Check this from Microslop:

"Microsoft's Azure status page outlines several fixes. The first and easiest
is simply to try to reboot affected machines over and over, which gives
affected machines multiple chances to try to grab CrowdStrike's non-broken
update before the bad driver can cause the BSOD. Microsoft says that some
of its customers have had to reboot their systems as many as 15 times
to pull down the update."

Oh my fucking god! How fucking elegant indeed!

I can imagine all of these "certified" and highly-paid Microslop
administrators scrambling to reboot, reboot, reboot, and reboot
until they hit the lucky number.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! What fucking lunacy!

Such an INSANE solution could only come from that wrecked OS known
as Microslop Winblows.

Whoever would use Microslop is a proven idiot, but, unfortunately,
proven idiots outnumber by far the sophisticated and competent
wielder of GNU/Linux.

Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:

>Check this from Microslop:
>
>"Microsoft's Azure status page outlines several fixes. The first and easiest
>is simply to try to reboot affected machines over and over, which gives
>affected machines multiple chances to try to grab CrowdStrike's non-broken
>update before the bad driver can cause the BSOD. Microsoft says that some
>of its customers have had to reboot their systems as many as 15 times
>to pull down the update."
>
>Oh my fucking god! How fucking elegant indeed!
>
>I can imagine all of these "certified" and highly-paid Microslop
>administrators scrambling to reboot, reboot, reboot, and reboot
>until they hit the lucky number.
>
>Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha! What fucking lunacy!
>
>Such an INSANE solution could only come from that wrecked OS known
>as Microslop Winblows.
>
>Whoever would use Microslop is a proven idiot, but, unfortunately,
>proven idiots outnumber by far the sophisticated and competent
>wielder of GNU/Linux.

You have to admit, though, M$ is not *directly* responsible although
it's a system level process which causes blue screens, but in any case
this is the kind of disaster that just shows the vulnerability of the
installed base, CrowdStrike had that kind of reception in the market.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Le 20-07-2024, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> a écrit :
> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>
>>Whoever would use Microslop is a proven idiot, but, unfortunately,
>>proven idiots outnumber by far the sophisticated and competent
>>wielder of GNU/Linux.
>
> You have to admit, though, M$ is not *directly* responsible

No, I won't admit that. It's 100% Microsoft responsibility. They want to
control everything from their servers, it's their responsibility to
control what others put on their servers. If they let any moron put
things which can break everything in the world, it's because their
security is crap. They are directly responsible to control what is put
on their servers. If an Windows needs an anti-virus, it's Microsoft's
responsibility.

--
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
>Le 20-07-2024, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> a écrit :
>> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>>
>>>Whoever would use Microslop is a proven idiot, but, unfortunately,
>>>proven idiots outnumber by far the sophisticated and competent
>>>wielder of GNU/Linux.
>>
>> You have to admit, though, M$ is not *directly* responsible
>
>No, I won't admit that. It's 100% Microsoft responsibility. They want to
>control everything from their servers, it's their responsibility to
>control what others put on their servers. If they let any moron put
>things which can break everything in the world, it's because their
>security is crap. They are directly responsible to control what is put
>on their servers. If an Windows needs an anti-virus, it's Microsoft's
>responsibility.

I meant to specify that they themselves didn't create the update in-
house, but yes I agree they have responsibility to help people work
around the bug. Booting into safe mode is the obvious choice, to me.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2024-07-20, Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
> Le 20-07-2024, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> a écrit :
>> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>>
>>>Whoever would use Microslop is a proven idiot, but, unfortunately,
>>>proven idiots outnumber by far the sophisticated and competent
>>>wielder of GNU/Linux.
>>
>> You have to admit, though, M$ is not *directly* responsible
>
> No, I won't admit that. It's 100% Microsoft responsibility. They want to
> control everything from their servers, it's their responsibility to
> control what others put on their servers. If they let any moron put
> things which can break everything in the world, it's because their
> security is crap. They are directly responsible to control what is put
> on their servers. If an Windows needs an anti-virus, it's Microsoft's
> responsibility.

It's Microsoft's fault (and responsibility) that a poorly written, single
application can bring the whole Windows OS to a screeching halt.

Hobbyware.

I'm not a programmer, but wouldn't it be possible to write a routine that
could recognize the BSOD error, and then fall back to the previous (working)
version of the offending application? A self-fixing routine?

Maybe Microsoft should look into that. Meanwhile the people who still use
Microsoft servers should probably look into Linux.

--
[Self-centered, Woke] "pride is a life of self-destructive fakery, an
entrapment to a false and self-created matrix of twisted unreality."
"It was pride that changed angels into devils..." — St. Augustine

On 2024-07-20 5:18 p.m., Joel wrote:
> Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> wrote:
>> Le 20-07-2024, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> a écrit :
>>> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Whoever would use Microslop is a proven idiot, but, unfortunately,
>>>> proven idiots outnumber by far the sophisticated and competent
>>>> wielder of GNU/Linux.
>>>
>>> You have to admit, though, M$ is not *directly* responsible
>>
>> No, I won't admit that. It's 100% Microsoft responsibility. They want to
>> control everything from their servers, it's their responsibility to
>> control what others put on their servers. If they let any moron put
>> things which can break everything in the world, it's because their
>> security is crap. They are directly responsible to control what is put
>> on their servers. If an Windows needs an anti-virus, it's Microsoft's
>> responsibility.
>
>
> I meant to specify that they themselves didn't create the update in-
> house, but yes I agree they have responsibility to help people work
> around the bug. Booting into safe mode is the obvious choice, to me.

Safe mode wouldn't work because the storage of the affected computer is
encrypted by BitLocker. You would need the storage's decryption key at
the very least.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Gender and race are both "social constructs" so sexism and racism don't
exist

On 20 Jul 2024 20:52:54 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> No, I won't admit that. It's 100% Microsoft responsibility. They want to
> control everything from their servers, it's their responsibility to
> control what others put on their servers. If they let any moron put
> things which can break everything in the world, it's because their
> security is crap. They are directly responsible to control what is put
> on their servers. If an Windows needs an anti-virus, it's Microsoft's
> responsibility.

First, the CrowdStrike product is an EDR which goes beyond a simple AV>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endpoint_detection_and_response

"They are directly responsible to control what is put
> on their servers"

That really is the stupidest thing I've heard this week and there's been a
lot of stupid going around. The clients I work with all use Windows
Server. I think they're all odd Windows Server 2012 R2 although getting
them to upgrade is like pulling teeth. Upgrades mean downtime.

Anyway, Server 2019 or maybe even 2022 is installed on local hardware,
typically a VM in a HA architecture. So, after they install the OS they're
supposed to call Microsoft and say "Pretty please, can we install our new
CAD system on your OS?'. It doesn't work that way.

As far as the EDR many organizations have cybersecurity audits quarterly
where they have to check the boxes. CrowdStrike is a well known vendor;
install it, check the box, and move on to the next question.

There isn't much MS or the OS can do. The EDR is loaded during the start
up process to insure protection from the git-go. When the EDR tries to
load a file of null bytes and crashes the system, rinse and repeat in a
boot loop. The only way out is to boot into safe mode, which means you're
physically standing at the keyboard.

CrowdStrike apparently did not test the patch thoroughly. Strike one, so
to speak. They did not do a canary release; i.e. a limited release of an
update to see how many canaries die. Strike two. And finally, you never,
never release untested software on Friday. Strike three and out.

CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:

>> I meant to specify that they [Microsoft] themselves didn't create the update in-
>> house, but yes I agree they have responsibility to help people work
>> around the bug. Booting into safe mode is the obvious choice, to me.
>
>Safe mode wouldn't work because the storage of the affected computer is
>encrypted by BitLocker. You would need the storage's decryption key at
>the very least.

Having that access can be necessary, if I want my server functional I
use my BitLocker credentials and axe this problem file.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 7/20/2024 4:52 PM, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> Le 20-07-2024, Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> a écrit :
>> Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>>
>>> Whoever would use Microslop is a proven idiot, but, unfortunately,
>>> proven idiots outnumber by far the sophisticated and competent
>>> wielder of GNU/Linux.
>>
>> You have to admit, though, M$ is not *directly* responsible
>
> No, I won't admit that. It's 100% Microsoft responsibility. They want to
> control everything from their servers, it's their responsibility to
> control what others put on their servers. If they let any moron put
> things which can break everything in the world, it's because their
> security is crap. They are directly responsible to control what is put
> on their servers. If an Windows needs an anti-virus, it's Microsoft's
> responsibility.

wtf?

Read up on the incident before spewing Feebish ignorance.

On 20 Jul 2024 22:53:01 GMT, rbowman wrote:

> CrowdStrike apparently did not test the patch thoroughly.

No doubt they tested it just as thoroughly as they did every release a
hundred or a thousand times before.

> They did not do a canary release; i.e. a limited release of an
> update to see how many canaries die.

Maybe they did. But there was something different in the machines that
caught the trouble, from the canaries they had. So in future they have to
add more canaries.

> And finally, you never, never release untested software on Friday.

What if the malware writers release zero-days on a Friday?

On 2024-07-20 7:23 p.m., Joel wrote:
> CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> wrote:
>
>>> I meant to specify that they [Microsoft] themselves didn't create the update in-
>>> house, but yes I agree they have responsibility to help people work
>>> around the bug. Booting into safe mode is the obvious choice, to me.
>>
>> Safe mode wouldn't work because the storage of the affected computer is
>> encrypted by BitLocker. You would need the storage's decryption key at
>> the very least.
>
>
> Having that access can be necessary, if I want my server functional I
> use my BitLocker credentials and axe this problem file.

If it's a personal computer, getting the Bitlocker encryption key is
trivial since it can be found at account.microsoft.com. On a corporate
device, you're screwed if it asks you since the key is not tied to the
account of the person using the machine. Hence, fixing a simple problem
through the use of safe mode becomes impossible.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Gender and race are both "social constructs" so sexism and racism don't
exist