[monocasa]

The IC assessment was just regurgitating CS's report. The IC just took CS at their word since they would have contracted out to someone like CS to begin with. The FBI, for instance, wasn't allowed to look at any of the evidence directly. AFAIK, no government entities have looked at the raw data.

Edit: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/jul/...

> In his testimony in January on the cyber attacks, then-director of the FBI James Comey said the agency never got access to the machines themselves, but obtained access to the forensics from a review of the system performed by CrowdStrike, a third-party cybersecurity firm.

[willstrafach]

To clarify, this is the report I am referring to, and it does not appear to mention CrowdStrike at all:

https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

[monocasa]

Sure, they didn't cite CrowdStrike, but there's no extra information in that report other than what came from CrowdStrike's report.

[willstrafach]

There definitely appears to be additional information in the IC assessment though.

[monocasa]

Like what?

[willstrafach]

They're different reports. I don't quite understand what you are saying.

> The IC assessment was just regurgitating CS's report. The IC just took CS at their word since they would have contracted out to someone like CS to begin with.

The IC assessment appears to be very different. It describes information sourcing without any reference to an analysis of DNC servers (let alone CrowdStrike). There does not appear to be any indication that information from CrowdStrike's analysis or any information from DNC servers at all was used to generate the IC assessment.