CrowdStrike is an Irvine, California cyber security company founded in 2011 by Dmitri Alperovitch. Alperovitch was born in Moscow and emigrated to the United States with his Russian parents in his mid-teens. He is now an American citizen and a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council. Another owner and senior manager of Crowdstrike is a former senior FBI man Shawn Henry, who was promoted by Robert Mueller to be the FBI's Head of Cyber Security in the 2000s.
Crowdstrike is funded by Google, the arms industry, NATO, the US Military, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and another Ukrainian oligarch who donated $10 million to the Clinton Foundation named Victor Pinchuk. Pichuk hosted the September 2013 confabulation in Yalta, Crimea attended by Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and Tony Blair to discuss how Ukraine's assets would be carved up after the forthcoming Ukrainian coup.
Russian hacking claims of DNC servers in the Spring of 2016 rely entirely on a report by CrowdStrike. Despite repeated requests from the FBI, Crowdstrike and the DNC refused to turn over evidence. The Obama administration never examined the DNC servers to determine if indeed they were hacked, or attempted to identify who the hacker might have been. On July 25, 2019, President Trump requested President Zelensky of Ukraine to assist in recovering evidence from Crowdstrike, which contracts with the Ukrainian military.
CrowdStrike received a Series D financial investment from Google of $100 million in 2015.
DNC hack hoax
- See also: Ukrainian collusion
On April 28, 2016 DNC CEO Amy Dacy informed DNC attorney Michael Sussmann of the breach. Sussmann contacted Shawn Henry, CSO and President of Crowdstrike. Two days later the DNC hired CrowdStrike to install software that is meant to identify who gained access, when, and how. The next day, on May 1, CrowdStrike claimed the "intrusion had originated in Russia," although they would later retract.
The CrowdStrike website touts their 'revolutionary' approach and next-generation protection with their CrowdStrike Falcon services, "We Stop Breaches". As for all three public incidents, it appears they were reactionary and did not prevent an internal or external breach. What they did provide was intelligence and discover digital signatures leading to claimed sources. Some of its Falcon III equipment fell into Russian hands during Operation Denzaification.
Of the 27,500 DNC emails published by Wikileaks, fewer than 7,000 pre-date April 29. A Daily Caller News Foundation analysis of the published emails shows that the majority were written between May 5 and May 25 — after CrowdStrike was brought in to respond.
On May 10, 2016 CrowdStrike installed its Falcon software on DNC servers, two weeks before the last dated email in WikiLeaks' DNC collection. Adam Carter noted Falcon should have prevented an outside hack, according to its product claims: "either CrowdStrike's flagship product failed miserably to deliver on its claimed capabilities or it could mean CrowdStrike withheld evidence."
Julian Assange announced in a televised interview on June 12 that he was in possession of DNC emails; on June 13, 2018 (two years later) special counsel Robert Mueller alleged in an indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence officers that alleged Russian "hackers" did not contact Assange with DNC emails until June 14.
Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), which includes among members two former Technical Directors of the National Security Agency, has repeatedly called attention to its conclusion that the DNC emails were leaked — not “hacked” by Russia or anyone else. In analyizing the time sequence:
- June 12, 2016: Assange announces WikiLeaks is about to publish “emails related to Hillary Clinton;”
- June 14, 2016: DNC contractor Crowdstrike, (with a dubious professional record and multiple conflicts of interest) announced that malware has been found on the DNC server and claims there is evidence it was injected by Russians;
- June 15, 2016: “Guccifer 2.0” affirms the DNC statement; claims responsibility for the “hack;” claims to be a WikiLeaks source; and posts a document that the forensics show was synthetically tainted with “Russian fingerprints;"
"We do not think that the June 12, 14, & 15 timing was pure coincidence. Rather, it suggests the start of a pre-emptive move to associate Russia with anything WikiLeaks might have been about to publish and to “show” that it came from a Russian hack.
The mainstream media ran with the CrowdStrike version of a hack in an attempt to delegitimize Trump. Starting in June 2016 and continuing forward the DNC, Washington Post, New York Times, and other MSM outlets used CrowdStrike's allegations in an attempt to delegitimize Donald Trump while providing an excuse for Hillary Clinton's loss of the 2016 presidential election. From there followed claims that "Russia hacked the U.S. elections."
On June 15, 2016 the first Guccifer 2.0 document was created by Warren Flood at 13:38 EDT, modified by Феликс Эдмундович (Felix Edmunovich, the Russian patronymic of Felix Edmunovich Dzerzhinsky, founder of the KGB - a blatantly amateurish attempt to create Russian fingerprints) thirty minutes later at 14:08 EDT. Warren Flood was Joe Biden's former IT director at the White House. A document that Flood authored in 2008, and that was attached to one of John Podesta's emails, was used by Guccifer 2.0 as a template into which he then copied the contents of the Trump Opposition Research, copied from this file:
https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/fileid/26562/7365 (which is also attached to this leaked email). It is Flood's document that the "CONFIDENTIAL" text in the background derives from.
On the day disgraced FBI director James Comey exonerated Hillary Clinton of gross negligence, in the early evening, Eastern Daylight Time, someone working in the EDT time zone with a computer directly connected to the DNC server or DNC Local Area Network, copied 1,976 MegaBytes of data in 87 seconds onto an external storage device. That speed is much faster than what is physically possible with a hack.
George Eliason of Washingtonsblog: reported:
- In the wake of the JAR-16-20296 dated December 29, 2016 about hacking and influencing the 2016 election, the need for real evidence is clear. The joint report adds nothing substantial to the October 7th report. It relies on proofs provided by the cyber security firm Crowdstrike that is clearly not on par with intelligence findings or evidence. At the top of the report is an “as is” statement showing this.
- The difference between Dmitri Alperovitch’s claims which are reflected in JAR-1620296 and this article is that enough evidence is provided to warrant an investigation of specific parties for the DNC hacks. The real story involves specific anti-American actors that need to be investigated for real crimes. For instance, the malware used was an out-dated version just waiting to be found. The one other interesting point is that the Russian malware called Grizzly Steppe is from Ukraine. How did Crowdstrike miss this when it is their business to know?
- The bar for identification set by Crowdstrike has never been able to get beyond words like probably, maybe, could be, or should be, in their attribution. The bar Dimitri Alperovitch set for identifying the hackers involved is that low. Other than asking America to trust them, how many solid facts has Alperovitch provided to back his claim of Russian involvement?
- information from outside intelligence agencies has the value of rumor or unsubstantiated information at best according to policy. Usable intelligence needs to be free from partisan politics and verifiable. Intel agencies noted back in the early 90’s that every private actor in the information game was radically political.
- Alperovitch first gained notice when he was the VP in charge of threat research with McAfee. Asked to comment on Alperovitch’s discovery of Russian hacks on Larry King, John McAfee had this to say. “Based on all of his experience, McAfee does not believe that Russians were behind the hacks on the Democratic National Committee (DNC), John Podesta’s emails, and the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. As he told RT, “if it looks like the Russians did it, then I can guarantee you it was not the Russians.”
- How does Crowdstrike’s story part with reality? First is the admission that it is probably, maybe, could be Russia hacking the DNC. “Intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin ‘directing’ the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to Wiki Leaks.” The public evidence never goes beyond the word possibility. While never going beyond that or using facts, Crowdstrike insists that it’s Russia behind both Clinton’s and the Ukrainian losses.
- In June, Crowdstrike went public with its findings that two separate Russian intelligence agencies had hacked the DNC. One, which Crowdstrike and other researchers call Cozy Bear, is believed to be linked to Russia’s CIA, known as the FSB. The other, known as Fancy Bear, is believed to be tied to the military intelligence agency, called the GRU.” The information is so certain the level of proof never rises above “believed to be.” According to the December 12th Intercept article “Most importantly, the Post adds that “intelligence agencies do not have specific intelligence showing officials in the Kremlin ‘directing’ the identified individuals to pass the Democratic emails to WikiLeaks.”
- The SBU, Olexander Turchinov, and the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense all agree that Crowdstrike is dead wrong in this assessment. Although subtitles aren’t on it, the former Commandant of Ukrainian Army Headquarters thanks God Russia never invaded or Ukraine would have been in deep trouble. How could Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike be this wrong on easily checked detail and still get this much media attention?
- Crowdstrike CEO Dmitri Alperovitch story about Russian hacks that cost Hillary Clinton the election was broadsided by the SBU (Ukrainian Intelligence and Security) in Ukraine. If Dimitri Alperovitch is working for Ukrainian Intelligence and is providing intelligence to 17 US Intelligence Agencies is it a conflict of interest?
- Is giving misleading or false information to 17 US Intelligence Agencies a crime? If it’s done by a cyber security industry leader like Crowdstrike should that be investigated? If unwinding the story from the “targeting of Ukrainian volunteers” side isn’t enough, we should look at this from the American perspective. How did the Russia influencing the election and DNC hack story evolve? Who’s involved? Does this pose conflicts of interest for Dmitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? And let’s face it, a hacking story isn’t complete until real hackers with the skills, motivation, and reason are exposed.
- According to journalist and DNC activist Andrea Chalupa on her Facebook page “After Chalupa sent the email to Miranda (which mentions that she had invited this reporter to a meeting with Ukrainian journalists in Washington), it triggered high-level concerns within the DNC, given the sensitive nature of her work. “That’s when we knew it was the Russians,” said a Democratic Party source who has been directly involved in the internal probe into the hacked emails. In order to stem the damage, the source said, “we told her to stop her research.”” July 25, 2016
- If she was that close to the investigation Crowdstrike did how credible is she? Her sister Alexandra was named one of 16 people that shaped the election by Yahoo news. The DNC hacking investigation done by Crowdstrike concluded hacking was done by Russian actors based on the work done by Alexandra Chalupa? That is the conclusion of her sister Andrea Chalupa and obviously enough for Crowdstrike to make the Russian government connection.
- How close is Dimitri Alperovitch to DNC officials? Close enough professionally he should have stepped down from an investigation that had the chance of throwing a presidential election in a new direction. According to Esquire.com, Alperovitch has vetted speeches for Hillary Clinton about cyber security issues in the past. Because of his work on the Sony hack, President Barrack Obama personally called and said the measures taken were directly because of his work.
- Alperovitch’s relationships with the Chalupas, radical groups, think tanks, Ukrainian propagandists, and Ukrainian state supported hackers [show a conflict of interest]. When it all adds up and you see it together, we have found a Russian that tried hard to influence the outcome of the US presidential election in 2016.
- The Chalupas are not Democrat or Republican. They are OUNb. The OUNb worked hard to start a war between the USA and Russia for the last 50 years. According to the Ukrainian Weekly in a rare open statement of their existence in 2011, “Other statements were issued in the Ukrainian language by the leadership of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (B) and the International Conference in Support of Ukraine. The OUN (Bandera wing) called for”… What is OUNb Bandera? They follow the same political policy and platform that was developed in the 1930’s by Stepan Bandera. When these people go to a Holocaust memorial they are celebrating both the dead and the OUNb SS that killed. There is no getting around this fact. The OUNb have no concept of democratic values and want an authoritarian fascism.
- Alexandra Chalupa- According to the Ukrainian Weekly,
|… “The effort, known as Digital Miadan, gained momentum following the initial Twitter storms. Leading the effort were: Lara Chelak, Andrea Chalupa, Alexandra Chalupa, Constatin Kostenko and others.” The Digital Maidan was also how they raised money for the coup. This was how the Ukrainian emigres bought the bullets that were used on Euromaidan. Ukraine’s chubby nazi, Dima Yarosh stated openly he was taking money from the Ukrainian emigres during Euromaidan and Pravy Sektor still fundraises openly in North America. The “Sniper Massacre” on the Maidan in Ukraine by Dr. Ivan Katchanovski, University of Ottowa shows clearly detailed evidence how the massacre happened. It has Pravy Sektor confessions that show who created the “heavenly hundred. Their admitted involvement as leaders of Digital Maidan by both Chalupas is a clear violation of the Neutrality Act and has up to a 25 year prison sentence attached to it because it ended in a coup.|
- Andrea Chalupa-2014, in a Huff Post article Sept. 1 2016, Andrea Chalupa described Sviatoslav Yurash as one of Ukraine’s important “dreamers.” He is a young activist that founded Euromaidan Press. Beyond the gushing glow what she doesn’t say is who he actually is. Sviatoslav Yurash was Dmitri Yarosh’s spokesman just after Maidan. He is a hardcore Ukrainian nationalist and was rewarded with the Deputy Director position for the UWC (Ukrainian World Congress) in Kiev.
- In January, 2014 when he showed up at the Maidan protests he was 17 years old. He became the foreign language media representative for Vitali Klitschko, Arseni Yatsenyuk, and Oleh Tyahnybok. All press enquiries went through Yurash. To meet Dimitri Yurash you had to go through Sviatoslav Yurash as a Macleans reporter found out.
- At 18 years old, Sviatoslav Yurash became the spokesman for Ministry of Defense of Ukraine under Andrei Paruby. He was Dimitri Yarosh’s spokesman and can be seen either behind Yarosh on videos at press conferences or speaking ahead of him to reporters. From January 2014 onward, to speak to Dimitri Yarosh, you set up an appointment with Yurash.
- Andrea Chalupa has worked with Yurash’s Euromaidan Press which is associated with Informnapalm.org and supplies the state level hackers for Ukraine.
- Irene Chalupa- Another involved Chalupa we need to cover to do the story justice is Irene Chalupa. From her bio– Irena Chalupa is a nonresident fellow with the Atlantic Council’s Dinu Patriciu Eurasia Center. She is also a senior correspondent at Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), where she has worked for more than twenty years. Ms. Chalupa previously served as an editor for the Atlantic Council, where she covered Ukraine and Eastern Europe. Irena Chalupa is also the news anchor for Ukraine’s propaganda channel org She is also a Ukrainian emigre leader.
- According to Robert Parry’s article At the forefront of people that would have taken senior positions in a Clinton administration and especially in foreign policy are the Atlantic Council. Their main goal is still a major confrontation with nuclear-armed Russia.
- The Atlantic Council is the think tank associated and supported by the CEEC (Central and Eastern European Coalition). The CEEC has only one goal which is war with Russia. Their question to candidates looking for their support in the election was “Are you willing to go to war with Russia?” Hillary Clinton has received their unqualified support throughout the campaign.
- What does any of this have to do with Dimitri Alperovitch and Crowdstrike? Since the Atlantic Council would have taken senior cabinet and policy positions, his own fellowship status at the Atlantic Council and relationship with Irene Chalupa creates a definite conflict of interest for Crowdstrike’s investigation. Trump’s campaign was gaining ground and Clinton needed a boost. Had she won, would he have been in charge of the CIA, NSA, or Homeland Security?
- When you put someone that has so much to gain in charge of an investigation that could change an election, that is a conflict of interest. If the think tank is linked heavily to groups that want war with Russia like the Atlantic Council and the CEEC, it opens up criminal conspiracy.
- If the person in charge of the investigation is a fellow at the think tank that wants a major conflict with Russia it is a definite conflict of interest. Both the Atlantic Council and clients stood to gain Cabinet and Policy positions based on how the result of his work affects the election. It clouds the results of the investigation. In Dmitri Alperovitch’s case, he found the perpetrator before he was positive there was a crime.
- Alperovitch’s relationship with Andrea Chalupa’s efforts and Ukrainian intelligence groups is where things really heat up. Noted above she works with Euromaidanpress.com and Informnapalm.org which is the outlet for Ukrainian state-sponsored hackers.
- When you look at Dimitri Alperovitch’s twitter relationships, you have to ask why the CEO of a $150 million dollar company like Crowdstrike follows Ukrainian InformNapalm and its hackers individually. There is a mutual relationship. When you add up his work for the OUNb, Ukraine, support for Ukraine’s Intelligence, and to the hackers it needs to be investigated to see if Ukraine is conspiring against the US government. Crowdstrike is also following their hack of a Russian government official after the DNC hack. It closely resembles the same method used with the DNC because it was an email hack.
- Crowdstrike’s product line includes Falcon Host, Falcon Intelligence, Falcon Overwatch and Falcon DNS. Is it possible the hackers in Falcons Flame are another service Crowdstrike offers?
- In an interview with Euromaidanpress these hackers say they have no need for the CIA. They consider the CIA amateurish. They also say they are not part of the Ukrainian military Cyberalliance is a quasi-organization with the participation of several groups – RUH8, Trinity, Falcon Flames, Cyberhunta. There are structures affiliated to the hackers – the Myrotvorets site, Informnapalm analytical agency.”
- Should someone tell Dimitri Alperovitch that Gerashchenko, who is now in charge of Peacekeeper recently threatened president-elect Donald Trump that he would put him on his “Peacemaker” site as a target? The same has been done with Silvio Berscaloni in the past.
- Trying not to be obvious, the Head of Ukraine’s Information Ministry (UA Intelligence) tweeted something interesting that ties Alperovitch and Crowdstrike to the Ukrainian Intelligence hackers and the Information Ministry even tighter. This single tweet on a network chart shows that out of all the Ukrainian Ministry of Information Minister’s following, he only wanted the 3 hacking groups associated with both him and Alperovitch to get the tweet. Alperovitch’s story was received and not retweeted or shared. If this was just Alperovitch’s victory, it was a victory for Ukraine. It would be shared heavily. If it was a victory for the hacking squad, it would be smart to keep it to themselves and not draw unwanted attention.
- These same hackers are associated with Alexandra, Andrea, and Irene Chalupa through the portals and organizations they work with through their OUNb. The hackers are funded and directed by or through the same OUNb channels that Alperovitch is working for and with to promote the story of Russian hacking.
- When you look at the image for the hacking group in the euromaidanpress article, one of the hackers identifies themselves as one of Dimitri Yarosh’s Pravy Sektor members by the Pravy Sektor sweatshirt they have on. Noted above, Pravy Sektor admitted to killing the people at the Maidan protest and sparked the coup.
- Going further with the linked Euromaidanpress article the hackers say "Let’s understand that Ukrainian hackers and Russian hackers once constituted a single very powerful group. Ukrainian hackers have a rather high level of work. So the help of the USA… I don’t know, why would we need it? We have all the talent and special means for this. And I don’t think that the USA or any NATO country would make such sharp movements in international politics.”
- What sharp movements in international politics have been made lately? Let me spell it out for the 17 US Intelligence Agencies so there is no confusion. These state sponsored, Russian language hackers in Eastern European time zones have shown with the Surkov hack they have the tools and experience to hack states that are looking out for it. They are also laughing at US intel efforts.
- The hackers also made it clear that they will do anything to serve Ukraine. Starting a war between Russia and the USA is the one way they could serve Ukraine best, and hurt Russia worst. Given those facts, if the DNC hack was according to the criteria given by Alperovitch, both he and these hackers need to be investigated.
- According to the Esquire interview “Alperovitch was deeply frustrated: He thought the government should tell the world what it knew. There is, of course, an element of the personal in his battle cry. “A lot of people who are born here don’t appreciate the freedoms we have, the opportunities we have, because they’ve never had it any other way,” he told me. “I have.”
- While I agree patriotism is a great thing, confusing it with this kind of nationalism is not. Alperovitch seems to think by serving OUNb Ukraine’s interests and delivering a conflict with Russia that is against American interests, he’s a patriot. He isn’t serving US interests. He’s definitely a Ukrainian patriot. Maybe he should move to Ukraine.
- The evidence presented deserves investigation because it looks like the case for conflict of interest is the least Dimitri Alperovitch should look forward to. If these hackers are the real Cozy Bear and Fancy Bear, they really did make sharp movements in international politics. By pawning it off on Russia, they made a worldwide embarrassment of an outgoing President of the United States and made the President Elect the suspect of rumor.
- From the Observer.com,
|“Andrea Chalupa—the sister of DNC research staffer Alexandra Chalupa—claimed on social media, without any evidence, that despite Clinton conceding the election to Trump, the voting results need to be audited to because Clinton couldn’t have lost—it must have been Russia. Chalupa hysterically tweeted to every politician on Twitter to audit the vote because of Russia and claimed the TV show The Americans, about two KGB spies living in America, is real.”|
- Quite possibly now the former UK Ambassador Craig Murry’s admission of being the involved party to “leaks” should be looked at.
|“Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.”|
Documented fake news
The FBI received a draft, redacted report from Crowdstrike alleging the Russian's hacked the DNC. The FBI never looked further into it. The so-called 'Russia hacked the DNC' narrative became the official U.S. government position in the Intelligence Community Assessment to President Obama, the Mueller Report, DOJ indictments, and fake news leak narratives provided to mainstream media.
NBC News carried the story because one of the partners in Crowdstrike is also a consultant for NBC. According to NBC the story reads like this: ”The company, Crowdstrike, was hired by the DNC to investigate the hack and issued a report publicly attributing it to Russian intelligence" One of Crowdstrike's senior executives is Shawn Henry, a former senior FBI official who consults for NBC News.
In December 2016, CrowdStrike claimed Russia's military hacked the Ukrainian army with malware. The Washington Post would spread the story but in March 2017, CrowdStrike revised and retracted statements after coming under the scrutiny of experts.
In June 2019 the DOJ admitted that the FBI never saw the Crowdstrike report on DNC Russian hacking claims. Lawyers for Roger Stone requested the full Crowdstrike report on the DNC hack. Not only did the FBI not review the DNC server, the FBI/DOJ never even saw the Crowdstrike report. The FBI and DOJ were only allowed to see a “draft” report prepared by Crowdstrike, and that report was redacted. That redacted draft is the “last version of the report produced”; meaning, there are no unredacted & final versions. The FBI and DOJ, and all claims by the intelligence community, including the 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment to President Obama, the final Mueller Report, Mueller team indictments, and illegal IC fake news leaks to mainstream media were based on taking the word of a hired contractor for the Democrat party. As of 2019, there still exists no official evidence of the claim that 'Russia hacked the DNC'.
- Victor Pinchuk, the Clintons & Endless Connections, by Jeff Carlson, March 11, 2018.
- Washington Post puts out sensational fake news story of Russian hacking the DNC. CrowdStrike is reported as discovering the hack, but the hack has never been independently verified by the FBI or any other independent firm or government agency. CrowdStrike, [colloquially referred to as "industry" by the IC] under contract to the DNC, is assisting the DNC to brace for embarrassing Wikileaks revelations of the document dumps procured by DNC whistleblower Seth Rich by blaming Russian hackers.  https://www.voanews.com/a/crowdstrike-comey-russia-hack-dnc-clinton-trump/3776067.html http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-03-22/muzzled-breitbart-wh-correspondent-ordered-not-ask-televised-question-discrediting-d *15 June. Someone purporting to be Guccifer2.0 claims responsibility for DNC hack and claims to be a source for Wikileaks. The first 5 documents he posts are purposefully tainted with 'Russian Fingerprints' and the first of those documents just so happens to be the Trump Opposition Research the DNC announce on the previous day.
- Why Crowdstrike’s Russian Hacking Story Fell Apart- Say Hello to Fancy Bear, George Eliason, Washingtonsblog, January 3, 2016.
- CNN Journalists Resign: Latest Example of Media Recklessness on the Russia Threat, The Intercept, June 27, 2017
- Company website
- CrowdStrike, Comey & Conflicting Claims?, By Adam Carter --- July 16, 2017.
- HUGE: FBI KNOWS RUSSIA DIDN’T HACK THE DNC Per CrowdStrike Testimony, NSA Records & FBI Text The Pete Santilli Show E#1924 May 8, 2020.
- EXCLUSIVE EXCERPT: How The DNC Hired CrowdStrike To Frame Russia For The Hack