4 ms·
It sounds a lot like CrowdStrike is saying "Delta should have known better than to rely on our software for critical functions." Which may be a fair statement,
by hoistbypetard 2y ago
It sounds a lot like CrowdStrike is saying "Delta should have known better than to rely on our software for critical functions."
Which may be a fair statement, but I think it's also fair to litigate whether or not this post-incident statement is consistent with how CrowdStrike sold their software to Delta.
- goosejuice 2y agoDid CS claim that their software is infallible? Sales isn't shy to take liberties but this would surprise me.
- hoistbypetard 2y agoThere's quite some distance between "infallible" and the kind of failure mode CS's error induced. Be that as it may, I don't think the question is about infallibility, though. The question is, was the software fit for the purpose Delta used it for? And the follow-on question is whether CrowdStrike sold it for the purpose Delta used it for.
- goosejuice 2y agoFair, but certainly that's the responsibility of the purchaser, no? CrowdStrike couldn't feasibly know how all their customers utilize their software. That's the end user's responsibility. Software fails, machines fail, we all know this. The technical leadership at Delta should know this. Do we think software vendors should be responsible for ensuring their customers safely deploy their software? I can't imagine that playing out well.
- hoistbypetard 2y agoIf this were something that were being purchased off-the-shelf, it'd clearly all be the responsibility of the purchaser. When it's priced differently depending on how the customer plans to use it, and it's sold only through a consultative process, I'm not sure it's so clear. In order to determine their pricing, the sales team demands to know how the customer is using it... so they absolutely arguably do know.