The Global Intelligence Files,
files released so far...
2365
The Global Intelligence Files

### Index pages

List of Releases

### by Date of Document

unspecified
2001
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011

### by Date of Release

2001-03-13
2010-03-10
2011-03-05
2011-03-15
2012-01-29
2012-02-27
2012-02-28
2012-02-29
2012-03-01
2012-03-02
2012-03-03
2012-03-04
2012-03-05
2012-03-06
2012-03-07
2012-03-08
2012-03-09
2012-03-10
2012-03-11
2012-03-12
2012-03-13
2012-03-14
2012-03-15
2012-03-16
2012-03-17
2012-03-19
2012-03-20
2012-03-23
2012-03-25
2012-03-26
2012-03-27
2012-04-01
2012-04-02
2012-04-24
2012-04-26
2012-04-30
2012-05-10
2012-06-18
2012-06-20
2012-07-01
2012-07-24
2012-07-28
2012-07-29
2012-07-30
2012-07-31
2012-08-01
2012-08-02
2012-08-05
2012-08-06
2012-08-07
2012-08-08
2012-08-09
2012-08-10
2012-08-11
2012-08-12
2012-08-13
2012-08-14
2012-08-15
2012-08-16
2012-08-17
2012-08-18
2012-08-19
2012-08-20
2012-08-21
2012-08-22
2012-08-23
2012-08-24
2012-08-25
2012-08-26
2012-08-27
2012-08-29
2012-08-30
2012-08-31
2012-09-01
2012-09-02

### Our Partners

ABC Color - Paraguay
Al Akhbar - Lebanon
Al Masry Al Youm - Egypt
Asia Sentinel - Hong Kong
Bivol - Bulgaria
Carta Capital - Brazil
CIPER - Chile
Dawn Media - Pakistan
L'Espresso - Italy
La Repubblica - Italy
La Jornada - Mexico
La Nacion - Costa Rica
Malaysia Today - Malaysia
McClatchy - United States
Nawaat - Tunisia
NDR/ARD - Germany
Owni - France
Pagina 12 - Argentina
Philip Dorling - Fairfax media contributor - Australia
Plaza Publica - Guatemala
Publica - Brazil
Publico.es - Spain
Rolling Stone - United States
Russian Reporter - Russia
Ta Nea - Greece
Taraf - Turkey
The Hindu - India
The Yes Men - Bhopal Activists
Sunday Star-Times - New Zealand

### Community resources

Supporters Support Wikileaks Follow us on Twitter Twitter this Follow us on Facebook

courage is contagious

# The Global Intelligence Files

On Monday February 27th, 2012, WikiLeaks began publishing The Global Intelligence Files, over five million e-mails from the Texas headquartered "global intelligence" company Stratfor. The e-mails date between July 2004 and late December 2011. They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal's Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defence Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor's web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods.

## Re: hacker questions

Released on 2012-02-29 11:00 GMT

Email-ID | 1549513
Date | 2011-06-29 01:33:34
From | sean.noonan@stratfor.com
To | analysts@stratfor.com

What would cause Anonymous or LulzSec to change their M.O.? Wasn't
Lulzsec an outgrowth, and thus a change in MO, from Anonymous?
Top hackers only work for the NSA or the Chinese?
On 6/28/11 5:14 PM, Marc Lanthemann wrote:
they took the cia's website down and it didn't matter, intranet was
still up, it's just the webpage. cyber attacks really only matter in two
cases: one: you steal shit. two: you render critical networks useless.
while lulzsec and anon COULD theoretically do number 2, it doesn't mean
they ever will because it would take someone convincing a horde of nerds
that ddos-ing a telecom system is a good idea. The most harm they can
realistically do is by exposing secure networks' flaws and stealing
information (number 1). For this you don't need a million people, just a
few very good ones with gigantic computers. It's really not in the m.o.
of either of them to do anything so serious. While top hackers are
dangerous, they're not going to be exposing themselves as part of any
group but most likely working either for the NSA or the Chinese.
On 6/28/11 5:05 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:
Even if they did take down the CIA's website, why would it matter? or
in what cases would it matter?
On 6/28/11 4:36 PM, Renato Whitaker wrote:
Mainly the targets they're choosing: everything from government
websites in Brazil, Chile, Peru to the Arizona PD and the freakin'
CIA (although whether they actually brought down the CIA site or not
isn't not confirmed). This is a considerable step-up from harassing
some Scientologists.
This wouldn't seem to be, by any means, "serious" hacking (mainly
relying on DDOS and everything else Marc mentioned), but the fact
that they can disrupt websites of that caliber, even for a few
hours, is starting to attract media attention and it would mayby be
prudent to mention something about it.
Again, this wouldn't be a focus on Lulz-sec or Anonymous or whatever
specifically, but rather the nature of this sort of impromptu
cyber-harassing that can be a pain.
On 6/28/11 4:22 PM, Sean Noonan wrote:
Renato- what makes it significant enough for us to cover?
Marc- what makes LulzSec's capacity so remarkalble?
the thing with anon and lulzec is that they do things for,
drumroll, the "lulz" (in normal speech, for the fun of it).
While they have pretty remarkable hacking capacity, they use it
mostly to "prank" people they don't like. From teh Westboro
Baptist Church to the CIA, most of the attacks involve either
DDOS or changing some silly logo on a web page. The most harm
they do is actually to corporations (stealing video game and
porn passwords).
Especially in the case of Anon, they do have some very talented
hackers, but their strength comes from numbers. Basically they
recruit amateur 4chan neckbeards sitting at their parent's house
who think it'd be funny to take someone's website down and
convince them to run a pre-written script that will saturate its
servers. The problem with numbers is that it's hard to find a
common cause that rallies enough people . For your average
31-year old dork eating Frito's in the basement, they'll sign up
for porn and video game attacks (see above). Coordinating
something targeted like intelligence theft that can get you a
one-way ticket to Bubba's bunk in jail is very hard.
On 6/28/11 1:23 PM, Renato Whitaker wrote:
Do we plan to address any of the recent hacker phenomenons
like the "Anon" and "lulzsec" attempts on gov. websites? I
mean, "Anonymous" is more of an idea than an actual group, but
this could be considered a sort of electronic "lone-wolf", no?
On a somewhat unrelated note, I looked up "Lulz" on Stratfor
and came up with this typo: "Both Chavez and Correa were in
Manaos, Brazil, to meet with Brazilian President Lulz Inacio
"Lula" da Silva."
(http://www.stratfor.com/venezuela_chavez_says_banco_del_sur_open_november).
--
Marc Lanthemann
ADP
--
Sean Noonan
Tactical Analyst
Office: +1 512-279-9479
Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
www.stratfor.com
--
Sean Noonan
Tactical Analyst
Office: +1 512-279-9479
Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
www.stratfor.com
--
Marc Lanthemann
ADP
--
Sean Noonan
Tactical Analyst
Office: +1 512-279-9479
Mobile: +1 512-758-5967
Strategic Forecasting, Inc.
www.stratfor.com