5 ms·
That would mean that you always need a fully redundant copy of everything based on entirely different OSes and software with no common component. That is obviou
by fabian2k 2y ago
That would mean that you always need a fully redundant copy of everything based on entirely different OSes and software with no common component. That is obviously not realistic.
- Retr0id 2y agoBuilding high-assurance systems is expensive. Anyone not doing so must accept the associated risks (which is fine, not everything needs to be high-assurance).
- withinboredom 2y agoNo. You just need to not update them all at the same time.
- simiones 2y agoUnfortunately, CrowdStrike decides when it's time to upgrade CrowdStrike software, not the admins.
- prmoustache 2y ago1. Your IT department shouldn't buy a product that let a third party change files on your system remotely. This one is the basis of computer security. 2. Your IT department shouldn't buy a product that doesn't give you control on when updates are applied. These are 2 huge security failures from your IT department.
- simiones 2y agoAutomatic security updates are widely touted as the gold standard in IT security, at least for anything that is not a life-support system.
- prmoustache 2y agoI am talking about control, I am not talking about disabling automatisation of updates. You can have automatic security updates with delay between non prod and prod environments so that you can detect failures or possibly intrusions.
- adunsulag 2y agoMy understanding is that customers believed they had control as Crowdstrike gave them configuration options to delay updates / stagger them. Apparently many of them were surprised that Crowdstrike had the ability to bypass all these configuration options and force the update. I think that is where Crowdstrike's liability skyrockets through the roof.