CrowdStrike Isn't the Real Problem
CrowdStrike Isn't the Real Problem
This is an unpopular opinion, and I get why – people crave a scapegoat. CrowdStrike undeniably pushed a faulty update demanding a low-level fix (booting into recovery). However, this incident lays bare the fragility of corporate IT, particularly for companies entrusted with vast amounts of sensitive personal information.
Robust disaster recovery plans, including automated processes to remotely reboot and remediate thousands of machines, aren't revolutionary. They're basic hygiene, especially when considering the potential consequences of a breach. Yet, this incident highlights a systemic failure across many organizations. While CrowdStrike erred, the real culprit is a culture of shortcuts and misplaced priorities within corporate IT.
Too often, companies throw millions at vendor contracts, lured by flashy promises and neglecting the due diligence necessary to ensure those solutions truly fit their needs. This is exacerbated by a corporate culture where CEOs, vice presidents, and managers are often more easily swayed by vendor kickbacks, gifts, and lavish trips than by investing in innovative ideas with measurable outcomes.
This misguided approach not only results in bloated IT budgets but also leaves companies vulnerable to precisely the kind of disruptions caused by the CrowdStrike incident. When decision-makers prioritize personal gain over the long-term health and security of their IT infrastructure, it's ultimately the customers and their data that suffer.
You're viewing a single thread.
An underlying problem is that legal security is mostly security theatre. Legal security provides legal cover for entities without much actual security.
The point of legal security is not to protect privacy, users, etc., but to protect the liability of legal entities when the inevitable happens.
neglecting the due diligence necessary to ensure those solutions truly fit their needs.
CrowdStrike perfectly met their needs by proving someone else to blame. I don't think anybody is facing any consequences for contracting with CrowdStrike. It's the same deal with Microsoft X 10000000. These bad incentives are the whole point of the system.
The crazy thing is CrowdStrike basically shutdown a ton of really important things and their stock only went down 17%. Like it was a huge blow to the economy for a couple days and somehow investors were like "meh, not that bad"
That's because they had a lot of people "buying the dip". CS is in a very similar position to SolarWinds during their 2020 security slipup. The extent of managerial issues there should've been unforgivable but unfortunately they got away with it and are doing just fine nowadays.
I don't think anybody is facing any consequences for contracting with CrowdStrike.
This is the myth! As we all know there were very serious consequences as a result of this event. End users, customers, downstream companies, entire governments, etc were all severely impacted and they don't give a shit that it was Crowdstrike's mistake that caused the outages.
From their perspective it was the companies that had the upstream outages that caused the problem. The vendor behind the underlying problem is irrelevant. When your plan is to point the proverbial finger at some 3rd party you chose that finger still--100% always--points to yourself.
When the CEO of Baxter International testified before Congress to try to explain why people died from using tainted Heparin he tried to hand wave it away, "it was the Chinese supplier that caused this!" Did everyone just say, "oh, then that's understandable!" Fuck no.
Baxter chose that Chinese supplier and didn't test their goods. They didn't do due diligence. Baxter International fucked up royally, not the Chinese vendor! The Chinese vendor scammed them for sure but it was Baxter International's responsibility to ensure the drug was, well, the actual drug and not something else or contaminated.
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Chinese_heparin_adulteration
I would think that a FDA-ban on Chinese pharmaceuticals and an international arrest warrant for the Chinese suppliers C-suite should have been effected.
The fact that the US company CEO was liable and probably didnt spend a single day in a real prison cell is more likely outcome.