Oh FFS. I love this era where companies will not accept the blame due to “liability”, even when they are explicitly to blame.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
You could absolutely install software on Windows 3.5 that would crash the system.
I ran 3.5. Yes, a network driver crash would blue screen NT3.5. Graphics were in user space in 3.5 so a video driver couldn’t take NT 3.5 down but networking was in the kernel. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_kernel
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?
I explained in my second sentence.
“They are legally required to give Crowdstrike or anyone low level access to the OS.”
If you install a buggy driver into Linux and it crashes, that’s not a problem with the Linux kernel.
https://www.redhat.com/sysadmin/linux-kernel-panic
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.
If it’s not ring 0, it’s not full access. They are legally required to give full access.
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.
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?
Crowdstrike managed to fuck up Linux through eBPF just as well.
https://access.redhat.com/solutions/7068083
If you load hacky shit into the kernel it can always find a way to make a nasty surprise. eBPF is a little bit better fence, not some miracle that automatically fixes shitty code.
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.
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.
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.
even when it was the bears I knew it was regulation and taxes.
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.
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).
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.
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.
