Some light reading from Stratfor’s emails

How about establishing as a tactic “Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations”?

Or how about one assessment:

“The difference between an intelligence service and a company like Stratfor is that they know how to focus their resources and assess information by separating the wheat from the chaff. By all accounts of the Wikileaks Stratfor emails, their clients are getting nothing but a lot of chaff.”

And another:

Forrester Research information security analyst John Kindervag said that Stratfor should have paid attention to its own IT problems–namely, its failure to encrypt its own, sensitive emails. “They would have saved themselves a ton of embarrassment–not to mention all of the costs associated with the breach–had they deployed encryption on their toxic data stores,” he said.

Now there’s a phrase I have to love: toxic data stores. As well, the idea that a company providing “expert analysis” would fail to protect plus encrypt its confidential data. Please note: email is confidential data. (Are you still using Gmail?)

Read this excellent analysis at http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/attacks/232601656.