frist's company, AT&T, etc., almost all the many, many Rockefeller/Morgan/Mellon companies, all those companies making up the control element of the American Financial-Intelligence-Complex,......please, give me a frigging break!

These are all the sleazoids who have dismantled the American economy, crippled any possibility at any form of democracy, destroyed the tax base in America, and killed any and all "free speech" as they overwhelming control the media and their message!

sgt_doom's picture

"...attempt to limit free speech ...."

Listen moron (Popo), did you happen to read the client list, halfwit?

Frist Capital, LLC (Billy Frist's company, AT&T, etc., almost all the many, many Rockefeller/Morgan/Mellon companies, all those companies making up the control element of the American Financial-Intelligence-Complex,......please, give me a frigging break!

These are all the sleazoids who have dismantled the American economy, crippled any possibility at any form of democracy, destroyed the tax base in America, and killed any and all "free speech" as they overwhelming control the media and their message!

Rynak's picture

Fuck you, sockpuppet

Popo's picture

Witty.

Apparently I bruised another unquestioning fanboy.

Archduke's picture

Please.

 

1) StartFor's intelligence is harvested independently from public sources,

it's the equivalent of stalking on google streetview and satellite imagery.

I don't see how ZH reprinting is any worse than a paid stratfor subscription,

and I don't see see any of this information as sensitive state secrets.

it's quality information and opinion, well researched and compiled, but

it's not seditious secret leakage.

 

2) If anything this highlights how it's impossible to be a one-man shop and

shows there is a need for a open-source pen-tested information business.

I respect George Friedman's opinions and find his analyses poignant and

perspicaceous, but it's been obvious he is no information security expert.

Cryptome and even ZH use PGP drop boxes, whereas Stratfor encrypts nada.

Even more telling, the full naval update maps were always available without a

subscription, simply by virtue of copying the thumbnal url and stripping the

suffix from it.

 

3) Lay off the Anonymous rhetoric.  Like it's typonomic says it is anonymous,

so there's no guarantee that any consistency exists between different actions

or actors claiming kudos.  This could just as easily be a a copycat group, a rogue

splinter cell, chinese hackers, or a flase flag by a government special interest

group pushing a big brother internet agenda.  Anonymous is an aggregate of

many different hactivists each with their own ideals, goals, and rules of ethics.

until or unless there is ever a concerted and coherent unifying campaign on all

their part violating intel sites, there is no way you can pin one alleged action

on the movement as a whole.  plus who knows, maybe Friedman was in it with

HB Gary and had it coming?  we are spectators in the world of spook subterfuge.

the best we can hope for is to see a trend and make a buck.  we're certainly not

the ones in the loop.

 

 

 

Popo's picture

Archduke -- I hear you.  But imho the fact that Stratfor gets their info from public sources isn't the issue.  It's still a publication -- and the idea that you can silence voices through whatever means doesn't sit well with me -- and frankly it shouldn't sit well with anyone here, as we're all big fans of ZH (and ZH also gets info from public sources).

As to your third point.  That's very true -- and it's hard to say whether or not this was in fact, "Anonymous" that did the hack.    We may never know -- but IMHO this was definitely not their finest moment if it was.  

 

 

 

 

DionysusDevotee's picture

and it's hard to say whether or not this was in fact, "Anonymous" that did the hack. "

Thing is that all it takes to be anonymous is to declare yourself anonymous.  This looks far more like Lulzsec people.  Who as they say "do it for the lulz"

Hansel's picture

Except that 'Anonymous' is claiming responsibility via its twitter feed, AnonymousIRC.