3 ms·

You don't need to be in kernel space to brick a computer- you can easily do it from user space! You also don't need to be using Windows. Linux has kernel modul

You don't need to be in kernel space to brick a computer- you can easily do it from user space! You also don't need to be using Windows. Linux has kernel modules with no restrictions whatsoever (not even signing!), yet we run manage to run Linux stable in mission critical environments that we rely on every day. I don't believe in the fear mongering here. Every competent engineer knew that security/antivirus vendors develop absolute trash code since the start of the century, and that extends to their kernel modules. It is no surprise- so why pretend to be surprised? With that said, I believe everyone is trying to pass blame, but at the end of the day, the blame resides solely with the organizations that purchased their product, or, the industry pressures that necessitated it.

breadwinner 2y ago
> organizations that purchased their product I wouldn't blame the victim here. Microsoft endorses CrowdStrike's product so why would they not purchase it? > or, the industry pressures that necessitated it Those "industry pressures" are under Microsoft's control. The guy who used to run Windows division at Microsoft now says: "From now, the only strategy that is not negligence is to move critical infrastructure to mobile devices." [1] Why can't Windows be just as safe as those mobile devices? It is Microsoft's fault that it isn't. [1] https://x.com/stevesi/status/1814711163860754564 https://x.com/stevesi/status/1814711163860754564
- iscoelho 2y ago
  What you are proposing is more complicated than it seems. For example, the Digital Markets Act in the EU is in direct contradiction to your proposition. There is a lot of people that believe locking down devices, even in the interest of security, is anti-competitive. Windows and MacOS are historically much less restrictive than any Mobile OS. I am confident that if Microsoft and Apple attempted to be more restrictive, in the interest of security, it would invite further discussion of anti-competitive behavior and subsequently antitrust. In addition, if those restrictions were damaging to a company worth >75B (CrowdStrike). I too wish it were different, but the cat is out of the bag.

breadwinner 2y ago

> organizations that purchased their product I wouldn't blame the victim here. Microsoft endorses CrowdStrike's product so why would they not purchase it? > or, the industry pressures that necessitated it Those "industry pressures" are under Microsoft's control. The guy who used to run Windows division at Microsoft now says: "From now, the only strategy that is not negligence is to move critical infrastructure to mobile devices." [1] Why can't Windows be just as safe as those mobile devices? It is Microsoft's fault that it isn't. [1] https://x.com/stevesi/status/1814711163860754564 https://x.com/stevesi/status/1814711163860754564

iscoelho 2y ago
What you are proposing is more complicated than it seems. For example, the Digital Markets Act in the EU is in direct contradiction to your proposition. There is a lot of people that believe locking down devices, even in the interest of security, is anti-competitive. Windows and MacOS are historically much less restrictive than any Mobile OS. I am confident that if Microsoft and Apple attempted to be more restrictive, in the interest of security, it would invite further discussion of anti-competitive behavior and subsequently antitrust. In addition, if those restrictions were damaging to a company worth >75B (CrowdStrike). I too wish it were different, but the cat is out of the bag.