• cbarrick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    4 months ago

    [S]hareholders said they learned that CrowdStrike’s assurances about its technology were materially false and misleading when a flawed software update disrupted airlines, banks, hospitals and emergency lines around the world.

    I don’t see how they can make this argument.

    Falcon is a kernel module. When kernel modules fuck up, you get kernel panics.

    Sure, the layperson may not know enough about computers to recognize this, but it’s a basic enough fact about operating systems that an investor in a company like this should take the time to learn. It’s not like they hid that fact.

    If you invested in a company without knowing how their product works, that’s on you.

    • thesmokingman@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      4 months ago

      You highlighted the wrong portion of this article.

      The complaint cites statements including from a March 5 conference call where Kurtz characterized CrowdStrike’s software as “validated, tested and certified.”

      If the CEO is making claims that the software is tested and certified, then the CEO should be able to prove that claim, no matter where the software lives. It is very reasonable to say, at face value, the CrowdStrike testing pipeline was inadequate. There is a remote possibility that there were mitigating factors, eg some other common software update released right before from another vendor that contributed; given CrowdStrike’s assurances and understanding of where it falls in most supply chains I consider that to be bullshit. I personally haven’t seen anything convincing that shows a strong and robust CI pipeline magically releasing this issue.

      Now shareholder lawsuits are bullshit in general and, as someone constantly pushed to release without fucking any confidence, I think it’s really fucking dumb to ever believe any software passes any inspection until you have actually looked at the CI/CD process in-depth.

      • kevindqc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        I mean it was true. It’s just that here was a bug with the automated testing software that let the bogus file go through.

        They could have shown their testing/certification pipeline to investors, but it wouldn’t have changed anything unless investors would have somehow been able to figure out there was a bug in what they showed them.

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      There are kernel modules, and then there are kernel modules.

      Based on conversations from the CTO of sentinel one, a crowdsrike competitor, the crowdstrike client is intentionally engineered with a lot of and way deeper hooks then most of the industry. This makes their engine powerful and very dangerous. The other vendors in the space touch the kernel as little as possible, moving everything they can into userspace to minimize any possible damage.

      The fact that crowdstrike was fully in the kernel and then running basically no tests while deploying updates is the reckless fuck up.