No, his analysis is not. He talked about how they even directly tested from servers in a few of the potential countries for real world data transfer speeds and they couldnt reproduce the rate. He also explains how it fits a FAT32 filesystem very well. VIPS has a long history of being corrwct and way ahead of the curve, hence the frequent character assassinations.
As someone who has had formal forensic training, your statement about physical servers made me laugh! Have you never heard of chain of custody? Even if someone provided image files the break in chain of custody by a third party would make the evidence useless.
As for Crowdstrike, even before 2016 they had a reputation in the industry. When it came to the Russiagate stuff, I think the following article is a good start.
> So, to do proper forensic analysis, I need to physically take the servers?
Obviously.
> I can't log in and take all the data?
The DNC did not allow the FBI to do that either.
> Why is crowdstrike "suspect?
Because Dmitri Alperovitch - Crowdstrike's Russia-born co-founder and former CTO - is a Senior Fellow at the Atlantic Council.
Because Shawn Henry - Crowdstrike CEO - admitted in a December 2017 congressional testimony that they had found no proof that data had been exfiltrated from those DNC servers they had exclusive forensic access to.
William Binney's "analysis" is a little suspect.
The servers were never provided to the FBI, and Crowdtrike is extremely questionable as an organization for other reasons.
So, to do proper forensic analysis, I need to physically take the servers? I can't log in and take all the data?
ALso, please enlighten us...Why is crowdstrike "suspect?