Windows 3.1 saves the day during CrowdStrike outage — Southwest Airlines scrapes by with archaic OS
Windows 3.1 saves the day during CrowdStrike outage — Southwest Airlines scrapes by with archaic OS
Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 save the day.
Southwest Airlines, the fourth largest airline in the US, is seemingly unaffected by the problematic CrowdStrike update that caused millions of computers to BSoD (Blue Screen of Death) because it used Windows 3.1. The CrowdStrike issue disrupted operations globally after a faulty update caused newer computers to freeze and stop working, with many prominent institutions, including airports and almost all US airlines, including United, Delta, and American Airlines, needing to stop flights.
Windows 3.1, launched in 1992, is likely not getting any updates. So, when CrowdStrike pushed the faulty update to all its customers, Southwest wasn’t affected (because it didn’t receive an update to begin with).
The airlines affected by the CrowdStrike update had to ground their fleets because many of their background systems refused to operate. These systems could include pilot and fleet scheduling, maintenance records, ticketing, etc. Thankfully, the lousy update did not affect aircraft systems, ensuring that everything airborne remained safe and were always in control of their pilots.
You're viewing a single thread.
Everything we know about this is that it was a disaster waiting to happen. Why the heck aren't the airlines using Linux instead of Windows for critical stuff? How about something like...Chrome OS? Then you don't need CrowdStrike because your OS is already secure because of the built in VMs and because it is Linux. Pay google for support and no updates unless there is something critical.
edit: Lots of Microsoft lovers here lol. And missing the point which is that using the most well known consumer OS for critical stuff like keeping flights going is begging for trouble.
Mainly people are down voting you because Linux had also been affected by Crowdstrike before. Only a few months ago at that. There aren't any more defenses in Linux systems against this kind of problem than there are in Windows ones. This isn't even strictly speaking a security issue either. It's more like a bug in critical software that just happens to be security related. It's a bit like when that Grub update broke some people's arch setups.
It's not that Linux can't have security problems. I still remember the very first internet virus in 1987 that traveled thru Unix machines. But Windows is the worst OS for critical systems precisely because it is the most common OS. Anything is better than windows. Linux, MacOS, or even an old IBM mainframe OS and those awful tn3270 terminals. Also, Chrome OS in particular has VMs instead of other VMs. It really is designed to be much more secure than Windows.
It’s more like a bug in critical software that just happens to be security related.
And so the cure is the same as the disease. Or actually worse in this case. The very fact that systems were constantly updated was itself the problem rather than the solution to the problem. How did nobody realize this was going to happen sooner or later?
Linux had also been affected by Crowdstrike before.
I'm guessing Crowdstrike issues a lot more Windows updates than Linux updates?
I'm guessing Crowdstrike issues a lot more Windows updates than Linux updates?
Not really. Linux is used for critical servers everywhere. No reason to update it less often.
It's not that Linux can't have security problems. I still remember the very first internet virus in 1987 that traveled thru Unix machines. But Windows is the worst OS for critical systems precisely because it is the most common OS. Anything is better than windows. Linux, MacOS, or even an old IBM mainframe OS and those awful tn3270 terminals. Also, Chrome OS in particular has VMs instead of other VMs. It really is designed to be much more secure than Windows
This isn't a hacking attempt. It's not a security breach. None of the "Windows is more common" stuff is actually valid in this case. The fact it's not actually true is even more funny. When it comes to servers and smartphones, and the total number of devices in general, Linux outnumbers Windows. Linux isn't actually niche in the slightest, only purists running Arch or Ubuntu think that because they ignore any Linux they don't like, like Android.
You also don't understand anything about ChromeOS security either. They don't use VMs for system security. Early Chromebooks actually had virtualization disabled! Sandboxing and virtualization aren't the same thing. The reason it's secure is largely because it can't do anything, it uses an a/b root system, and it has secure boot by default. It's not that fancy anymore.
Chrome the web browser also has sandboxing on Windows, and modern Windows uses secure boot. Edge and Chrome have the same foundation btw. What it's missing is the immutable a/b root system, and the fact Windows allows running arbitrary executables when ChromeOS doesn't. There are actually tools for making Windows immutable, and with group policy or things like S mode you can restrict who can run what executables. Meaning with the right settings it's almost as secure as ChromeOS. Even more funny Windows actually does use virtualization based security. So you have that backwards too.
Stop talking about shit you don't understand and learn about it instead.
This isn’t a hacking attempt.
No but it is the result of trying to stop hacking attempts.
They don’t use VMs for system security.
They do. A major reason they use them is to make ChromeOS way more secure than windows.
Linux isn’t actually niche in the slightest
It's fragmented. There is no single version
Stop talking about shit you don’t understand and learn about it instead.
Stop being a jackass and learn to communicate in civilized fashion.
with group policy or things like S mode you can restrict who can run what executables.
Companies don't run windows in S mode and every OS has group security.
None of the “Windows is more common” stuff is actually valid in this case.
When I learned that companies are actually letting Cloudstrike download the equivalent of KERNAL MODE code into their critical systems I was dumbfounded. Who could have possibly thought that was a good idea? This was absolutely a disaster that was just waiting to happen.
However, if it happened on Linux, it could have been immediately bypassed.
Automatically reverting the kernel wouldn't do anything as the kernel nor the module Crowdstrike uses were updated. Rather the file the module reads was updated and replaced with a corrupted version that causes the module to crash when it tries to read it.
There is a great video explaining the basics of what happened here: https://youtu.be/wAzEJxOo1ts?si=_agkbdBHJnhQmbdP
Microsoft already have a mechanism to disable problematic modules on next boot. Problem being that Crowdstrike registers itself as an essential driver, as they don't want the system to boot without it for security reasons.
You keep saying Chrome OS uses VMs for security. Unless something has seriously changed since I last read up on their security mechanisms they don't. Maybe something has changed. Do you have any evidence? If not you're just talking out of your arse.
Sure I've got lots of evidence.
https://www.security.org/antivirus/chromebooks/
[There’s no question that, when it comes to viruses and other forms of malware, Chromebooks are safe. How safe? Well, the website CVE Details1 lists just 55 vulnerabilities for Chrome OS. Compare that to 1,111 vulnerabilities for Windows 10, and a whopping 2,212 for Mac’s OS X; with five percent as many vulnerabilities as its closest competitor, it’s a pretty simple matter to declare Chromebook the safest option...there’s no question that Chromebooks are among the most secure computers you can buy]
55 vulnerabiilites for Chrome OS vs 1111 vulnerabilities for Windows. Huge difference.
Rather the file the module reads was updated and replaced with a corrupted version that causes the module to crash when it tries to read it.
Yes it was a ridiculous system to have kernel mode code on the filesystem. Even if a bad pointer didn't crash the system a hacker could have put in their own code. And yes such a terrible security system would have affected Linux too. But with ChromeOS, the system is already secure. No need to use a terrible security system like Cloudstrike in the first place.
No you don't have any evidence at all. You were specifically speaking about Chrome OS using VMs inside VMs. That article doesn't mention VMs once.
I never once disputed that it was more secure than an average Windows installation, because frankly that's obvious. What you don't seem to understand is what can be done to lock down modern Windows and Linux systems.
Yes it was a ridiculous system to have kernel mode code on the filesystem. Even if a bad pointer didn't crash the system a hacker could have put in their own code. And yes such a terrible security system would have affected Linux too. But with ChromeOS, the system is already secure. No need to use a terrible security system like Cloudstrike in the first place.
For one the same article you are referencing talks about using anti-malware on ChromeOS as Chrome OS isn't malware proof. Though I don't think it's possible for Chrome OS to break so badly from one of these products.
ChromeOS though isn't actually suitable for running servers like Windows and Linux are. It can't do nearly the same number of things. It's a bit like comparing a knife to a safety razor. One is safer for shaving sure, however the other one can be used for cooking, hunting, wood work, etc.
Second all kernel mode code lives on the filesystem. How did you think it worked? On Linux and Windows the kernel itself needs storing somewhere, as do the modules.
You keep showing me again and again that you don't understand the world of computers and modern IT infrastructure. Do you even have any qualifications or work experience in IT?
Edit: I actually did some research myself. ChromeOS can use a Virtual Machine to run Linux software, but not in it's default configuration. There is also none of this VMs inside VMs stuff you were talking about. If you want to see virtualization really put to work look at a modern server setup or something like Qubes OS.
ChromeOS though isn’t actually suitable for running servers like Windows and Linux are. It can’t do nearly the same number of things
ChromeOS literally is Linux so obviously it can do everything that Linux can. It is effectively a SUPERSET of Linux
Second all kernel mode code lives on the filesystem.
Now you are being ridiculous. We are talking about code than runs in the kernel but is not part of any official kernel module including device drivers.
How did you think it worked?
What I thought is that you had common sense.
You keep showing me again and again that you don’t understand the world of computers and modern IT infrastructure. Do you even have any qualifications or work experience in IT?
Dude you are the person who thinks that the cloudstrike code running in the kernel that is neither part of the kernel nor part of any official kernel device driver code is somehow equivelent to the actual kernel. You are also the person who made the completely nonsensical claim that ChromeOS Linux "can't do nearly the same things" of Linux. So GTFO with the snarky shit, because I'm the one wondering how you can be so confused about basic stuff.
Do you even have any qualifications or work experience in IT?
I've been using the internet since 1983. How bout you? LMFAO.
There is also none of this VMs inside VMs stuff you were talking about.
Because you didn't do enough research. My Chrome OS comes with an outer VM, an inner VM, the heavily locked down user mode, and the kernel mode. My Linux programs run in the outer VM by default. I would have to turn on developer mode just to get to the actual user mode.
ChromeOS literally is Linux so obviously it can do everything that Linux can. It is effectively a SUPERSET of Linux
This is dumb. I was experimenting with unofficial ChromeOS builds since before the first consumer Chromebook. I've also used an actual production Chromebook as well. I've even used the distro ChromeOS is derived from which is called Gentoo.
If this was actually a good idea why aren't some businesses doing it already? Linux servers are everywhere yet I have never heard of one running ChromeOS. Google who make ChromeOS don't use ChromeOS for servers, they use conventional Linux distros like Debian with their own software running on top such as Borg or Kubernetes.
First I am going to assume you mean a Linux distro (e.g. Debian, Ubuntu) rather than just Linux, as all distributions are a superset of just Linux, as Linux is only the kernel.
It's also not in anyway a "superset" of a conventional Linux distribution. It doesn't even have a package manager without having to use a VM. You can't install a different browser without using a VM. ChromeOS capabilities have improved a lot since I have used it, by supporting VMs at all and by allowing Android apps. That still doesn't compare to a real Linux server solution. On a Linux machine I can natively run containers, not just VMs. I can install apps natively. I can configure my own security systems and sandboxing. I can even run Windows apps and games with Wine and Proton, android apps with Waydroid. I also get a much newer kernel, older Chromebooks didn't get kernel updates throughout their entire life. Maybe that's changes but who knows.
Another big thing Linux servers have is advanced file systems like BTRFS and ZFS, that have advanced RAID like functionality with automatic data integrity protection using checksums, snapshots built in, and other fancy features like transparent file compression. Does ChromeOS even support regular software RAID?
ChromeOS just isn't designed for servers, it never has been. You're trying to use a car to haul a lorry load. It's not that cars are bad, they just aren't designed to do that. You could use Chrome OS for employee workstations, at least some of them anyway, but not for servers.
Go and use a real Linux distro or a real Linux server and get back to me.
Now you are being ridiculous. We are talking about code than runs in the kernel but is not part of any official kernel module including device drivers.
This is false. That module is signed by Microsoft. That means they tested it themselves. To load a module that isn't signed on Windows requires serious tinkering and is something no business would do. I have actually done those steps myself, so I have direct personal experience here. If you had watched that video I sent you, which is by a retired Microsoft Engineer, you would know about this.
Dude you are the person who thinks that the Cloudstrike code running in the kernel that is neither part of the kernel nor part of any official kernel device driver code is somehow equivelent to the actual kernel. You are also the person who made the completely nonsensical claim that ChromeOS Linux "can't do nearly the same things" of Linux. So GTFO with the snarky shit, because I'm the one wondering how you can be so confused about basic stuff.
For one you apparently don't listen. I said it's a kernel driver/module not a core kernel component. It does however still run in kernel mode (ring 0 on x86) and has access to everything any other thing running in kernel mode has access to including the NT kernel itself. It doesn'tq matter from a permissions perspective if it's a driver/module or a core kernel component, the CPU protections don't distinguish between the two by design. What does make a difference is when and how it's loaded into kernel space/kernel mode. That's why safe mode works, as it just doesn't load that component.
I am not the one getting basic things wrong here. When I used ChromeOS originally it had maybe half the capabilities it has now, but even now it just isn't as capable as a conventional Linux distro. Saying it can run VMs means nothing because so can regular Linux, in fact you can run ChromeOS in a VM, or Windows, or FreeBSD all on a Linux machine. Even at the same time if you really want.
I've been using the internet since 1983. How bout you? LMFAO.
Using and understanding are not the same. I have a Masters in CS, soon to be starting a PhD in Cyber Security. You meanwhile apparently have no experience or qualifications worth telling me about. I actually use Linux systems daily and run my own Linux based servers. Specifically I use Proxmox since that's an actual server solution.
Because you didn't do enough research. My Chrome OS comes with an outer VM, an inner VM, the heavily locked down user mode, and the kernel mode. My Linux programs run in the outer VM by default. I would have to turn on developer mode just to get to the actual user mode.
I did plenty of research. It says the VMs run inside of a container, but a container is not a Virtual Machine. It is technically a form of virtualization, so you're half right. I would take the time to read up on how containers actually work. They share the same kernel as the host machine, and don't emulate hardware the way virtualization solutions do.
Also none of this is part of the default setup, which doesn't include any Linux VMs, just the locked down user space. You actually can do Virtual Machines inside Virtual Machines on Linux. It is called nested virtualization. My hypervisor Proxmox actually supports that as standard. You can also do containers inside virtual machines and virtual machines inside containers. The former I actually use as part of my own server setup. The point being none of this is unique or special in ChromeOS.
The disaster likely happened because Crowdstrike didn't do any phased rollouts or testing, which would have picked up a glitch like these before it could brick countless millions of systems. Blaming Microsoft for what is most likely gross negligence from a major cybersecurity firm is downright disingenuous.
Also, recommending an overglorified web browser baked into an OS which can only run web and Android applications to run critical infrastructure is downright laughable, ESPECIALLY when Google are known for their downright nonexistent customer support.
People use Windows because it's the most well-known and used OS on the market, and because Microsoft is a multi-billion dollar tech giant with a dedicated customer support and tech team to fix issues posthaste.
blaming Microsoft
I'm not blaming Microsoft. I am blaming companies for using Microsoft for critical systems.
Also, recommending an overglorified web browser baked into an OS which can only run web and Android applications to run critical infrastructure is downright laughable,
You not understanding that ChromeOS is a highly secure Linux computer is that can run any Linux program is downright laughable ignorance.
ESPECIALLY when Google are known for their downright nonexistent customer support.
Their software is way too widely used to provide you with free customer support. Microsoft is no different.