this post was submitted on 21 Jul 2024
349 points (97.8% liked)

Technology

59402 readers
2816 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Darkassassin07@lemmy.ca 88 points 3 months ago (11 children)

As if the borked update wasn't bad enough, it was also forced on users that explicitly said not to install it.

CrowdStrike’s channel file updates were pushed to computers regardless of any settings meant to prevent such automatic updates

[–] Wxfisch@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago (6 children)

From my reading this is misleading at best and likely wrong. I don’t work with CrowdStrike Falcon but have installed and maintained very similar EDR tools in enterprise environments and the channel updates referenced are the modern version of definition updates for a classic AV engine. Being up to date is the entire point and so typically there are only global options to either grab those updates from the vendor or host them internally on a central server but you wouldn’t want to slow roll or stage those updates since that fundamentally reduces the protection from zero days and novel attacks that the product is specifically there to detect and stop. These are not engine updates in that they don’t change the code that is running, they give the code new information about what an attack will look like to allow it to detect malicious activity as soon as CrowdStrike knows what the IoCs look like.

In this case it appears that one of these updates pointed to a bad memory location which caused the engine to crash the OS, but it wasn’t a code update that did it (like a software patch). That should have been caught in QA checks prior to the channel update being pushed out, but it’s in CrowdStrikes interest to push these updates to all of their customers PCs as quickly as they can to allow detection of novel attacks.

[–] Telorand@reddthat.com 30 points 3 months ago (1 children)

That should have been caught in QA checks prior to the channel update being pushed out...

I work in QA, and part of the job is justifying why it's necessary to keep a team of people that doesn't actually "produce" anything. Either their QA team is now in the hotseat, or Crowdstrike is now realizing why they need one.

Either way, it sounds like a basic smoke test would have uncovered the issue, and the fact that nobody found this means nobody bothered to do one of the most basic tests: turn it on and see if it "catches fire.'

[–] a1studmuffin@aussie.zone 15 points 3 months ago

God, even if they didn't have QA test it, they should have had continuous integration running to test all new channel updates against all versions of their program, considering the update will affect all of them. What an epic process failure.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)