3 ms·
https://www.techradar.com/news/google-chrome-not-working-microsoft-defender-may-be-to-blame https://www.techradar.com/news/google-chrome-not-working-mic... ,not
by notepad0x90 2y ago
https://www.techradar.com/news/google-chrome-not-working-microsoft-defender-may-be-to-blame https://www.techradar.com/news/google-chrome-not-working-mic... ,not an unusual practice and they were not first av company to cause outages. and again, it was not a software update, the buggy software was deployed after testing back in march. Details matter!
How about we let the lawyers figure out who had what liability, just like with the av/edr industry, we should know when the subject matter is outside our area of knowledge and expertise.
- galangalalgol 2y agoWhat isn't an unusual practice? A lack of canary deployments? For av definition files, where crashing the scanner doesn't bring down the kernel I can agree. For a file read by a kernel module/driver that is primarily used by security sensitive infrastructure, I really hope it is unusual, and if it isn't lets make an example. If failing to do unit tests to get full coverage (line and branch) on software that gets loaded on security sensitive infrastructure isn't unusual then things have sure changed in the decade since I was involved. We had to get that coverage at the assembly level and then peer review the tests to make sure they were meaningful and correct. Every time the code changed. Code that failed to properly sanitize input files without panicking should not pass normal safety critical code pipelines. I do wonder if windows already has some disclaimer about being unfit for such use cases, in which case yeah, lawyers will have some fun, but even with that sort of protection, CS is clearly marketing to critical infrastructure, so it has no moral defense whatever lawyers and the law says.