3 ms·

> a “misleading narrative” that the cybersecurity company was responsible for the airline’s tech decisions and response to the outage Am I reading this right t

by rob74 2y ago

> a “misleading narrative” that the cybersecurity company was responsible for the airline’s tech decisions and response to the outage Am I reading this right that this amounts to "you decided yourself to install our software on your devices, you should have known better?"

dmix 2y ago
They seem to be teasing a narrative that has yet to be released: > “Should Delta pursue this path, Delta will have to explain to the public, its shareholders, and ultimately a jury why CrowdStrike took responsibility for its actions—swiftly, transparently, and constructively—while Delta did not,” wrote Michael Carlinsky, an attorney at law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan. or maybe it's just how Delta didn't take their offer for help > The cybersecurity company reiterated its apology to Delta for the initial disruption and said it had offered on-site assistance to Delta but was told it wasn’t needed. It said Bastian didn’t respond to outreach from CrowdStrike’s CEO.
- rob74 2y ago
  ...because all CrowdStrike had to do was say "oops, we f*%&/$d up the last update, here's a fixed one", while Delta's IT had to locate all BSODing devices and somehow recover them?
  - dmix 2y ago
    This is just their response to a legal challenge. If we're asking rhetorical questions, then "why wouldn't CrowdStrike's lawyers try to defer responsibility and not pay millions of dollars?". Otherwise it's reading a bit too much into it and the courts will sort it out. > CrowdStrike said Sunday that its liability is contractually capped at an amount in the “single-digit millions.” That's probably a key question too^
    - zo1 2y ago
      Isn't there a legal/lawyer equivalent to saying the wrong thing to cops. E.g. If you as a person lie or mislead during questioning and that adds weight to your being guilty during trial. So lawyers trying to pawn this off and use stupid legalese to shift blame, make or ask time-wasting accusations etc. I'm not a lawyer or versed in all the legal stuff, but something smells like a double standard here.

by rob74 2y ago

dmix 2y ago

They seem to be teasing a narrative that has yet to be released: > “Should Delta pursue this path, Delta will have to explain to the public, its shareholders, and ultimately a jury why CrowdStrike took responsibility for its actions—swiftly, transparently, and constructively—while Delta did not,” wrote Michael Carlinsky, an attorney at law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan. or maybe it's just how Delta didn't take their offer for help > The cybersecurity company reiterated its apology to Delta for the initial disruption and said it had offered on-site assistance to Delta but was told it wasn’t needed. It said Bastian didn’t respond to outreach from CrowdStrike’s CEO.

rob74 2y ago
...because all CrowdStrike had to do was say "oops, we f*%&/$d up the last update, here's a fixed one", while Delta's IT had to locate all BSODing devices and somehow recover them?
- dmix 2y ago
  This is just their response to a legal challenge. If we're asking rhetorical questions, then "why wouldn't CrowdStrike's lawyers try to defer responsibility and not pay millions of dollars?". Otherwise it's reading a bit too much into it and the courts will sort it out. > CrowdStrike said Sunday that its liability is contractually capped at an amount in the “single-digit millions.” That's probably a key question too^
  - zo1 2y ago
    Isn't there a legal/lawyer equivalent to saying the wrong thing to cops. E.g. If you as a person lie or mislead during questioning and that adds weight to your being guilty during trial. So lawyers trying to pawn this off and use stupid legalese to shift blame, make or ask time-wasting accusations etc. I'm not a lawyer or versed in all the legal stuff, but something smells like a double standard here.