[Marsymars]

> They protect these many companies, industries and even countries at such a global scale and you haven't even heard of them in the last 15 years of their operation until this one outage.

They certainly run their software on those many customers' systems, but but based on my experience with them, "protect" isn't a descriptor I'm willing to grant them.

We don't have the counter-factual where Crowdstrike doesn't exist, but I'm not convinced that they've been a net economic or security benefit to the world over the span of their existence.

[notepad0x90]

Yes, we do have a counter factual, they catch actual APT's they investigated the DNC hack in the 2016 elections and stopped many more attacks. You are utterly clueless in this area to make a comment like that honestly, I don't mean that as an insult but you are talking about a world they don't exist in as if every company has them. Most of their customers get them after getting pwned and learning their lesson the hard way. And availability isn't the only security property their customers desire, keeping information out of threat actors' hands and preventing them from tampering things is also desirable. I really hope you understand that in your hypothetical world without crowdstrike, threat actors still exist.

[Marsymars]

> Most of their customers get them after getting pwned and learning their lesson the hard way.

Sure, that applies to my company, but the counter-factual isn't "nothing is done and we keep getting pwned", the counter-factual is that instead of the resources spent on crowdstrike and their various problems (which have been regular since we adopted them, the recent mess was just the biggest), those resources are spent on improving security infrastructure without crowdstrike.