4 ms·

Good. For their utter incompetence and willful negligence the company should be forced into bankruptcy.

by sofixa 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
BrandoElFollito 2y ago
Hell yeah! And the people who rely on their software to detect intrusions - we don't care! They have liability and it should be somehow handled (I don't know how, I am not a lawyer/finance guy) but without losing sight of what CS provides to a company.
- mycall 2y ago
  Crowdstrike isn't the only one of its kind. If they fail from lawsuits, others will take their place.
  - ghunky 2y ago
    Yeah, and it will cost a shitload of time and effort to make the change.
- sofixa 2y ago
  > And the people who rely on their software to detect intrusions - we don't care They can replace with an alternative. Crowdstrike was installed via an automated manner at any organisation which has the scale to merit it (right?), therefore replacing it with a competitor should be easy. > without losing sight of what CS provides to a company. Zero quality controls, leading to them releasing kernel crashing updates for RHEL and then Windows in the span of a few months? Nah fuck 'em. Such negligence doesn't deserve to be in business. And if they're that negligent with quality, how would anyone trust them that the software actually does what it should?
  - BrandoElFollito 2y ago
    > replacing it with a competitor should be easy. Do you work in cybersecurity? Because if you do and you did a comparison of the solutions to choose one that is tailored to your needs and did an awful amount of tests to check if all your OSes and installed apps do not suffer from CS and worked on eradicating the false positives -- then please enlighten me how to make a massive change on 200+k machines bypassing all this effort. Sure, if you have CS on 3 machines you can expertly issue such comments. > And if they're that negligent with quality, how would anyone trust them that the software actually does what it should? Because the ones that actually use the product know its pros and cons. I have no attachment to CS and would be happy if we lived in the world you imagine - a world where managing IT and security is a matter of pressing a button. But we do not live in such a world and I do not comment on medical studies just because I read an article in Vogue about it. I am rather emotional because such comments assume that people in cybersecurity are a bunch of idiots who have no idea about how to do their job. But thank you for showing us the path. EDIT: I just had a look at your profile and you are in IT. Shame on you for not giving a shit about the reality of the work of people you sell your solutions to.
    - sofixa 2y ago
      > Do you work in cybersecurity No, I don't, I just suffer from it. Mostly checklist driven development. > you did a comparison of the solutions to choose one that is tailored to your needs and did an awful amount of tests to check if all your OSes and installed apps do not suffer from CS and worked on eradicating the false positives -- then please enlighten me how to make a massive change on 200+k machines bypassing all this effort. You wouldn't bypass it, you would do your job. Because the vendor you've currently chosen has shown themselves to be utterly incompetent at basic tech stuff... So why the hell would you trust them for something as vital as cybersecurity? If they cannot be bothered to do even simple testing, why the hell do you think they'd be able to detect an intrusion? Or is it just to check a checkbox for someone, yes we have antivirus. > Because the ones that actually use the product know its pros and cons. Do they? They knew that Crowdstrike do zero testing and can and will push out updates that crash every system? If they did and they still chose them as a vendor, there are serious doubts around their competence too. > I am rather emotional because such comments assume that people in cybersecurity are a bunch of idiots who have no idea about how to do their job My comment was entirely about Crowdstrike and how their negligence and incompetence means the company should fold. I made no comment at all on cybersecurity professionals. But let's be real for a second - if a vendor of yours for something so critical shat the bed that much (again - no testing, pushing out an update that crashes everything for everyone for the second time in a few months), and your reaction is "it will be too complicated to move away from them, so let's just pray they improve"... That's not OK. And it's precisely because of this kind of reaction I wish the corporate death penalty on Crowdstrike. If their users cannot be trusted to make the correct choice and drop the insecure negligent vendor, the vendor should disappear and leave them with no choice.

Good. For their utter incompetence and willful negligence the company should be forced into bankruptcy.

by sofixa 2y ago

Good. For their utter incompetence and willful negligence the company should be forced into bankruptcy.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

BrandoElFollito 2y ago

Hell yeah! And the people who rely on their software to detect intrusions - we don't care! They have liability and it should be somehow handled (I don't know how, I am not a lawyer/finance guy) but without losing sight of what CS provides to a company.

mycall 2y ago
Crowdstrike isn't the only one of its kind. If they fail from lawsuits, others will take their place.
- ghunky 2y ago
  Yeah, and it will cost a shitload of time and effort to make the change.
sofixa 2y ago
> And the people who rely on their software to detect intrusions - we don't care They can replace with an alternative. Crowdstrike was installed via an automated manner at any organisation which has the scale to merit it (right?), therefore replacing it with a competitor should be easy. > without losing sight of what CS provides to a company. Zero quality controls, leading to them releasing kernel crashing updates for RHEL and then Windows in the span of a few months? Nah fuck 'em. Such negligence doesn't deserve to be in business. And if they're that negligent with quality, how would anyone trust them that the software actually does what it should?
- BrandoElFollito 2y ago
  > replacing it with a competitor should be easy. Do you work in cybersecurity? Because if you do and you did a comparison of the solutions to choose one that is tailored to your needs and did an awful amount of tests to check if all your OSes and installed apps do not suffer from CS and worked on eradicating the false positives -- then please enlighten me how to make a massive change on 200+k machines bypassing all this effort. Sure, if you have CS on 3 machines you can expertly issue such comments. > And if they're that negligent with quality, how would anyone trust them that the software actually does what it should? Because the ones that actually use the product know its pros and cons. I have no attachment to CS and would be happy if we lived in the world you imagine - a world where managing IT and security is a matter of pressing a button. But we do not live in such a world and I do not comment on medical studies just because I read an article in Vogue about it. I am rather emotional because such comments assume that people in cybersecurity are a bunch of idiots who have no idea about how to do their job. But thank you for showing us the path. EDIT: I just had a look at your profile and you are in IT. Shame on you for not giving a shit about the reality of the work of people you sell your solutions to.
  - sofixa 2y ago
    > Do you work in cybersecurity No, I don't, I just suffer from it. Mostly checklist driven development. > you did a comparison of the solutions to choose one that is tailored to your needs and did an awful amount of tests to check if all your OSes and installed apps do not suffer from CS and worked on eradicating the false positives -- then please enlighten me how to make a massive change on 200+k machines bypassing all this effort. You wouldn't bypass it, you would do your job. Because the vendor you've currently chosen has shown themselves to be utterly incompetent at basic tech stuff... So why the hell would you trust them for something as vital as cybersecurity? If they cannot be bothered to do even simple testing, why the hell do you think they'd be able to detect an intrusion? Or is it just to check a checkbox for someone, yes we have antivirus. > Because the ones that actually use the product know its pros and cons. Do they? They knew that Crowdstrike do zero testing and can and will push out updates that crash every system? If they did and they still chose them as a vendor, there are serious doubts around their competence too. > I am rather emotional because such comments assume that people in cybersecurity are a bunch of idiots who have no idea about how to do their job My comment was entirely about Crowdstrike and how their negligence and incompetence means the company should fold. I made no comment at all on cybersecurity professionals. But let's be real for a second - if a vendor of yours for something so critical shat the bed that much (again - no testing, pushing out an update that crashes everything for everyone for the second time in a few months), and your reaction is "it will be too complicated to move away from them, so let's just pray they improve"... That's not OK. And it's precisely because of this kind of reaction I wish the corporate death penalty on Crowdstrike. If their users cannot be trusted to make the correct choice and drop the insecure negligent vendor, the vendor should disappear and leave them with no choice.