3 ms·
I'm not sure what exactly they are trying to say. They saw some CrowdStrike traffic logs, saw a random spike a few days before the outage, and...that's it? Why
by paxys 2y ago
I'm not sure what exactly they are trying to say. They saw some CrowdStrike traffic logs, saw a random spike a few days before the outage, and...that's it? Why is that "strange", and how does it relate to the incident timeline?
Just a random security company with a fluff piece with "CrowdStrike" in the title trying to get in the headlines.
- nabakin 2y agoIt's interesting if the spike only happened on CrowdStrike computers but I'm not sure if this article has checked traffic logs on non-CrowdStrike computers and confirmed there was no spike. Even if they did, I agree there's little reason to believe it's related to the CrowdStrike incident and this is probably just a company trying to catch the CrowdStrike PR wave.
- rangerelf 2y agoI feel very disappointed too after reading it; there's no "Mystery" in the behavior of those numbers, the only unexplained (as of now) is the huge spike, but the subsequent reduction in traffic is explainable by "the client hosts were crashing", hence lower numbers. I want my 10 minutes back.