Hacker News Reader

Comment by codeulike | Hacker News Reader

Oh come on, we all know and expect bugs, but this was something spectacularly bad. They caused the very thing people were paying them to try and defend from. This incident had very real and serious consequences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_CrowdStrike-related_IT_ou...

View on HN

So let the market sort it out. Turns out their clients don’t think the consequences were that serious.

Turns out their clients don’t think the consequences were that serious.

Yeah, thats an interesting point. I'd be interested to read analysis on that. Maybe being seen to pay for something that claims to make things more secure is more important than actually being more secure.

Delta Airlines thinks its serious.

https://www.theregister.com/2025/05/07/delta_crowdstrike_cla...

The lawsuit appears to be about the lack of refunds, and even mentions Delta explicitly declined help from Microsoft and CrowdStrike. So how does that indicate Delta thinks "it's" serious? And what is "it"?

They want compliance not security. Maybe if it's enough for compliance but not enough really then whoever makes compliance standards should be fired

More like let the market litigate it out.

They didn't really argue otherwise, just remarked that they think it was.

What's your point?

My point is that the first post says that Crowdstrike deserved to go bankrupt, but that is up to their clients to decide. Standards for software are very low, and we all profit from that, so better not rock the boat.

Ok that is an interesting point. But my concern with crowdstrike is that the standard seems so very low (imagine the sort of mishaps Mr Bean might have if he moved into the cybersecurity field and you're not far off) that something other than the quality of the software must be driving things. Compliance tickboxing perhaps?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com