3 ms·
It's endpoint security software, not a RAT. It detects malware like RATs. Because of the nature of threats it must have a lot of privileges. Shame they squande
by paulryanrogers 2y ago
It's endpoint security software, not a RAT. It detects malware like RATs. Because of the nature of threats it must have a lot of privileges.
Shame they squandered that position, and sold into high risk markets.
- mindslight 2y agoI don't see why the two are mutually exclusive, apart from the simplistic good versus evil narrative of marketing departments. Sysadmins didn't install the update that caused the problem, rather it was done by remote access. And it sure looks like the people who installed it got something much different than they were expecting. Is that stretching a little? Sure. But as the word 'rat' is a longstanding synonym for a snitch and as this type of software is often installed by organizational mandates against user/administrator wishes, I smell a RAT. Personally, I wish more insecure-relative-to-a-trusted-third-party software would fail in such spectacular ways. Then maybe people would stop trusting it.
- paulryanrogers 2y agoThey aren't exclusive. Intention and capabilities differentiate them. Of course with ring-0 access and auto-update one could become the other.
- mindslight 2y ago> with ring-0 access and auto-update one could become the other I'd say that this means they aren't differentiated by capabilities. So we're down to intent. And well, Crowdstroke didn't intend to brick all those computers either.