• Munkisquisher@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      52
      ·
      2 months ago

      Won’t take that long, security researchers are already decompiling the update to see if it was malicious or incompetence.

      • Balinares@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        33
        ·
        2 months ago

        You won’t find the incompetence in the software no matter what.

        If you fail to assume that the software contains issues – if you fail to understand that your software is made by humans and humans make mistakes, not because they’re bad but because they’re human – and if you fail to implement mechanisms to feel gracefully with inevitable failures, THAT is the incompetence.

        Failures are systemic.

        • Munkisquisher@lemmy.nz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          33
          ·
          2 months ago

          Oh yes I make those failures myself, testing and staging and limited release schedules save my human failures from breaking the world

          • Balinares@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 months ago

            One funny thing about humans is that they aren’t just gloriously fallible: they also get quite upset when that’s pointed out. :)

            Unfortunately, that’s also how you end up with blameful company cultures that actively make reliability worse, because then your humans make just the same amounts of mistakes, but they hide them – and you never get a chance to evolve your systems with the safeguards that would have prevented these.

      • RubberDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        A lot of companies will get calls from the “provider” offering help with mitigation so that additional features can also be installed. This is a time to be extra wary.

        Edited: spelling

      • Evil_incarnate@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Think big. This may have had a target. But hitting the target only wasn’t possible so everyone got hit.

        It’s possible those responsible only had this weapon that was capable of hitting the target, maybe the plan was to disrupt world flights to make someone late tomorrow, who knows. Maybe poo-tin or Xi-the-Pooh wanted to hit America and its allies?

        • 0x0@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          A state actor will use more precise techniques to attack specific targets. Think SolarWinds and Stuxnet.

          Ransomware doesn’t apply here and tends to depend on phishing first anyway.

          Even terrorists have specific targets in mind.

          So it’s either Bond villains or incompetence.

          Edit: The only way i can fit your comment would be an incompetent script kiddy. Even then, doesn’t make sense as all systems were not directly attacked, as would be the case, but rather through what would have to be a side-channel attack, so no.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      18
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 months ago

      Never attribute to maliciousness that which can be explained by incompetence.

      That said, I’m sure the Crowdstrike CEO is currently on a phone call with three of their pet Congresscritters asking if they can get a $100M grant to harden their systems against Russia/China/NKorea/Antifa interference right now.