Anonymous' hackers target U.S. security think tank..steal credit cards to make charity donations

[HipChick]

http://www.khon2.com/news/national/story/Anonymous-hackers-target-U-S-security-think-tank/Mg9ek5S9z0OiEWrd6-WQog.cspx?rss=1809

The loose-knit hacking movement "Anonymous" claimed Sunday to have stolen thousands of credit card numbers and other personal information belonging to clients of U.S.-based security think tank Stratfor. One hacker said the goal was to pilfer funds from individuals' accounts to give away as Christmas donations, and some victims confirmed unauthorized transactions linked to their credit cards.

Anonymous boasted of stealing Stratfor's confidential client list, which includes entities ranging from Apple Inc. to the U.S. Air Force to the Miami Police Department, and mining it for more than 4,000 credit card numbers, passwords and home addresses.

Austin, Texas-based Stratfor provides political, economic and military analysis to help clients reduce risk, according to a description on its YouTube page. It charges subscribers for its reports and analysis, delivered through the web, emails and videos. The company's main website was down, with a banner saying the "site is currently undergoing maintenance."

Proprietary information about the companies and government agencies that subscribe to Stratfor's newsletters did not appear to be at any significant risk, however, with the main threat posed to individual employees who had subscribed.

"Not so private and secret anymore?" Anonymous taunted in a message on Twitter, promising that the attack on Stratfor was just the beginning of a Christmas-inspired assault on a long list of targets.

Anonymous said the client list it had already posted was a small slice of the 200 gigabytes worth of plunder it stole from Stratfor and promised more leaks. It said it was able to get the credit card details in part because Stratfor didn't bother encrypting them — an easy-to-avoid blunder which, if true, would be a major embarrassment for any security-related company.

[randome]

1. This is dumb.

A lot of these 'donations' will be disputed and revoked, resulting in lost time and money for the charities involved.

[HipChick]

2. They may have crossed the line with stealing credit card info and making fraudulent transactions

[MH1]

6. I think so.

Sharing 'secret' info is one ethical discussion. Monetary theft is a different one.

[MineralMan]

13. I think that's definitely crossing the line.

Consider this: Suppose they hack, say CitiBank, and get customers' credit card information, then use that to send money to charities. Does the fact that someone has a CitiBank credit card somehow implicate them in CitiBank's other actions? I don't think so. I suspect that many DUers have CitiBank credit cards.

Doesn't Anonymous just make this hacked information public? Or are people connected with Anonymous the only ones who see the information? And what about the script kiddies at Lulzsec?

Badly done, I think, this particular little escapade.

[The Doctor.]

15. Anonymous performed the initial hack, stole the records, and made the client list public.

The hackers punishing clients of Stratfor may or may not have been the intention of Anonymous. Either way, it did result in a greater blow being struck against Stratfor.

[truedelphi]

45. Nah, they are just imitating the ruling class!

I mean where are the outraged posters about Bernanke offering up Fourteen Trillions of dollars to the top Bankers in the world (Not just here in the USA, but across the globe.)

And yeah, the Bankers say the loans ahve been paid back - but when you investigate, you find out that the fact is all they have done is offer up "collateral" in the form of "investments" that are worth as much as my roll of Charmin - what's up with that?

And yes, two wrongs don't make a right, but if Bernanke got wiped out tomorrow, through actions of Anonymous or others, with Wells Fargo foreclosing on him and his family, I can't but say I'd be smirking.

[duhneece]

3. Maybe...or maybe

the hacked account holders will be too embarrassed to demand their 'donation' back and/or maybe the 'security' company will be recognized for the creeps they are (assuming they are).

[Brickbat]

4. Embarrassed that they were hacked? Doubtful.

[randome]

5. Why would they be 'creeps'?

Because Anonymous targeted them?

There IS no security on the Internet. The entire system is a hodgepodge of conflicting needs held together with string and tape.

[donco]

24. Ten four on the dumb

this has the potential to bite some serious ass.

[mmonk]

7. I like the idea of hacking "security" firms

that get all these government contracts. If they are security firms, they should be able to "secure" data.

[randome]

10. There is no foolproof security on the Internet.

Last edited Tue Dec 27, 2011, 03:57 PM - Edit history (1)

There never will be. As long as we have a system in place that is open to EVERYone, SOMEone will find a way inside to do mischief.

You can't be both open and secure.

[HappyMe]

8. Stealing credit card numbers and making fake donations.

A truly dumbass idea.

[WolverineDG]

9. All they did was break the law

The charities, which really need the money, will now have to spend it on refunding what was stolen instead of on charity. Is Anonymous going to pay them for that?

[MedicalAdmin]

11. Horse puckey.

Any claims of fraudulent charges will not be charged or assessed to the charities at all. Both Visa and Mastercard have long standing publicly stated policies of simply crediting the defrauded account and debiting (without fees) any money otherwise and I see no reason for them to change policy at this point.

Personally I think this is a lark, and while criminal and chargeable it is pocket change and not even close to the same league of other larger more harmful crimes that have been uncharged as we "look forward."

[randome]

12. And we know that every client of Stratfor can be accused of...what?

[The Doctor.]

17. Being a client of Stratfor.

Maybe crooked, fascist companies aren't the best enterprises to do business with.

[MedicalAdmin]

18. Especially ones that say they are security experts and then who don't encrypt of other wise protect

their own clients info.

Yikes. How hard is it to run some encrypting software? Not hard at all. They were too lazy and didn't give a rip about their customers.

[randome]

19. So their clients deserve to have their money stolen?

Not sure how you reach that kind of conclusion.

[MedicalAdmin]

21. I never said that.

Not sure how you reach that kind of conclusion.

[WolverineDG]

22. It is still theft

Money was illegally taken out of accounts ( including private individuals) withou the knowledge or consent of the owners. Two wrongs don't make a right.

[The Doctor.]

26. Actually, the notion that 'two wrongs make a right' is embedded soundly in our society.

Mostly because it's sometimes true.

If 'two wrongs' didn't 'make right', then why sue for injuries? Why ruin someone else's day just because they ruined yours? Why put people in jail for murder? The crime is done, ruining someone's life just because they killed someone is another 'wrong', isn't it? Seriously, what if they had a really good reason to kill the person? Now they can get on with their lives and become productive members of society.

Right?

We visit 'wrong' on people for committing 'wrong' all the time. The difference is that we call it 'justice'. In this case a 'wrong' was visited upon people that supported an entity that is part of the mechanism of the police state. While I would like to have seen those clients simply make an informed decision not to support it, that just wasn't happening. Now Stratfor will lose support it never should have had in the first place. I'm not in favor of taking illegal or extralegal action against anyone, but we live in complex times where no legal recourse exists in order to put an end to certain unjust practices. Therefore, I can't get too upset when a few hundred private citizens are very mildly inconvenienced in exchange for dealing a major blow to a corrupt entity.

[WolverineDG]

27. Rationalize it anyway you want

Theft is theft. The moral high ground has been lost.

[Modern_Matthew]

31. And beef is beef...

Sometimes it's tasty.

Sometimes it is contaminated with lethal bacteria.

[The Doctor.]

33. There is no 'moral high ground'.

"Moral high ground" was thrown out with the medical waste decades ago by those in power. Any ground their opponents stand on is 'morally higher' by default.

If the 'Moral high ground' means "Let them get away with any damn thing they want", then you can have your 'moral high ground' while the rest of us look for ways to stop the assault on democracy, civilization, and humanity that these corporate parasites represent.

The more 'moral platitudes' I hear, the more convinced I am that they were invented by the despotic to give the repressed an excuse to be complacent.

[backscatter712]

38. +1.

The namby-pambies whining "THAT'S STEALING!" can all sit and pout while the rest of us reclaim our democracy.

[WolverineDG]

39. Theft is theft. And it is wrong, no matter who does it nt

[The Doctor.]

42. Then it's time to stop putting people in jail.

Locking people up against their will is wrong.

Doing so doesn't erase their crime, so we should not treat them so severely.

Right?

[MedicalAdmin]

47. Yes. That is true.

But for me the bigger crime was corporate malfeasance. That company didn't take the steps even my little company takes to protect client info.

I hope they lose customers like fleas jumping from a dead dog.

[Zorra]

14. "Worry not, fellow pirates and robin hoods...

...it's extraordinarily difficult to defend against..."

[randome]

16. "...the Spanish Inquisition?"

[Zorra]

34. No, that's not it, but don't lose any sleep over it. You never seemed to really get Occupy either.

Personally, I have trouble getting a real handle quantum physics. Never could do a Rubik's Cube either for some reason.

It seems that it is part of the human condition that there are some things in this world that are simply beyond our respective individual abilities to comprehend.

[ohheckyeah]

20. I think Anonymous crossed a line

when doing this. Stealing credit card number is theft and I can't support this action.

[The Doctor.]

23. Then it wouldn't be Anonymous.

That is, if you really believe these people were actually harmed.

I'm finding people seem to have difficulty grasping this, but only actions that are taken within the stated mission of Anonymous are by Anonymous. Anonymous is a 'superconscious entity' or 'idea' that has very specific methods and goals.

Someone acting within those parameters is part of Anonymous. Someone acting outside of them is not.

Anonymous hacked Stratfor, liberated client lists and emails, and gave them a black eye. Whether the theft of credit card information fits within the stated goals and methods of Anonymous is a matter for debate.

Either way, I believe that people who want to do business with the devil are fair game. They don't want to be a target? Fine, then know who you're dealing with, the enemies they've made and laws they've bent, and take your lumps when they come.

[randome]

25. Why would Stratfor be the 'devil'?

Because they operated a business that someone calling him or herself Anonymous decided they didn't like?

I suppose someone did extensive research on this before acting? Did you?

The client lists weren't 'liberated', they were stolen and people's money used for no good purpose.

[The Doctor.]

32. Stratfor does business with the Devil.

*Emphasis added

In the wake of the recent operation by which Stratfor's servers were compromised, much of the media has focused on the fact that some participants in the attack chose to use obtained customer credit card numbers to make donations to charitable causes. Although this aspect of the operation is indeed newsworthy, and, like all things, should be scrutinized and criticized as necessary, the original purpose and ultimate consequence of the operation has been largely ignored.



*Stratfor was not breached in order to obtain customer credit card numbers, which the hackers in question could not have expected to be as easily obtainable as they were. Rather, the operation was pursued in order to obtain the 2.7 million e-mails that exist on the firm's servers. This wealth of data includes correspondence with untold thousands of contacts who have spoken to Stratfor's employees off the record over more than a decade. Many of those contacts work for major corporations within the intelligence and military contracting sectors, government agencies, and other institutions for which Anonymous and associated parties have developed an interest since February of 2011, when another hack against the intelligence contractor/security firm HBGary revealed, among many other things, a widespread conspiracy by the Justice Department, Bank of America, and other parties to attack and discredit Wikileaks and other activist groups. Since that time, many of us in the movement have dedicated our lives to investigating this state-corporate alliance against the free information movement. For this and other reasons, operations have been conducted against Booz Allen Hamilton, Unveillance, NATO, and other relevant institutions. The bulk of what we've uncovered thus far may be reviewed at a wiki maintained by my group Project PM, echelon2.org.



Although Stratfor is not necessarily among the parties at fault in the larger movement against transparency and individual liberty, it has long been a "subject of interest" in our necessary investigation. The e-mails obtained before Christmas Day will vastly improve our ability to continue that investigation and thereby bring to light other instances of corruption, crime, and deception on the part of certain powerful actors based in the U.S. and elsewhere. Unlike the various agents of the U.S. Government, the hacking team that obtained this information did not break down the doors of the target, point guns at children, and shoot down any dogs that might have been present; Anonymous does not resort to SWAT tactics, and this is simply one of many attributes that separate the movement from the governments that have sought to end our campaign and imprison our participants. Of course, such points as these will not prevent our movement from being subjected to harsher scrutiny than is given to those governments which are largely forgiven their more intrusive tactics by virtue of their status as de facto holders of power in a world that has long been governed in accordance with the dictate that might makes right.



Incidentally, many of us are more than happy to proceed according to that amoral dictate if we find it to be necessary. And, increasingly, we have found it to be so.



Barrett Brown



Project PM



irc.project-pm.org

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/anonymous-explains-why-27-million-stratfor-emails-were-hacked


The client lists were indeed 'liberated'. You can say 'stolen' if you want to, but Stratfor likely still has those lists on hand. As for the money going toward 'no good purpose', I hope that you can elaborate on where it went and what nefarious 'purposes' it served.

[randome]

35. Still no evidence they have anything to do with the Wikileaks discreditation.

But I have to admit I'm not quite as opposed to this action as I was. Maybe the media DID focus more on the credit card aspect.

[The Doctor.]

44. The media is doing their best

to vilify Anonymous.

In this case, a few hackers helped the media out.

The last thing the (corporate) media wants is for the bars of our cage to become evident. That would mean they've failed at their job.

[ohheckyeah]

36. I believe perception is important

and the perception that this is nothing more than theft is out there and will lose Anonymous support.

[The Doctor.]

40. True.

Thing is, you'd have an easier time herding invisible cats than you would hackers.

[ohheckyeah]

46. You got that right. n/t

[Modern_Matthew]

30. I don't think they went far enough. nt

[ohheckyeah]

37. You're entitled to feel that way.

I can't justify the stealing and use of someone's credit card.

[The Doctor.]

41. I can:

If the only way to stop these plainly extra-legal entities from furthering the cause of totalitarianism is to inconvenience a few dozen or so people who have to suffer the horror of calling their credit card company, cancelling their card, filing a report, and Jeebus forbid taking a 50 point hit to their credit, then so be it.

Now, do I think it was necessary? No, the point of the hack was to nab emails and gather massive amounts of intel. But the credit card thing was a nice black eye to Stratfor. I know I'll never be their client now.

[backscatter712]

28. Excuse me for having precious little security for Stratfor...

Nothing but a private spy agency for the one-percenters.

And they couldn't be bothered to encrypt their credit card data from their customers - against the TOS of the credit card companies, and against every ounce of basic security common sense.

All's fair in war...

[Modern_Matthew]

29. I have been applauding Anonymous all year...

And will continue to as we go through the next one.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Well given STRATFOR is just above Blackwater in the slime department

the attack makes sense from the POV of Anon.

Not defending it, I just happen to get it.

[valerief]

48. Ha, I love this Robin Hood stuff.