7 ms·

It doesn't matter it was 100% crowdstrikes fault. Surprised its still worth 60billion dollars.

by magic_man 2y ago

from-nibly 2y ago
Part of the problem is assuming you can pay a contract to shift your liability completely away.
- iwontberude 2y ago
  Well if MSFT knew how to write MSAs Crowdstrike would have become property of Microsoft.
- unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
  Right, the risk structure presumably protects the vendor if just one customer sues, even if the amount of damages claimed is astronomical. Because vendors try to disclaim bet-the-company liability on a single contract.[1] The vendor's game is to make sure the rest of the customer base does not follow this example, because as noted in the linked article while vendors don't accept bet-the-company liability on each contract (or try not to), they do normally have some significant exposure measured in multiples of annual spend. [1] https://www.gs2law.com/blog/current-trends-in-liability-limitations-and-super-caps/ https://www.gs2law.com/blog/current-trends-in-liability-limi...
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  The assumption is not only perfectly valid, it's the very reason such contracts are signed in the first place! It's what companies want to buy, and it's what IT security companies exist to sell.
  - from-nibly 2y ago
    Yes, I know that's what everyone wants/thinks, but you actually can't do it. Because at the end of the day, you chose the vendor. So you are still liable for all of it.
pknomad 2y ago
Yes and no. 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
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > I was the CEO - I'd accept any help I can get while you have the benefit of the public opinion I’d reserve judgement. Delta may have been cautious about giving the arsonists a wider remit.
  - pknomad 2y ago
    Using your analogy - if MS/CS are the arsonists, then Delta are the landlords unsafely storing ammonium nitrate in their own warehouse. 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-its-struggle-recover-global-cyber-outage-2024-08-06/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-blames-delta-it...
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    In this case, the fire was an accident, and the arsonists happen to be the expert firefighters, and they're very motivated to fix their mistake. They're still the experts in all stuff fire, whereas Delta is not.
  - ImJamal 2y ago
    It doesn't seem like arsonist is the right word. It implies it was intentional, which as far as I can tell there is no proof of. 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.

It doesn't matter it was 100% crowdstrikes fault. Surprised its still worth 60billion dollars.

from-nibly 2y ago

Part of the problem is assuming you can pay a contract to shift your liability completely away.

iwontberude 2y ago
Well if MSFT knew how to write MSAs Crowdstrike would have become property of Microsoft.
unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
Right, the risk structure presumably protects the vendor if just one customer sues, even if the amount of damages claimed is astronomical. Because vendors try to disclaim bet-the-company liability on a single contract.[1] The vendor's game is to make sure the rest of the customer base does not follow this example, because as noted in the linked article while vendors don't accept bet-the-company liability on each contract (or try not to), they do normally have some significant exposure measured in multiples of annual spend. [1] https://www.gs2law.com/blog/current-trends-in-liability-limitations-and-super-caps/ https://www.gs2law.com/blog/current-trends-in-liability-limi...
TeMPOraL 2y ago
The assumption is not only perfectly valid, it's the very reason such contracts are signed in the first place! It's what companies want to buy, and it's what IT security companies exist to sell.
- from-nibly 2y ago
  Yes, I know that's what everyone wants/thinks, but you actually can't do it. Because at the end of the day, you chose the vendor. So you are still liable for all of it.

pknomad 2y ago

Yes and no. 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

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> I was the CEO - I'd accept any help I can get while you have the benefit of the public opinion I’d reserve judgement. Delta may have been cautious about giving the arsonists a wider remit.
- pknomad 2y ago
  Using your analogy - if MS/CS are the arsonists, then Delta are the landlords unsafely storing ammonium nitrate in their own warehouse. 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-its-struggle-recover-global-cyber-outage-2024-08-06/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/microsoft-blames-delta-it...
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  In this case, the fire was an accident, and the arsonists happen to be the expert firefighters, and they're very motivated to fix their mistake. They're still the experts in all stuff fire, whereas Delta is not.
- ImJamal 2y ago
  It doesn't seem like arsonist is the right word. It implies it was intentional, which as far as I can tell there is no proof of. 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.