But CrowdStrike said this publicly. If they’d privately relayed it to Delta, it would have been genuine. By performatively relaying it, however, it seems they’re pre-managing optics around the expected suit.
Maybe? Discovery is a core element of any lawsuit. It’s also a protected process: you can’t troll through confidential stuff with an intent to make it public to damage the litigant.
If anything, I could see Delta pointing to this statement to restrict what CrowdStrike accesses and how [1]. (As well as with the judge when debating what gets redacted or sealed.)
[1] https://www.fjc.gov/sites/default/files/2012/ConfidentialDis...
Most entertaining would be the discussion where CrowdStrike would argue that based on common IT-risk criteria, you should never hand over the keys to an unaudited party not practicing common IT-risk best practices and (thus) the liability is on the organization. Talk about CrowdStrike managing risks worldwide. They are doing it right now!
[1] https://www.gs2law.com/blog/current-trends-in-liability-limi...
Crowdstrike was the executioner of this epic fail for sure but their archaic infra practices made it even worse. Both Crowdstrike and Microsoft CEOs reached out only to be rebuffed by Delta's own. If I was the CEO - I'd accept any help I can get while you have the benefit of the public opinion.
/tin-foil-hat-on Flat out refusal for help makes me think there are other skeletons in the closet that makes Delta look even worse /tin-foil-hat-off
I’d reserve judgement. Delta may have been cautious about giving the arsonists a wider remit.
Their lack of response to MS/CS isn't coming from a place of reducing potential additional problems but trying to shield their own inadequacies while a potential lawsuit is brewing in the background.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-blames-delta-it...
I think the more accurate description would be some firefighters were doing a controlled burn. The burn got out of controlled and then you say that you don't want the firefighters help in put out the fire.
Your take also casually disregards the fact that Delta took an extraordinary time to recover from the problem when the other companies recovered (albeit slowly). This is the point that I'm getting at. It isn't that CS and MS aren't culpable for the outage; it's that DAL also contributed to the problem by not adequately investing in its infra.
Key difference here is that the NTSB is third party with force of law behind it. The victims in the crash – airlines and passengers – aren't rushing to the aircraft manufacturer to come fix things. Quite the opposite: the NTSB and FAA have the authority to quarantine a crash site and ensure nobody tampers with the evidence. Possible tampering with black boxes was an issue in the investigation of Air France Flight 296Q.