←back to thread

158 points kenjackson | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.425s | source
Show context
roblabla ◴[] No.41031699[source]
This is some very poor journalism. The linux issues are so, so very different from the windows BSOD issue.

The redhat kernel panics were caused by a bug in the kernel ebpf implementation, likely a regression introduced by a rhel-specific patch. Blaming crowdstrike for this is stupid (just like blaming microsoft for the crowdstrike bsod is stupid).

For background, I also work on a product using eBPFs, and had kernel updates cause kernel panics in my eBPF probes.

In my case, the panic happened because the kernel decided to change an LSM hook interface, adding a new argument in front of the others. When the probe gets loaded, the kernel doesn’t typecheck the arguments, and so doesn’t realise the probe isn’t compatible with the new kernel. When the probe runs, shit happens and you end up with a kernel panic.

eBPF probes causing kernel panics are almost always indication of a kernel bug, not a bug in the ebpf vendor. There are exceptions of course (such as an ebpf denying access to a resource causing pid1 to crash). But they’re very few.

replies(4): >>41031896 #>>41032164 #>>41032610 #>>41034621 #
mbesto ◴[] No.41032164[source]
> just like blaming microsoft for the crowdstrike bsod is stupid

Wait, how is this stupid? Unless I'm missing something, wasn't the patch part of a Microsoft payload that included an update to Crowdstrike? Surely Crowdstrike is culpable, but that doesn't completely absolve Microsoft of any responsibility, as its their payload.

replies(7): >>41032197 #>>41032249 #>>41032287 #>>41032415 #>>41032517 #>>41032630 #>>41032666 #
sschueller ◴[] No.41032517[source]
Microsoft should revoke the CrowdStrike driver signature and should do an internal check as to why CrowdStrike's driver was approved when it can execute arbitrary code on the kernel level without any checks. If your "driver" requires this feature MS should require CrowdStrike to submit the entire source and they should have to pay MS to do a review of the code.

What is the point of driver signing if a vendor can basically build in a back door and Microsoft doesn't validate that this back door is at least somewhat reasonable

replies(6): >>41032936 #>>41033093 #>>41033397 #>>41033699 #>>41034816 #>>41034838 #
_flux ◴[] No.41032936[source]
Do you think Microsoft customers using CrowdStrike would then be happier, being unable to run the software at all, due to an action Microsoft took?

Backdoors of all kinds can be installed to most any operating system without vendor co-operation. That is the nature of general-purpose operating systems.

replies(3): >>41033775 #>>41033840 #>>41034227 #
sigseg1v ◴[] No.41033775[source]
I'm a customer that is forced to use CrowdStrike via IT policies and I would be giddy with delight if something came along and caused the removal of it from my systems. I don't need programs sitting on my computer preventing me from installing code that I've literally just compiled, preventing me from deleting or modifying folders on my machine, and causing extreme lag for many basic system operations even when it does work. At this point, the time in lost productivity (via normal operation) and downtime (via their recent bug) has easily exceeded a thousand times over the aggregate sum of all benefits that CrowdStrike will ever have provided from threat detection and prevention. It's time to remove the malware.
replies(3): >>41033889 #>>41034040 #>>41034857 #
_flux ◴[] No.41033889[source]
You are not the customer, though, your employer is the customer.

Perhaps you should push this change up in the food chain, then, and if the company is good the request will be taken seriously. As I understand it, while CrowdStrike is the biggest name in EDR, it's far from the only one, if that's what your company requires to pass some checkboxes in certifications.

replies(1): >>41034900 #
1. hello_moto ◴[] No.41034900[source]
Vendors are competing with one and another to win contracts.

CIO/CISO don't select vendors lightly.

There seems to be a typical/classical Engineer's mindset of "make a claim first, ask later" around the subject lately.

"My boss plays golf with Sales Rep" might need more proof because if they selected the lesser capable vendors and they got hit with ransomware, bet my ass your boss will no longer play Golf with any Sales Rep ever.

replies(1): >>41043441 #
2. CRConrad ◴[] No.41043441[source]
> Vendors are competing with one and another to win contracts.

Sure, in a well-functioning market economy without any distortions. But there are lots of those at play, so competition is severely hampered (by network effects, regulatory capture, and on and on... Up to and including, I suspect, mere ephemeral fashion). What we actually have in many areas of the "tech market" are oligopolies and near-monopolies, not perfect competition.

> CIO/CISO don't select vendors lightly.

Muahaha. Seems rather more like they're at least as naïve as any Web-surfing consumer on their sofa, easily bamboozled by trendy buzzwords and slick marketing campaigns.