Originally posted by Mark Gulbrandsen
View Post
I would agree that the chances of something like this happening are small... less than 1%. However, if something happens, the chances of people being hurt, killed or negatively affected in some way is 100%.
If computers at banks go down, people can't access money and their lives grind to a halt. If somebody needs that money for an important purpose, they could be harmed. Even if that doesn't happen, businesses could be negatively impacted.
If computers at the airlines go down, millions of people are affected or, in an extreme situation, people could be killed.
If this problem only happened to home computers, it wouldn't be such a big deal. In a situation like that, edge cases don't matter so much. However, if you're talking about critical infrastructure, edge cases DO matter!
It's common for people to decide how much time, effort and money to put into preventing problems based on the probability of something bad happening. That makes sense. People don't hire armed guards to protect their houses, 24/7 because the chances of being burgled are pretty low. However, I'm certainly going to have armed guards protecting the White House because, even though the chances of somebody getting in are relatively low, IF somebody gets in, it could cause problems for the whole country.
In other words, gauge the amount of trouble that something might cause to determine how much of your resources to put into prevention of a problem, not just the chances of it happening.
If I was the boss of a company that got affected by this malfunction at CrowdStrike, I'd be making two phone calls:
My first call would be to my the head of my IT department to tell them to get something else, beside Crowdstrike, immediately and forthwith.
My second call would be to the guy in charge of CrowdStrike... The entire conversation would be something like, "We're done." <click>
Leave a comment: