I've had trouble nailing down if thats the case from searching around online. And if thats true - thats absolutely on Crowdstrike. And that behavior should disqualify it from being used on critical systems. I imagine this incident will cause a lot of teams to consider just what can happen automatically on their systems.
The nature of “content updates” vs a full product update. Though you may be right, perhaps they provide controls for those updates, I’ve never used their software. But doesn’t sound like it.
It's on CrowdStrike, but it's also on IT for even allowing installation of critical software like this that has a bypass at all. Updates shouldn't even be allowed to bypass IT's safe rollout procedures, at least not without IT signing off on it anyway.
If that's the case, that doesn't change GP's point: if Crowdstrike can bypass your org's controls on rolling out updates to its software, it shouldn't be used.
Didn't day say in their incident report that they have a batched rollout strategy for software updates but this was a config update and the update path for configs does not have such a mechanism in place.
Ya, so hopefully it's obvious to them that every rollout needs some kind of batching. I get that all devices within one org might need to have the same config, but in that case batch it out to different orgs over 2-3 days.
Maybe the more critical infrastructure and health care orgs are at the end of that rollout plan so they are at lower risk. It's not ideal if one sandwich shop in Idaho can't run their reports that day, but that's far better than shutting down the hospital next door. CrowdStrike could even compensate those one system shops that are on the front line when something goes down.
Again, better to pay a sandwich shop a few thousand dollars for their lost day of sales than get sued by the people in the hospital who couldn't get their meds, x-rays, etc in time.