• Richard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      4 months ago

      I genuinely can’t tell at whom you are addressing this. Those claiming it is a Windows problem or those that say otherwise?

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          45
          ·
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          Sure, but they weren’t patching a windows vulnerability, windows software, or a security issue, they were updating their software.

          I’m all for blaming Microsoft for shit, but “third party software update causes boot problem” isn’t exactly anything they caused or did.

          You also missed that the same software is deployed on Mac and Linux hosts.

          Hell, they specifically call out their redhat partnership: https://www.crowdstrike.com/partners/falcon-for-red-hat/

          • xtr0n@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            4 months ago

            Crowdstrike completely screwed the pooch with this deploy but ideally, Windows wouldn’t get crashed by a bas 3rd party software update. Although, the crashes may be by design in a way. If you don’t want your machine running without the security software running, and if the security software is buggy and won’t start up, maybe the safest thing is to not start up?

            • MangoPenguin
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              22
              ·
              4 months ago

              Are we acting like Linux couldn’t have the same thing happen to it? There are plenty of things that can break boot.

            • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              ·
              4 months ago

              Yeah, it’s a crowd strike issue. The software is essentially a kernel module, and a borked kernel module will have a lot of opportunities to ruin stuff, regardless of the OS.

              Ideally, you want your failure mode to be configurable, since things like hospitals would often rather a failure with the security system keep the medical record access available. :/. If they’re to the point of touching system files, you’re pretty close to “game over” for most security contexts unfortunately. Some fun things you can do with hardware encryption modules for some cases, but at that point you’re limiting damage more than preventing a breach.

              Architecture wise, the windows hybrid kernel model is potentially more stable in the face of the “bad kernel module” sort of thing since a driver or module can fail without taking out the rest of the system. In practice… Not usually since your video card shiting the bed is gonna ruin your day regardless.

    • Cornelius_Wangenheim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Because it isn’t. Their Linux sensor also uses a kernel driver, which means they could have just as easily caused a looping kernel panic on every Linux device it’s installed on.

      • YTG123@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        There’s no way of knowing that, though. Perhaps their Linux and Darwin drivers wouldn’t have paniced the system?

        Regardless, doing almost anything at the kernel level is never a good idea

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          4 months ago

          Also, it’s less about “their” drivers and more about what a kernel module can do.
          Saying “there’s no way to know” doesn’t fit, because we do know that a malformed kernel module can destabilize a linux or mac system.

          “Malformed file” isn’t a programming defect or something you can fix by having a better API.

          • deadbeef79000@lemmy.nz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Having the data exposed to userspace via an API would avoid having to have a kernel module at all… Which when malformed wouldn’t compromise the kernel.

            • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              4 months ago

              I mean, sure. But typically operating systems don’t expose that type of information to user space, instead providing a kernel interface with user mode configuration.

              It’s why they use the same basic approach on mac and Linux.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          Security operations being one of the things that is often best done at the kernel level because of the need to monitor network and file operations in a way you can’t in user mode.