- Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian said the massive IT outage earlier this month that stranded thousands of customers will cost it $500 million.
- The airline canceled more than 4,000 flights in the wake of the outage, which was caused by a botched CrowdStrike software update and took thousands of Microsoft systems around the world offline.
- Bastian, speaking from Paris, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Wednesday that the carrier would seek damages from the disruptions, adding, “We have no choice.”
Yeah… Maybe don’t put all your IT eggs in one basket next time.
Delta is the one that chose to use Crowdstrike on so many critical systems therefore the fault still lies with Delta.
Every big company thinks that when they outsource a solution or buy software they’re getting out of some responsibility. They’re not. When that 3rd party causes a critical failure the proverbial finger still points at the company that chose to use the 3rd party.
The shareholders of Delta should hold this guy responsible for this failure. They shouldn’t let him get away with blaming Crowdstrike.
So you think Delta should’ve had a different antivirus/EDR running on every computer?
I think what @riskable@programming.dev was saying is you shouldn’t have multiple mission critical systems all using the same 3rd party services. Have a mix of at least two, so if one 3rd party service goes down not everything goes down with it
That sounds easy to say, but in execution it would be massively complicated. Modern enterprises are littered with 3rd party services all over the place. The alternative is writing and maintaining your own solution in house, which is an incredibly heavy lift to cover the entirety of all services needed in the enterprise. Most large enterprises are resources starved as is, and this suggestion of having redundancy for any 3rd party service that touches mission critical workloads would probably increase burden and costs by at least 50%. I don’t see that happening in commercial companies.
In this case, it’s a local third party tool and they thought they could control to cadence of updates. There was no reason to think there was anything particularly unstable about the situation.
This is closer to saying that half of your servers should be Linux and half should be windows in case one has a bug.
Crowdstrike bypassed user controls on updates.
The normal responsible course of action is to deploy an update to a small test environment, test to make sure it doesn’t break anything, and then slowly deploy it to more places while watching for unexpected errors.
Crowdstrike shotgunned it to every system at once without monitoring, with grossly inadequate testing, and entirely bypassed any user configurable setting to avoid or opt out of the update.
I was much more willing to put the blame on the organizers that had the outages for failing to follow best practices before I learned that they way the update was pushed would have entirely bypassed any of those safeguards.
It’s unreasonable to say that an organization needs to run multiple copies of every service with different fundamental infrastructure choices for each in case one magics itself broken.
If I were in charge I wouldn’t put anything critical on Windows. Not only because it’s total garbage from a security standpoint but it’s also garbage from a stability standpoint. It’s always had these sorts of problems and it always will because Microsoft absolutely refuses to break backwards compatibility and that’s precisely what they’d have to do in order to move forward into the realm of, “modern OS”. Things like NTFS and the way file locking works would need to go. Everything being executable by default would need to end and so, so much more low-level stuff that would break like everything.
Aside about stability: You just cannot keep Windows up and running for long before you have to reboot due to the way file locking works (nearly all updates can’t apply until the process owning them “lets go”, as it were and that process usually involves kernel stuff… due to security hacks they’ve added on since WinNT 3.5 LOL). You can’t make it immutable. You can’t lock it down in any effective way without disabling your ability to monitor it properly (e.g. with EDR tools). It just wasn’t made for that… It’s a desktop operating system. Meant for ONE user using it at a time (and one main application/service, really). Trying to turn it into a server that runs many processes simultaneously under different security contexts is just not what it was meant to do. The only reason why that kinda sort of works is because of hacks upon hacks upon hacks and very careful engineering around a seemingly endless array of stupid limitations that are a core part of the OS.
Please go read up on how this error happened.
This is not a backwards compatibility thing, or on Microsoft at all, despite the flaws you accurately point out. For that matter the entire architecture of modern PCs is a weird hodgepodge of new systems tacked onto older ones.
- Crowdstrike’s signed driver was set to load at boot, edit: by Crowdstrike.
- Crowdstrike’s signed driver was running unsigned code at the kernel level and it crashed. It crashed because the code was trying to read a pointer from the corrupt file data, and it had no protection at all against a bad file.
Just to reiterate: It loaded up a file and read from it at the kernel level without any checks that the file was valid.
- As it should, windows treats any crash at the kernel level as a critical issue. and bluescreens the system to protect it.
The entire fix is to boot into safe mode and delete the corrupt update file crowdstrike sent.
I enjoy hating on Windows as much as the next guy who installed Linux on their laptop once, but the bottom line is 90 percent of businesses use it because it does work.
Blaming the people who made the decision to purchase arguably the most popular EDR solution on the planet and use it (those bastards!) does nothing but show a lack of understanding how any business related IT decisions work.
Adding another reply since I went on a bit of a rant in my other one… You’re actually missing the point I was trying to make: No matter what solution you choose it’s still your fault for choosing it. There are a zillion mitigations and “back up plans” that can be used when you feel like you have no choice but to use a dangerous 3rd party tool (e.g. one that installs kernel modules). Delta obviously didn’t do any of that due diligence.
Kernel module is basically the only way to implement this type of security software. That’s the only thing that has system wide access to realtime filesystem and network events.
Yes, they’re ultimately liable to their customers because that’s how liability works, but it’s really hard to argue that they’re at fault for picking a standard piece of software from a leading vendor that functions roughly the same as every piece of software in this space for every platform functions, which then bypassed all configurations they could make to control updates, grabbed a corrupted update and crashed the computer.
It’s like saying it’s the drivers fault the brakes on their Toyota failed and they crashed into someone. Yes, they crashed and so their insurance is going to have to cover it, but you don’t get angry at the driver for purchasing a common car in good condition and having it break in a way they can’t control.
What mitigations should they have had? All computer systems are mostly third party tools. Your OS is a third party tool. Your programming language is a third party tool. Webserver, database, loadbalancer, caching server: all third party tools. Hardware drivers? Usually third party, but USB has made a lot of things more generic.
If your package manager decides to ignore your configuration and update your kernel to something mangled and reboot, your computer is going to crash and it’ll stay down until you can get in there to tell it to stop booting the mangled kernel.
Sounds like they executed their plans just fine.
And due diligence is “the investigation or exercise of care that a reasonable business or person is normally expected to take before entering into an agreement or contract with another party or an act with a certain standard of care”. Having BC/DR plans isn’t part of due diligence.
