

Anonymous AntiSec Takes Down Stratfor - mikecane
http://mikecanex.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/anonymous-antisec-takes-down-stratfor/

======
aes256
Email from Stratfor to its members:

> Subject: Important Announcement from STRATFOR

Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2011 19:49:58 -0500

From: STRATFOR <mail[at]response.stratfor.com>

Dear Stratfor Member,

We have learned that Stratfor's web site was hacked by an unauthorized party.
As a result of this incident the operation of Stratfor's servers and email
have been suspended.

We have reason to believe that the names of our corporate subscribers have
been posed on other web sites. We are diligently investigating the extent to
which subscriber information may have been obtained.

Stratfor and I take this incident very seriously. Stratfor's relationship with
its members and, in particular, the confidentiality of their subscriber
information, are very important to Stratfor and me. We are working closely
with law enforcement in their investigation and will assist them with the
identification of the individual(s) who are responsible.

Although we are still learning more and the law enforcement investigation is
active and ongoing, we wanted to provide you with notice of this incident as
quickly as possible. We will keep you updated regarding these matters.

Sincerely,

George Friedman

STRATFOR

221 W. 6th Street, Suite 400

Austin, TX 78701 US

www.stratfor.com

— <http://cryptome.org/0005/stratfor-hack.htm>

------
mbrzuzy
Isn't anyone else tired of hearing about anonymous? They manage to hack a
website and then make it out to be some big deal as if they're some elite
hacker organization.

I'm curious as to how many sites they are unsuccessful in compromising before
they finally manage to find one with a vulnerability.

~~~
sunchild
I don't think Anon holds itself out as "elite hackers" at all. Most of the
time, they're quite open about how easy their takedowns are from a technical
perspective. It's usually basic XSS, etc. and reflects poorly on the targets,
rather than showing how clever the attack is.

------
angli
I have couple of questions I hope someone on HN can answer: One, what exactly
is Stratfor? The wikipedia article was far from enlightening. And, two, what
did they do to get on Anonymous's bad side? Is this SOPA related?

~~~
steve8918
Ignore what the guys above have answered.

Stratfor is essentially a US-based but global news source that gives you the
expert commentary and analysis on geopolitical issues that the regular news
won't tell you.

Case in point: I started subscribing to Stratfor after the Fukushima meltdown
and their great commentary on the situation, stuff that you wouldn't hear
about from any other news source. One really great analysis talked about how
the farm lands would take over a year just to recover from the salt water from
the tsunami, let alone the other damage. Stuff like that you just don't read
from CNN, google news, etc. As well, despite what the Japanese government was
telling the world, it turned out to be the worst nuclear disaster in history.

They have expert commentary and analysis on any types of issues that are
geopolitical in nature. For example, they have a lot of information on the
European financial crisis, Iran capturing the drone, and they even debunked a
recent Iranian news conference saying they had captured an American spy. Their
analysis on the Middle East protests, as well as the the fallout in terms of
Putin's recent political issues, etc, was very interesting.

It's pretty much the most informed, independent, honest news source for
anything going on throughout the world.

The comments above talking about how they fear monger, etc, is completely
unfounded, at least from what I've seen. I've subscribed to them for almost a
year now, and there's no fear mongering whatsoever.

The fact that Anonymous/hacker groups would target Stratfor is kind of
idiotic, it's independent news sources like this that don't work at the behest
of governments and Rupert Murdoch that is keeping us informed, at least
somewhat.

~~~
gasull
Some people consider Stratfor to be a source of disinformation and propaganda:

<http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Stratfor>

~~~
jonhendry
At your link: "Mongoven warned industry leaders about the increasing
collaboration between environmental groups and patients groups on the issue of
exposure to chemicals. "

That seems pretty unobjectionable. It's probably even true, and probably ought
to have been obvious to the industry without Stratfor's advice. The issue is
how the industry responded: by throwing up smokescreens? By lobbying
government to avoid regulation? Or by working to reduce emissions and satisfy
the public's concerns? An outfit like Stratfor can't control what actions its
clients take based on the information and opinions it provides.

So Sourcewatch's case comes down to 1) a leftist's complaint about its
coverage of Latin America, and 2) something that is not objectionable.

Which is pretty weak.

~~~
gasull
I'm just pointing out that some people consider Stratfor a source of
propaganda, and probably that's the reason why Anonymous attacked it.

Stratfor looks interesting. I bookmarked it and I'll decide on my own if it's
propaganda or not after reading it for a while.

~~~
lambdasquirrel
It's propaganda for a realpolitik point of view. They do not really take sides
with anyone. My only gripe with them is that, all things being considered, and
George Friedman's work having been read, they seem subtly promoting of their
reasoning for American dominance, but that bent may just have to do with the
way they do their best to explain why things are the way they are, rather than
what things should be.

If anything, that is the reason to dislike them. Their analysis of the facts
more or less ignores humanity. But to be fair to them, the world is an inhuman
place to live in.

