[gred]

> it will be a bit of a stretch to say Microsoft should have stopped us deploying CrowdStrike

I read GP's post to mean that if you take a step back, Windows' history of (in)security is what has led us to an environment where CrowdStrike is used / needed.

[rfoo]

Well, then why would we have Linux and macOS versions of CrowdStrike Falcon Sensor (tm), too?

[rietta]

I can answer this. For the same reason I have run ClamAV on Linux development workstations. Because without it, we cannot attest that we have satisfied all requirements of the contract from the client's security organization.

Also if you are a small business and are required to have cybersecurity liability insurance, the underwriter will require such sensors to be in place or you will get no policy.

[usefulcat]

If said underwriters don't typically cover things like the current CrowdStrike problem, that seems like a pretty big case of misaligned incentives.

[berkes]

For the same reasons there's antivirus software for Mac and Linux.

People coming from Microsoft systems just expect it to be required, so there's demand for it (demand != need). And in hybrid environments it may remove a weak link: e.g. a Linux mailserver that serves mail to Windows users best has virus detection for windows viruses.

[TheNewsIsHere]

I’m not defending CrowdStrike here. This is a clearly egregious lack of test coverage, but CrowdStrike isn’t “just” antivirus. The Falcon Sensor does very useful things beyond that, like USB device control, firewall configuration, reporting, etc.

If your use case has a lesser need for antimalware you might still deploy CrowdStrike to achieve those ends. Which help to lessen reliance on antimalware as a singular defense (which of course it shouldn’t be).

[berkes]

I know it isn't just antivirus. I was merely drawing a simpler analogy.

[klooney]

It's not just those darn windows admins. Alot of the certifications customers care about- SOC II, ISO whatever, FedRamp, have line items that require it.

[raffraffraff]

I've had to install server antivirus onto my Linux laptop at 4 different companies. Every time it's been a pain in the ass because the the only antivirus solutions I've found for Linux assume that "this must be a file server used by Windows clients". None of them are actually useful, so I've installed them and disabled them. There, box-checking exercise done.

[buran77]

> For the same reasons there's antivirus software for Mac and Linux.

Because they can also get malware or could use the extra control CS provides, and the "I'm not a significant target so I'm safe" is not really a solid defense? Bad quality protection (as exemplified by the present CS issues) isn't a justification for no protection at all.

Would you ignore the principle of least privilege (least user access) and walk around with all the keys to the kingdom just because you're savvier than most at detecting an attack and anyway you're only one person, what are the chances you're targeted? You're the Linux/MacOS of the user world, and "everyone knows those principles are only for the Windows equivalent of users".

[berkes]

I'm not arguing that Linux or Mac need no protection.

There are serious threats to any Linux machine. And if you include Android, there are probably far more Linux machines out there. Hell, including their navigation, router, NAS, TV, and car, my 70+ yo mom runs at least 5 Linux machines at her home. It's a significant target. And Mac is quite obviously a neat target, if only because the demographic usually has higher income (hardly any Bangladeshi sweatshop worker will put down the cash to buy a MacBook or iphone. But might just own an Android or windows laptop)

I'm arguing that viruses aren't a threat, generally. Partly due to the architecture, partly due to their useage.

[giaour]

Neither Linux nor OSX are immune to viruses, though malware is more commonly written to target Windows given its position in the market. Both iOS and Android are frequent malware targets despite neither being related to Windows, and consequently, both have antivirus capabilities integrated deeply into both the OS and the app delivery ecosystem.

Any OS deployed on a user device needs some form of malware protection unless the device is blocked from doing anything interesting. You can generally forgo anti-malware on servers that are doing one thing that requires a smaller set of permissions (e.g., serving a website), but that's not because of the OS they are running.

[jtbayly]

Wut?

You can’t run ClamAV on iPhone, can you?

[giaour]

No, ClamAV doesn't have an iOS version. There are plenty of iOS-specific AV programs available if you need one, though.

[jtbayly]

I just looked, and your claim is very misleading.

Sure, “AVG Mobile Security” is available, but nobody needs it, and it isn’t anything like antivirus software on a computer. It provides... a photo vault, a VPN, and “identity protection.”

To tell people that they are vulnerable without something like this on their iPhone is ludicrous.

Nobody meeds antivirus software or malware protection like this on their iPhone, unless they like just giving money away.

[astura]

It's not just fake demand, it's required in most instances (example- STIG requirements)

[sam_lowry_]

fake requirements?

[sam_lowry_]

I spent some time on STIG website out of curiosity. There seem to be down-to-earth practical requirements but only for Windows, cf. https://public.cyber.mil/stigs/gpo/

Why does it justify running antiviri on Linux is beyond my understanding.

Weak, impotent, speechless IT personnel that can not face off incompetence?

[wpm]

Except at least on the Mac, your AV software is unlikely to be part of the boot process, and doesn't run in the kernel.

Shit like today is precisely why Apple kicked Mac developers out of kernel-space for the most part.

[mbreese]

Windows IT admins who don’t use or understand Linux/Mac. Who also buy at the enterprise level. And who probably have to install (perhaps unnecessary) endpoint protection to satisfy compliance checklists.

The amount of Windows centric IT that gets pushed to Linux/Mac is crazy. I’ve been in meeting where using Windows based file storage was discussed at a possibility for an HPC compute cluster (Linux). And they were being serious. This was in theory so that central IT could manage backups.

[oneeyedpigeon]

To make money? Just because CrowdStrike is available for Linux and Mac doesn't mean that a) people buy and use it in substantial numbers b) people need to buy it. It would be interesting to hear from someone using CrowdStrike in a Linux/Mac environment.

[ljm]

Had it on my Mac a few years back and my long-lasting memory of it was how it:

a) slowed down the performance of my machine to a crawl in a NodeJS project

b) had my laptop fans spinning at full blast 24/7, even waking up the laptop overnight to do it

It was purely for compliance, but I also got the impression that it was a bloated enterprise solution for the problem.

[vladvasiliu]

We run Crowdstrike on Linux and Macs so that we can tick some compliance checkbox.

Fun fact: they’ve recommended we don’t install the latest kernel updates since they usually lag a bit with support. We’re running Ubuntu LTS, not some bleeding edge arch. It now supports using ebpf so it’s somewhat better.

[onewheeltom]

CS installed on my managed Mac. Generally no problems except randomly network stops working. Fixed by waiting.

[skywhopper]

The policies are written by folks who have no understanding of different operating environments. The requirement "All servers and workstations must have EDR software installed" leads to top-level execs doing a deal with Crowdstrike because they "support" Linux, Mac, and Windows. So then every host must have their malware installed to check the box. Doesn't matter if it's useful or not.

[rietta]

Indeed and insurance too. For our business, our professional errors and omissions coverage for years had the ability to cover cyber issues. No more. That requires cybersecurity insurance and the underwriters will not entertain underwriting a policy unless EDR is in place. They don't care if you are running OpenBSD and are an expert in cybersecurity who testifies in court cases or none of that. EDR from our list or no insurance.

[renewedrebecca]

Because of Security Theater.

[LtWorf]

So that work can't progress too fast?

[p_l]

For macOS? Because without it you don't have certain monitoring and compliance capabilities that are standard built-ins in windows, plus for windows/linux/mac the monitoring capabilities are all useful and help detect unwanted operation.

[Aaronstotle]

Because it will look very bad if you answer, "No, our company has no Anti-virus because we are a macOS shop" on a security questionnaire

[thaumasiotes]

> I read GP's post to mean that if you take a step back, Windows' history of (in)security is what has led us to an environment where CrowdStrike is used / needed.

Windows does have a history of insecurity, but it is no different from any other software in this regard. The environment would be the same in the absence of Windows.

Attacks are developed for Windows because attacks against Windows are more valuable -- they have a large number of potential targets -- not because they're easier to develop.