←back to thread

CrowdStrike's Falcon Sensor also linked to Linux kernel panics and crashes

(www.theregister.com)
158 points kenjackson | 3 comments | 22 Jul 24 02:22 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
rramadass ◴[22 Jul 24 05:47 UTC] No.41031248[source]▶
I had read reports of this earlier which is what makes me speculate that the Windows Crowdstrike issue is more than "just a update error" i.e. there might be some nefarious hand behind this. Given that they were already aware of the Linux issue it boggles my mind that they did not take extra precautions when it came to Windows updates. We will have to wait and see for further trustworthy info.

Btw - The article mentions Dave Plummer's analysis of the issue which might be easier for people to understand and worth a watch. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAzEJxOo1ts

replies(3): >>41031293 #>>41031643 #>>41032173 #
1. rsynnott ◴[22 Jul 24 07:09 UTC] No.41031643[source]▶
I mean, what’s more likely, realistically? Shadowy saboteurs, or a cybersecurity company being poorly run, like, well, all other cybersecurity companies ever?

Like, this is not new. They, as an industry, have been a byword for shoddy nonsense for literally decades.

replies(1): >>41032638 #
2. michaelt ◴[22 Jul 24 10:02 UTC] No.41032638[source]▶
I mean, hypothetically you might think computer security companies would be full of passionate computer security enthusiasts.

And as security tools break a lot of security norms - like sandboxing, least privilege, and running in userspace - you might think such enthusiasts would make sure they were coded with the utmost care. That this team of secure coding all-stars would be code reviewing, managing scope, fuzz testing, static analysing, formally validating and suchlike, as befits code running with the highest privilege levels.

Surely huge multinational corporations wouldn't grant unlimited privileges to kernel modules written by clowns.... would they?

If you believe the crowdstrike marketing, I can see how you might think shadowy saboteurs are the only plausible explanation.

replies(1): >>41032779 #
3. rsynnott ◴[22 Jul 24 10:24 UTC] No.41032779[source]▶
> I mean, hypothetically you might think computer security companies would be full of passionate computer security enthusiasts.

Eh, I mean, you might think that, absent any other information about the industry, but they're largely not.