CrowdStrike's attempt to paint itself as the victim while companies deal with the fallout of their inadequacies is misleading, irresponsible and insulting. I spent 24 of 28 hours in a data center walking from rack to rack fixing servers. There is nothing I could of done to prevent this, crowdstrike was pretty much required for our cyber insurance policy. We spend millions of dollars on their software, and it nearly ends up costing me my job.

It is preposterous for CrowdStrike to imply that Delta is responsible for creating any narrative.

Your software has created liability, that is the narrative. It is not safe to have it on any machine, in any company.

Why did the gamer go to Microsoft's party? Because it was the only game in town! I just don't understand monopoly laws anymore, isn't this clearly becoming a monopoly?

Microsoft is a cloud provider who provides my Defender XDR, 100% in the cloud. I'm not sure what your point is, I'm unsure about the specific definition of a cloud provider otherwise. The following incidents occurred within my company, where I am employed in the defense sector. I cannot confirm whether these events have been reported in the news or not. Yesterday, I received an email regarding Azure, notifying me about a genuine occurrence, rather than just a rumor.

I've just had a different experience In my 20 or so years of in the technology industry, recent incidents have challenged the prevailing belief that cloud providers offer superior security. Microsoft Defender has been mistakenly misclassifying real alerts as false positives and vice versa, eroding trust in the system's effectiveness. There have been significant mishaps, such as Azure Gov accidentally transferring our data to a commercial test tenant and zScaler inadvertently leaking our databases between customers. These have left my leadership team to cast doubt on the notion that cloud services consistently deliver better security compared to on-premises solutions, especially when considering the associated costs.

I am betting its just a cost, the a100 and h100 are just going to be so damn expensive when you are buying thousands and thousands of racks of them.. MS is depending on NVidia for so much of their business going forward, this is almost certainly a well timed cost play.

I guess I did a poor job of wording that, I meant the companies that have other software could be more easily critized. I spent the vast majority of my work and free time working on FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD. I am one of those people that look up to them.

There are many other software examples that claim to be secure or hardened, but they have done very little work to support those claims...

Could of left that whole cat smoked by a car piece out, Jesus. A simple, the cat ended up dying would of been fine.

Hopefully the Open Source Maintenance Crew cant help maintain some of the stuff as well, as this could become critical tools at companies.