- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
I’m sure CrowdStrike is absolutely prepared to admit they fucked up. What’s the point of this?
Will we be bringing in every CTO/CIO that decided to implement CrowdStrike for a congressional hearing as well?
How about every CEO or board member that voted to hire the CTO that decided to implement CrowdStrike…?
There is no point. They drag the social media CEOs in front of congress regularly, give them a stern talking-to, and then it’s back to business as usual.
Yea, this is one of those “optics is the action” scenarios and it’s a stupid waste of our taxes.
The social media ones are usually the equivalent of the this meme, with congress being trump. Hell, basically anything involving technology from this century is the same scenario.
I think it’s anything involving wealth. They do it with the oil companies too. Bring them in, tell them what naughty boys they’ve been and let them go on with it.
I moreso meant the confused face of “what are you even asking me? That question doesn’t make sense!” For anything tech 😅
Two things come to mind:
-
Do we need compliance regulations on minimum testing infrastructure etc for kernel-level development so that dangerous bugs can’t be mistakenly released?
-
Kurtz has a history of this calibre of issue under their leadership (both at CrowdStrike and at McAfee); why does this keep happening under their leadership and what can we learn to instruct other orgs not to make the same mistakes (e.g. via CISA directives)?
-
I’d like to see a televised paddling. Pants down bend over closeup shot of face, let go of ankkes and another whack.
Be far more effective than fines.
Okay, so just a sec, yes, the crowdstrike thing was a BIG fucking deal… But what is wild to me is how it’s seemingly being unmentioned that the world crashed bc… Windows crashed… So maybe it’s a wake up call that ONE fucking OS shouldn’t be the GLOBAL standard. I dunno tho.
It wasn’t the whole world. Our business went on just fine without any issues and we were running Windows too. And the thing about that is you have a lot of people pushing for a homogeneous culture on Linux, not realizing that 1) crowdstrike was crashing Linux systems a couple months ago and 2) if it were to become the dominant system we could see things happen that way too.
So I’m kinda curious, what would you suggest?
Running windows with crowdstrike? Or just running windows in general? Kind of a big distinction since we are talking about a kernel level flaw. Also one personal experience doesn’t invalidate how wide spread the issue was.
I haven’t had time to come up with a solution my dude. I don’t. Even have a suggestion. I’m just putting it out there.
Trick is that any respectable OS should crash in this scenario. Including when cloudstrike did this to Linux.
There was an uncaught exception in a program that was using a workaround to run unsigned code at a kernel level.
The only part of this on MS is not investigating how Cloudstrike was doing updates. Otherwise its 100% Cloudstrike that set all of this in motion.
That’s totally a fair point - thank you for the perspective
People are definitely talking about that. Maybe not in the media but in the affected industries.
It was different when we weren’t living in a software as a service world. You could be mono platform but since you had complete control you didn’t have to worry you could roll out how you wanted.
Crowd strike by it’s very nature is supposed to be live updated throughout the day as threats emerge.
If we want services like these maybe we need to come up with better ways to isolate them from the kernel while still allowing crowdstrike type software to detect threats
Solving the crowdstrike problem could solve kernel level anti cheat software too
You’re talking about the IDS/IPS problem. For it not to impact the kernel it would need to be a passive, read only system. But if you need it to be active to actively prevent threats it needs to have the same level of access a threat actor could gain. You can’t move everything to user space without a shit load of signing and things like TPM and SecureBoot which people have been decrying for years as “vendor lock in”. So at some point a level of trust or risk must be accepted.
Windows blames the EU for forcing them to allow other vendors with access to do this type of thing rather than just letting Microsoft themselves manage it.
I’m not sure I buy that argument but it’s going to get a bit tricky.
It’s a bs argument meant to shift blame. I mean does Microsoft really think a major company would leave security up to Windows fucking Defender?
I dislike windows and I pretty much agree with your point, but this was crowdstrike through and through, wasn’t it? They’re there ones selling a product that requires privileged access, they’re the ones who need to be responsible with that privilege. Microsoft made the OS, but they didn’t do the breaking here.
I simultaneously hear from people that the Internet runs on Linux and also everything in the world runs on windows
Servers vs desktops.
Seems like a lot of people want a scapegoat for a problem that could never possibly have been one person’s responsibility.
And if you think about it, it’s hundreds of thousands of people’s fault
But that doesn’t make for a nice finger-pointing PR game.
I’ve got a laundry list of reasons to hate any C-suite on earth, but I’m not gonna blame the CEO for an IT issue (even if it’s an IT-type company)
Centralized systems cause widespread problems when they fail. I learned this lesson as a child playing RTS games whenever my power plants got attacked. Don’t rely on one spot (or one company/product) for everything or your whole base will go down (or your computer systems crash and burn)
