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.

  • LrdThndr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    4 months ago

    Absolutely. 100%

    But don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. A fix that gets you 40% of the way there is still 40% less work you have to do by hand. Not everything has to be a fix for all situations. There’s no such thing as a panacea.

    • magikmw@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      Sure. At the same time one needs to manage resources.

      I was all in on laptop deployment automation. It cut down on a lot of human error issues and having inconsistent configuration popping up all the time.

      But it needs constant supervision, even if not constant updates. More systems and solutions lead to neglect if not supplied well. So some “would be good to have” systems just never make the cut, because as overachieving I am, I’m also don’t want to think everything is taken care of when it clearly isn’t.

      • John Richard@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        You were all in, but was the company all in? How many employees? It sounds like you innovated. Let’s say that the company you worked for was spending millions on vendors that promised solutions but rarely delivered. If instead they gave you $400k a year, a $1 million/year budget & 10 employees… I’m guessing you could have managed the laptop deployment automation, along with some other significant projects as well.

        Instead though, people with good ideas, even loyal to the company, are competing against sales and marketing reps from billion dollar companies, and upper management are easily swooned.

        • magikmw@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          4 months ago

          I’m the only one to swoon here, and I’m as sceptical as one can be.

          I’m also a cost and my budget is on paper only. Non-IT management is complicit in crappy IT.

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yeah. I find a base image and post-install config with group policy or Ansible to be far more reliable.

        • magikmw@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          Yea we’re doing something similiar. Only update base images for bigger OS updates or if something breaks or can break.

          The general idea is to have config that works for both new PCs and the ones that are already in use. Saves on maintaining two configuration methods.