You're right that it didn't go public until this year, but by 2015 it was a rapidly growing company well known in its field.
The company was founded by a couple of executives from McAfee who had grown frustrated by McAfee's approach to cyber security.
Alperovich was one of those executives. He was born in Russia (Moscow, not Ukraine), and came to the US with his family when he was 15.
They were basically obscure, DNC linked, Russian/Ukraine linked, foreign born controlled in 2016.
Or you could say they were a rapidly growing firm founded by well-regarded, mainstream American cyber security executives with no known links to Ukraine or the DNC.
...failed miserably to give an explanation why one company, who never gave a final report, was the ‘sole’ reviewer of the DNC server.
Of course, they weren't the sole reviewer.
They provided the FBI all of their forensic materials including server and disk images. The FBI did their own, independent investigation.
Alperovich is not by any chance related to Gar Alperovitz, the “leading cold war revisionist historian”, is he?
Read replies 42 through 45 and let me know if you still believe the BS you're spooning out after you read them.
Some ammo to arm yourself with, Pete Dovgan, so you can counter mis/disinformation.
Again, feel free to educate me on Crowdstrike and the DNC server issue. These are the facts that I am aware of
1. First. FYI.....McAfee has been banned in the past (not sure if still is) from Government use because it was a highway to Russia. That alone, combined with the connections to Russia and the Ukraine should give you pause to it’s credibility.
2. Please give the name of another company, that you can prove without question, independently reviewed the DNC server and Crowdstrike’s results.
3. Please provide information that the FBI did an independent investigation on the DNC server, and DID NOT SUBCONTRACT CROWDSTRIKE and accept only their results. Please provide reference to when and where, and who provided the entire DNC server to the FBI.
The left wing nuts are all about ‘debunked’ and ‘false’ claims. They often provide the ‘illusion’ that something happened when it frankly did not. Good luck with your research, I have been following this story for 3 plus years, but I am willing to be educated it my ‘impressions’ of the facts are wrong.