• Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    If you system depends on a human never making a mistake, your system is shit.

    It’s not by chance that for example, Accountants have since forever had something which they call reconciliation where the transaction data entered from invoices and the like then gets cross-checked with something else done differently, for example bank account transactions - their system is designed with the expectation that humans make mistakes hence there’s a cross-check process to catch those.

    Clearly Crowdstrike did not have a secondary part of the process designed to validate what’s produced by the primary (in software development that would usually be Integration Testing), so their process was shit.

    Blaming the human that made a mistake for essentially being human and hence making mistakes, rather than the process around him or her not having been designed to catch human failure and stop it from having nasty consequences, is the kind of simplistic ignorant “logic” that only somebody who has never worked in making anything that has to be reliable could have.

    My bet, from decades of working in the industry, is that some higher up in Crowdstrike didn’t want to pay for the manpower needed for the secondary process checking the primary one before pushing stuff out to production because “it’s never needed” and then the one time it was needed, it wasn’t there, thinks really blew up massivelly, and here we are today.

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

      Indeed, I fully agree. They obviously neglected on testing before deployment. So you can split the blame between the developer that goofed on the null pointer dereferencing and the blank null file, and the higher ups that apparently decided that proper testing before deployment wasn’t necessary.

      Ultimately, it still boils down to human error.

      • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Finding people to blame is, more often than not, useless.

        Systematic changes to the process might prevent it from happening again.

        Replacing “guilty” people with other fallible humans won’t do it.

        • over_clox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Still, with billions of dollars in losses across the globe and all the various impacts it’s having on people’s lives, is nobody gonna be held accountable? Will they just end up charging CrowdStrike as a whole a measly little fine compared to the massive losses the event caused?

          One of their developers goofed up pretty bad, but in a fairly simple and forgivable way. The real blame should go on the higher ups that decided that full proper testing wasn’t necessary before deployment.

          So yes, they really need to review their policies and procedures before pressing that deploy button.

          • Eager Eagle@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            is nobody gonna be held accountable?

            Likely someone will, but legal battles between companies are more about who has more money and leverage than actual accountability, so I don’t see them as particularly useful for preventing incidents or for society.

            The only good thing that might come out of this and is external to CrowdStrike, is regulation.

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

            with billions of dollars in losses

            But the real question we should be asking ourselves is “how much did tops saved over the course of the years without proper testing”

            It probably is what they are concerned about, and I really wish I knew the answer to this question.

            I think, this is absolutely not the way to do business, but maybe that’s because I don’t have one ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      • Aceticon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        Making a mistake once in a while on something one does all time is to be expected - even somebody with a 0.1% rate of mistakes will fuck up once in while if they do something with high enough frequency, especially if they’re too time constrained to validate.

        Making a mistake on something you do just once, such as setting up the process for pushing virus definition files to millions of computers in such a way that they’re not checked inhouse before they go into Production, is a 100% rate of mistakes.

        A rate of mistakes of 0.1% is generally not incompetence (dependes on how simple the process is and how much you’re paying for that person’s work), whilst a rate of 100% definitelly is.

        The point being that those designing processes, who have lots of time to do it, check it and cross check it, and who generally only do it once per place they work (maybe twice), really have no excuse to fail the one thing they had to do with all the time in the World, whilst those who do the same thing again and again under strict time constraints definitelly have valid excuse to once in a blue moon make a mistake.