This is an unpopular opinion, and I get why – people crave a scapegoat. CrowdStrike undeniably pushed a faulty update demanding a low-level fix (booting into recovery). However, this incident lays bare the fragility of corporate IT, particularly for companies entrusted with vast amounts of sensitive personal information.

Robust disaster recovery plans, including automated processes to remotely reboot and remediate thousands of machines, aren’t revolutionary. They’re basic hygiene, especially when considering the potential consequences of a breach. Yet, this incident highlights a systemic failure across many organizations. While CrowdStrike erred, the real culprit is a culture of shortcuts and misplaced priorities within corporate IT.

Too often, companies throw millions at vendor contracts, lured by flashy promises and neglecting the due diligence necessary to ensure those solutions truly fit their needs. This is exacerbated by a corporate culture where CEOs, vice presidents, and managers are often more easily swayed by vendor kickbacks, gifts, and lavish trips than by investing in innovative ideas with measurable outcomes.

This misguided approach not only results in bloated IT budgets but also leaves companies vulnerable to precisely the kind of disruptions caused by the CrowdStrike incident. When decision-makers prioritize personal gain over the long-term health and security of their IT infrastructure, it’s ultimately the customers and their data that suffer.

  • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 个月前

    It also assumes that reimaging is always an option.

    Yes, every company should have networked storage enforced specifically for issues like this, so no user data would be lost, but there’s often a gap between should and “has been able to find the time and get the required business side buy in to make it happen”.

    Also, users constantly find new ways to do non-standard, non-supported things with business critical data.

    • Bluetreefrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      4 个月前

      Isn’t this just more of what caused the problem in the first place? Namely, centralisation. If you store data locally and you lose a machine, that’s bad but not the end of the world. If you store it centrally and you lose the data, that’s catastrophic. Nassim Taleb nailed this stuff. Keep the downside limited, and the upside unlimited or as he says, “Don’t pick up pennies in front of a steamroller.”