3 ms·

*because of CrowdStrike and Microsoft

• Bilal_io 2y ago
  According to some comments in Yesterday's thread Debian was also hit with something similar back in April. Another comment in this thread quotes Crowdstrike's ToS which states that their software should not be used on critical systems. I blame the hospital for its inability to operate with pen and paper in the event of a computer crash or a power outage.
  • lambdaone 2y ago
    It's pretty difficult to operate a CT scanner with pen and paper, to name just one thing that fell over yesterday. CT scanners are life-critical.
    • freehorse 2y ago
      Why any machine related to the operation of a CT scanner itself has to be connected to the internet? The problem is not "using technology" in general. The problem is internet connectivity being not correctly identified as a liability in designing our technology infrastructure systems.
      • nullindividual 2y ago
        From what I've seen when I've had CTs (I am not a medical professional and have no direct ties to their industry), the machine sends the images in real time to a technician in another room. Those images are then sent to an offsite service for review by a radiologist, then returned to the doctor to give you the results and they're uploaded to Epic where I can review them online at my leisure. It's all on a network for a reason. If it's on a network, it has to comply with all regulations that govern the service.
        • freehorse 2y ago
          Data transfer can happen after data acquisition through another machine that can be connected. If that machine is compromised alternative channels can be found. There is no fundamental reason in how the systems work that before that step anything has to be connected online. Having things online is actually a liability, as evidenced by the mere fact that software like crowdstrike should be installed with kernel access on them. Why instead of going that path, we do not just segregate networks to make them more resilient? The only reason I see is all these -aaS business models. Nothing that really relates to the real needs of people or the healthcare system itself. After the ransomware attacks, instead of reducing attack surface the direction was to actually increase liability and risk by having another point that things can fail. I do not think anybody really learnt from that anything imo.
          • nullindividual 2y ago
            Coulda woulda shoulda, of course. Money. That's why.
• Bognar 2y ago
  If some third party software you chose to install on your system added a kernel module and started causing kernel panics, would you blame the kernel maintainers? I'm sure if MS decides to remove the ability for third parties to write code that runs in kernel mode in the name of security/reliability/whatever, this site would immediately turn on a dime and say that Microsoft is evil for removing user control over their machines.
  • bongodongobob 2y ago
    "Well since it's not open source and they can't audit the code line by line (like I always do), they shouldn't use it so it still the user's fault." Probably. Tech nerds tend to be hilariously out of touch with big picture stuff beyond their basement lab.
  • slaymaker1907 2y ago
    I’m not even sure Microsoft could actually restrict 3rd party code running in kernel mode like that from a legal perspective. There are a certain requirements about documenting interfaces in Windows from the 90s antitrust stuff.
• downrightmike 2y ago
  Security should be baked in. This incident and the one where Azure certs were stolen and were abused, security isn't an upcharge, it is a necessity.