4 ms·
I know you’re mostly joking, but it does no such thing. The blog post explicitly states it was a “valid customer configuration change”.
by iainmerrick 5y ago
I know you’re mostly joking, but it does no such thing. The blog post explicitly states it was a “valid customer configuration change”.
- pdpi 5y agoThe Fastly blog does not blame the user. The BBC article kind of suggests it ("One Fastly customer triggered internet meltdown").
- iainmerrick 5y agoYeah, you’re right, the headline is clickbaity.
- ceejayoz 5y agoThe BBC article includes the line "a customer quite legitimately changing their settings had exposed a bug".
- oneeyedpigeon 5y agoThat's 'bottom of a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard"'-level stuff compared to the clickbait headline, though.
- ceejayoz 5y agoWhat's your proposed headline?
- oneeyedpigeon 5y agoFastly bug triggered internet meltdown
- ceejayoz 5y agoThat's a great headline for yesterday. This article details a new piece of information, and the headline reflects that.
- jiveturkey 5y agoNo, it is designed to be suggestive -- to shift attention and perhaps even blame. And of course the BBC picked up on it for clickbait reasons. Brilliant (but perhaps evil) PR by Fastly. Customer configuration is an irrelevant detail that should have been left out until a full RCA. What does it matter that it was valid? So an invalid configuration would have meant it was indeed the _customer's_ fault?? A more fair treatment would have been, "a customer pentested us and won".