• just another dev@lemmy.my-box.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    159
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Personally, I don’t see the issue. Microsoft shouldn’t be responsible for when a third party creates a buggy kernel module.

    And when you, as a company, decide to effectively install a low-level rootkit on all your machines in hopes that it will protect you against whatever, you accept the potential side effects. Last week, those side effects occurred.

    • OfCourseNot@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      77
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      Hard to say yet, if Microsoft is responsible or not. The thing is they certified it, as a stable and tested driver. But it isn’t just a driver, but an interpreter/loader that loads code at runtime and executes it. In kernel mode. If Microsoft knew this they’re definitely responsible for certifying it, but maybe crowdstrike hid this behavior until it was deployed to the customers.

      • zewm@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        ·
        3 months ago

        It was my understanding that this wasn’t certified. Crowdstrike circumvented the signing process.

        • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          43
          ·
          3 months ago

          The driver was signed, the issue was with a configuration file for that’s not part of the driver.

          • cheddar@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            A configuration file shouldn’t crash the kernel. I don’t understand how this solution could pass the certification. I don’t know the criteria of course, but on the surface it sounds like Crowdstrike created a workaround, and Microsoft either missed or allowed it.

            • Morphit @feddit.uk
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              How would you prove that no input exists that could crash a piece of code? The potential search space is enormous. Microsoft can’t prevent drivers from accepting external input, so there’s always a risk that something could trigger an undetected error in the code. Microsoft certainly ought to be fuzz testing drivers it certifies but that will only catch low hanging fruit. Unless they can see the source code, it’s hard to determine for sure that there are no memory safety bugs.

              The driver developers are the ones with the source code and should have been using analysis tools to find these kinds of memory safety errors. Or they could have written it in a memory safe language like Rust.

              • cheddar@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                You don’t need to prove that no input can crash the code. “Exhaustive testing is not possible” is one of the core testing principles, ISTQB teaches that. As far as we know, the input was a file filled with zeroes, and not some subtle configuration or instruction. That can definitely be expected, tested, and handled.

            • Railcar8095@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              AFAIK, blue screen doesn’t mean kernel crash. Hell, windows crashing isn’t even rare.

              Certification doesn’t mean it has Microsoft seal of approval either, only that it comes from a certified and approved vendor, with some checks at best.

              Config files are not part of the driver, ever. How do you think you can change the settings of you GPU without asking Microsoft?

              But hey, if you are so willing to blame Microsoft for the one time it’s not their fault, may I talk to you about our Lord Savior Linux? In my office we only knew because of the memes.

      • just another dev@lemmy.my-box.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        54
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I disagree. As someone else in this thread said: if you compile a buggy Linux driver that crashes the system, it’s still the fault of the driver.

          • just another dev@lemmy.my-box.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            It is my understanding that this driver had not been (re) certified by Microsoft, though. So in that case, I stand by my statement.

            If it had been, I’d agree with that blame.

        • 0x0@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          19
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’m not exempting Crowdstrike and I’m not sure the comparison holds: linux is a kernel, mot a corporation.

          Try Ubuntu or RedHat, would they be liable?

          • just another dev@lemmy.my-box.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            23
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            My answer might surprise you, but no. Your source code, your binary, your responsibility. Not that of the platform, the compiler, or the company that supplies it.

          • NOT_RICK@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            15
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Come on, conform to their baseless assumptions so their insult can stick!

            • henrikx@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              It doesn’t matter if he really has an iPhone or not. It’s just that what he wanted in order for Microsoft not to have responsibility is basically to lock down Windows as if it was iOS.

  • apfelwoiSchoppen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    110
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    3 months ago

    Oh FFS. I love this era where companies will not accept the blame due to “liability”, even when they are explicitly to blame.

    • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      87
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      We all hate Microsoft for turning Windows into an ad platform but they aren’t wrong.

      They are legally required to give Crowdstrike or anyone complete low level access to the OS. They are legally required to let Crowdstrike crash your computer. Because anything else means Microsoft is in control and not the software you installed.

      It’s no different than Linux in that way. If you install a buggy device driver on Linux, that’s your/the driver’s fault, not Linux.

      • TimeSquirrel@kbin.melroy.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        57
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        You are not wrong, but people don’t want to hear it. Do we want to retain control over what goes into kernel space or not? If so, we have to accept that whatever we stuff in there can crash the entire thing. That’s why we have stuff like driver signatures. Which Crowdstrike apparently bypassed with a technical loophole from how I understand it.

      • umami_wasabi@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        But what if Windows have something similar to eBPF in Linux, and CS opted to use it, will this disaster won’t happen at all or in a much smaller scale and less impactful?

      • kescusay@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        The thing is, Microsoft’s virus-scanning API shouldn’t be able to BSOD anything, no matter what third-party software makes calls to it, or the nature of those calls. They should have implemented some kind of error handler for when the calls are malformed.

        So this is really a case of both Crowdstrike and Microsoft fucking up. Crowdstrike shoulders most of the blame, of course, but Microsoft really needs to harden their API to appropriately catch errors, or this will happen again.

        I’m an idiot. For some reason, I was thinking about the Windows Defender API, which can be called from third-party applications.

        • Heavybell@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          3 months ago

          I don’t believe there was any specific API in use here, for virus scanning or not. I suppose maybe the device driver API? I am not a kernel developer so I don’t know if that’s the right term for it.

          Crowdstrike’s driver was loaded at boot and caused a null pointer dereference error, inside the kernel. In userspace, when this happens, the kernel is there to catch it so only the application that caused it crashes. In kernelspace, you get a BSOD because there’s really nothing else to do.

          https://youtube.com/watch?v=wAzEJxOo1ts

          • kescusay@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            3 months ago

            I stand corrected. For some reason, I was thinking they used the actual Windows Defender API, which can be called programmatically from third-party applications, but you’re correct, it was a driver loaded at boot. Microsoft isn’t at all at fault, here.

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

            Nope. It’s a lower level kernel API that has to be accessed at boot via a driver. The API I was thinking of - and I use the term “thinking” loosely, here - is an API that userspace applications can take advantage of to scan files after boot is already complete.

      • just another dev@lemmy.my-box.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        We all hate Microsoft for turning Windows into an ad platform but they aren’t wrong.

        Sorry, how is that related to the stability of the kernel?

      • NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        They are legally required to let Crowdstrike crash your computer.

        I call Bullshit.

        If it had been Windows NT 3.5, there would have been no bluescreens around the world. It would have stopped the buggy software, given a message accordingly, and continued it’s job. That Windows was not stupid enough to crash itself just because of a null pointer in another software.

        Now you tell me that Windows NT 3.5 is illegal?

            • Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              3 months ago

              Not then, but European anti trust lawsuits resulted in laws that require Microsoft to allow 3rd parties complete access. That means if the 3rd party software is a low level driver, it will crash the system. They are legally required to allow vendors the level of access that can crash the system.

            • MinFapper@startrek.website
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              A better comparison would be an iPhone. Apple has locked that down so much that it’s impossible to install something like CrowdStrike falcon, thus it’s not possible for something like this to happen.

              Microsoft is saying if the EU would let them, they too could lock down their platform enough to prevent this from happening.

              However, I would prefer to maintain control over my device and do what I want with it, instead of just what Apple/Microsoft want; even if that means I might break my device.

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

              They were legally required to permit third party to install a kernel mode driver.

      • 0x0@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yeah I saw the article that says they’re legally required but until I can actually read that document where it says “thou shall give everyone ring-0” access I’m gonna call it bullshit.

            • OfCourseNot@fedia.io
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              3 months ago

              It might not be written literally like that but for Microsoft not letting third party developers write kernel drivers for windows would be considered abusing their position in the market very fast. The problem isn’t they allow kernel drivers, this is just ms throwing all the balls they can, is that they certified this very driver, as tested and stable. Without this certification most IT teams would’ve been more reticent to install crowdstrike’s root kit in their systems.

      • Cyth@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        20
        ·
        3 months ago

        I actually agree, I own my computer / OS and I should be able to do what you’re saying (install and break things). But Microsoft is a trillion dollar multi national corporation and I am certainly going to give them grief about this because I owe them less than nothing, let alone any good will.

        • Feyd@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          3 months ago

          That doesn’t make any sense. How does arguing against your position do anything but harm it?

          Maybe just give them grief over the myriad negative things they do that don’t counter your position?

    • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      3 months ago

      Fuck Microsoft and fuck Windows.

      But if you inject hacky bullshit third party code into someone’s OS that breaks things, it’s not the OS’s fault.

      • kureta@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        But in this case Microsoft certified the driver. If they knew the driver included an interpreter that can run arbitrary code, they shouldn’t have certified it because they can not fully test it. If they didn’t know, then their certification test are inadequate. Most of the blame lies with the security software. If Microsoft didn’t certify it, they would have had zero fault.

        • conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Certifying a driver is not an endorsement.

          It is a verification that it is legitimately from who it claims to be from. Microsoft has zero fault, period.

          • kureta@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            The Windows Hardware Certification program (formerly Windows Hardware Quality Labs Testing, WHQL Testing, or Windows Logo Testing) is Microsoft’s testing process which involves running a series of tests on third-party device drivers, and then submitting the log files from these tests to Microsoft for review. The procedure may also include Microsoft running their own tests on a wide range of equipment, such as different hardware and different Microsoft Windows editions.

            • sandalbucket@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              For the Nth time, crowdstrike circumvented the testing process

              Edit: this is not to say that cs didn’t have to in order to provide their services, nor is this to say that ms didn’t know about the circumvention and/or delegate testing of config files to CS. I’ll take any opportunity to rag on MS, but in this case it is entirely on CS.

          • umami_wasabi@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I had a read about the WHQL (which I assumes what certified means). It uses the Windows HLK to perform a series of tests, which submited to Microsoft, and only then the driver will be signed.

            While certification isn’t endorsement, the testing and the resulting certification implies basic compatibility and reliability. And causing bootloops and BSODs is anywhere but close to “basic compatibility and reliability.”

            • punkfungus@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              3 months ago

              Crowdstrike bypassed WHQL because the update was not to the driver, it was to a configuration file that then gets ingested by the driver. It’s deliberate so they can push out updates for developing threats without being slowed down by the WHQL process.

              And that means when they decide to just send it on a Friday with a buggy config file, nobody is responsible but Crowdstrike.

  • jabjoe@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    90
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I’m sorry, but competition is good.

    Installing some closed blob into your kernel, that’s on you.

    The problem is if anything is not enough competition. We just saw a centralized monoculture fall over.

  • sunzu@kbin.run
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    65
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    This whole thing just exposes that people getting paid big bucks for this shit, aint really that smart or planning for anything, they are just collecting rent until something blows up lol

    • SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      They just pay so when it goes sideways they can hold up their hands and point out a reputable supplier was used and now it’s not their problem or blemish on their career.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Yes, an anarchist guy pointed this out to me that in our world responsibility can be delegated via contract while this doesn’t make any sense. The responsible person should still be responsible, only the specific action would be choosing those to whom to delegate the obligation for which they are responsible.

        Like in Nazi Germany and other fascist states they like to emotionally make only the leaders responsible, while with corps they like to only make the last company in chain responsible.

        In fact all chain is responsible. Responsibility is fully contagious.

        If this was like this in all laws, we’d have a much better world.

    • kevindqc@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I wouldn’t be surprised if the people finding viruses/malwares and detecting them aren’t the same people responsible for deployment. And anyway, it’s not like smart people make zero mistakes…

      • sunzu@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        I always wonder about that and also all these data “breaches”

        Seems like a great way to retire early lol

        Economic incentive is there but at least we know that people are honest!

  • skymtf@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Blaming the EU is stupid MacOS is locked down, for the EU it’s more about apps less about the kernel space.

    • ammonium@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 months ago

      Security software are also “apps”. Since Microsoft is also in the security software business locking down access for their competitors could definitely be seen as anti-competitive practices.

      Apple doesn’t have a monopoly with MacOS so other rules apply.

      • skymtf@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        My issue with that is Android is also pretty locked down and most certainly does have a monopoly, in general I think it’s just MS being stupid.

    • Lucy :3@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      a Microsoft employee

      You’re talking about good ol’ Lenny like he isn’t the author of the most used init and utility system as well as PulseAudio.

      • woelkchen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        I know who that is and he’s also a Microsoft employee these days which makes this a funny sequence of statements:

        “EU bad because they made us open up Windows to 3rd party anti-virus vendors. Oh, btw, the fully open Linux operating system can cope with such a problem if properly configured. Here’s the documentation to make that configuration.”

        • Lucy :3@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          Not only that, he specifically attacked “commercial operating systems” - it’s anyone’s guess which he meant - for not implementing it.

    • 800XL@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      3 months ago

      I don’t know enough about Windows 10/11, but aren’t they supposed to boot into a menu thet allows you to pick the last known good configuration before it evens boots to the gui?

      • woelkchen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        3 months ago

        It’s been a while since I had such a massive problem under Windows but the last time you could try to restore one of the last backups and usually that failed because Windows restore points are/were crap.

        • Damage@feddit.it
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Yeah we tried that where I work (I’m not IT) and it failed. Safe mode didn’t work either 'cause it couldn’t authenticate the user for login as the server was down as well.

  • Zak@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    The document states that Microsoft is obligated to make available its APIs in its Windows Client and Server operating systems that are used by its security products to third-party security software makers.

    The document does not, however say those APIs have to exist. Microsoft could eliminate them for its own security products and then there would be no issue.

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

      It’s a third party kernel module, which Microsoft would love to be able to block, but legally can’t. It’s technically possible to write a virus scanner that runs in user space instead of the kernel, but it’s easier to make sure everything gets scanned if it’s in the kernel.

  • Damage@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m pretty sure that if Microsoft provided a decent way to do what Crowdstrike does, most companies would opt for that.

    So… Sucks to suck I guess.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      Uhhh they do. Defender for Endpoint. It’s available as both P1 and P2 depending on what you need.

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

      Why should MS do that? I guess if they saw a market value for it, they could. Like how Defender came to be after 20 years of third party anti-virus.

      They certainly developed the tech for it - I remember reading about some of their research circa 2000 making the OS and everything on it a database. They’ve kind of been working that direction for years (see MyLifeBits).

      I suppose they could provide an add-on tool for this, but I suspect there’s a political barrier (imagine the blowback of MS providing such a tool).

  • 0x0@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    The document that outlines the agreement between Microsoft and the European Commission is available as a Doc file on Microsoft’s website.

    …which seems to be inaccessible. I highly doubt this document specifically said “giv’em ring-0 access”, this is just MS trying to deflect blame and cash it at the same time.