July 22nd, 2024

Microsoft blames EU rules for allowing biggest IT outage to happen

Microsoft attributes the world's largest IT outage to EU regulations hindering security changes, causing disruptions in travel and healthcare. CrowdStrike update affected 8.5 million Windows devices, emphasizing tech companies' struggle with security and regulations.

Read original articleLink Icon
Microsoft blames EU rules for allowing biggest IT outage to happen

Microsoft has attributed the world's largest IT outage to EU regulations that prevented the company from implementing security changes to block a faulty CrowdStrike update. The 2009 agreement with the European Commission restricted Microsoft from making necessary security adjustments, leading to widespread disruptions in travel and healthcare services. The faulty update affected 8.5 million Windows devices, causing flight cancellations, payment failures, and healthcare appointment issues. Despite impacting less than 1% of all machines, the widespread use of CrowdStrike in businesses amplified the consequences. The European Commission's past actions against Microsoft for unfair advantages in software markets were highlighted, while contrasting approaches by Apple in securing its systems were mentioned. The incident underscores the challenges tech companies face in balancing security requirements with regulatory constraints, as seen in the aftermath of the IT outage.

Related

Microsoft/Crowdstrike outage ground planes, banks and the London Stock Exchange

Microsoft/Crowdstrike outage ground planes, banks and the London Stock Exchange

A cybersecurity program update failure caused global disruptions affecting businesses and services like United Airlines, McDonald’s, and the London Stock Exchange. Microsoft and CrowdStrike faced issues, but the problem was resolved without a cyberattack. CrowdStrike's shares dropped 20%, and Microsoft's fell 2.9%. The incident, involving Windows and security software, is one of the largest IT outages, surpassing past disruptions.

Microsoft has serious questions to answer after the biggest IT outage in history

Microsoft has serious questions to answer after the biggest IT outage in history

The largest IT outage in history stemmed from a faulty software update by CrowdStrike, impacting 70% of Windows computers globally. Mac and Linux systems remained unaffected. Concerns arise over responsibility and prevention measures.

Microsoft's global sprawl under fire from regulators after Windows outage

Microsoft's global sprawl under fire from regulators after Windows outage

A global Microsoft Windows outage, caused by a defective update from CrowdStrike, disrupted various sectors worldwide. Regulators urge vendor diversification to reduce reliance on Microsoft, sparking debates on tech monopolies and antitrust enforcement.

Microsoft says 8.5M Windows devices were affected by CrowdStrike outage

Microsoft says 8.5M Windows devices were affected by CrowdStrike outage

Microsoft reported that a CrowdStrike outage impacted 8.5 million Windows devices globally, causing disruptions in banking, retail, and transportation. Collaboration with tech giants is ongoing to address cybersecurity risks efficiently.

Microsoft points finger at the EU for not being able to lock down Windows

Microsoft points finger at the EU for not being able to lock down Windows

Microsoft blames the EU for hindering Windows security due to an agreement allowing security software access. Recent disruptions affected 8.5 million PCs. EU restrictions differ for tech giants like Apple and Google.

Link Icon 11 comments
By @janice1999 - 4 months
Is anyone really gullible enough to blame the EU for CrowdStrike rolling out a faulty update? What is Microsoft PR thinking? I also find it amusing that George Kurtz (CrowdStrike CEO) was perfectly capable of causing a global IT disaster in 2010 as McAfee CTO without kernel access (the update just deleted critical Windows XP system files).
By @fabian2k - 4 months
I don't find that particularly credible. If Microsoft would boot all security products (including their own) out of the kernel and force them to use specific interfaces for this there is no anti-trust concern at all there. It would only be a problem if they wanted Windows Defender to remain having privileged access while taking it away from everyone else.
By @nullfrigid - 4 months
Microsoft has a very solid point here. MS has wanted to kick AV vendors out of kernel space for a long time because it isn't necessary, and can lead to the type of incident we are talking about here.

MS provides a userspace interface[0] for AV vendors to do what they need to do, but they can't be forced to use it.

So yes, due to EU regulations, AV vendors can still play in kernel space, and can bring much of the world to a halt when they make a mistake as a result.

[0] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/amsi/antimal...

By @vfclists - 4 months
The true reason is a regulatory environment where snake-oil peddling corporations lobby for governments to mandate the use of their crapware in the name of security and reliability.

This causes senior management to push for the installation of this crapware/malware on their systems, overriding the objection of their system administrators who know better.

Senior management want to cover their asses, and the administrators shrug their shoulders and respond "if you say so".

In sum it is mostly a regulatory racket that is profitable for the peddlers of this crapware and for management who can claim that they did what they were required to do to stop shit from happening. Everybody wins except shareholders, customers and IT staff who have to fix this mess without getting the righteously justified overtime and bonuses.

Why do you think insurance companies have backing out of the business of insuring against these kind of disasters? They've clearly learned better.

Why do you think I stopped using Norton, MacAfee, etc, etc, and etc and opted for just decent backups and Windows own built-in stuff?

By @hilbert42 - 4 months
Oh yeah, if Microsoft was so worried about other companies tinkering with its kernel then why didn't it introduce routines that would ensure that a reboot would actually occur on a boot load error? (Upon error, a reload would then omit the faulty code as well as tell users there was a problem with the update.)

I'd suggest that there is no reason a BSOD—Blue Screen of Death—should ever occur on a system that was already working as the OS should be constructed in such a way that it can undo a faulty patch. As you'd know, there is already such a thing as Volume Shadow Copy, VSS, in MS Windows. Microsoft could have adopted this and similar techniques to ensure that the system either stayed up or rebooted.

Yes, I can hear Microsoft's retort now that doing that would make Windows more vulnerable to viruses, infiltration, etc.

To that I'd say utter bullshit, the real problem—as it has always been with Microsoft—is that it doesn't properly finish or bootstrap its code against errors before it releases it to the public. Microsoft is thus doing cheapskate engineering as it's much more profitable.

Hopefully, eventually regulators will require hardening of such software together with guarantees against such faults—guarantees that if not honored would result in enforceable financial penalties.

Only loss of income/profit is likely to fix this problem.

EU, for everyone's sake quickly debunk that deliberately misleading PR crap from Microsoft before it takes hold.

By @_heimdall - 4 months
That's cute, but I don't know of any EU rule that requires a Windows to give the blue screen of death when a third party kernel module fails.
By @josefritzishere - 4 months
I'm sure Microsoft would prefer to be less regulated, but I dont see how that would have changed the outcome here.
By @mwhitfield - 4 months
The headline, as always, is disingenuous. They were asked why they couldn't lock third parties out of this level of unprotected system access, and said that the 2009 ruling prevented them from doing so. Which is simply factually correct.
By @dijit - 4 months
Yeah, of course they would.

"Just regulate us less, seriously!".

Their solution to this situation is quite literally monopoly, which is hilarious.

By @anotherhue - 4 months
Never waste a crisis.