3 ms·
Why not both? Crowdstrike, for negligently not rolling out updates gradually. And emergency services, if they don't have robust fallback procedures/systems fo
by crazygringo 2y ago
Why not both?
Crowdstrike, for negligently not rolling out updates gradually.
And emergency services, if they don't have robust fallback procedures/systems for when their IT system goes down. I mean it's totally fine if regular doctor's visits get postponed, but 911 should never go down just because their computers down. Just like aircraft have redundant systems, so too should 911.
(The company that makes and sells the OS -- I don't see any negligence there, in this case. If security software fundamentally requires running at the kernel level and Microsoft allows that, I don't see how Microsoft can be at fault.)
- jmb99 2y agoYeah, I don’t see how one can blame Microsoft in this scenario. If you choose to run buggy kernel-level code, that’s on you, not the publisher of the kernel/OS. Especially when the code you’re running is a replacement for functionality already provided by the OS. It’s hard to argue that MS could be negligent for “not having a good enough AV/endpoint protection solution” or “allowing customers to run kernel-level code.”