This is just about the only bad thing I have to say about Stratfor. Being a long-time subscriber, I am always a few steps ahead of basically everyone else when it comes to global politics, and this has been very useful and enjoyable over the years.
One thing worth pointing out is that a Stratfor account like mine does not contain any sensitive information. It gives me access to exactly the same Stratfor reports as any other subscriber. As far as I know, it would not be possible to obtain e.g. my credit card details by using that password.
Anyway, it is stupid to use such passwords and it tells something about the persons using those. Maybe they would use site names as passwords on other sites also.
Why would they value their password to one of 30ish different systems/websites?
Here's a tool you can use to generate MD5 hashes for given passwords: http://www.iwebtool.com/md5?string=stratfor
Going from the hashes to the passwords requires brute forcing, dictionary attacks, that sort of thing.
e.g., grep `md5 -s 'password' | cut -d ' ' -f 4` password_file | wc -l
Highest reused password count: 12023 "stratfor"? 12023 "password"? 517 "password1"? 46 "Password1"? 24 "123456"? 625 "12345678"? 74 "jesus"? 2 "love"? 7 "war"? 1 "michael"? 39 "america"? 7 "xbox360"? 0 "heroes"? 0
Those last 2 are popular for the battlefield heroes dataset and other gaming-related ones, so I keep them in my script as gaming sites are both highly targeted and usually poorly secured.
Anyway, it's clear that no rules were enforced as a 3-letter dictionary word like "war" would never be allowed by any rule creation system. The fact that "stratfor" was used by nearly 1.4% of all accounts (!) tells me that either their users did not value these accounts or they simply have no idea how passwords are supposed to work.