And keep in mind, the falcon sensor exists for Linux. All those big companies largely use it.
Essentially we just got lucky that their buggy patch only affected the windows version of the sensor in a showstopping way. Could have been all major OS.
I don't think the Linux culture is very similar to the windows culture. At least for me personally, I wouldn't use crowdstrike and let them install whatever they want into my environment.
It's not your machine, your choice of distro, or your choice of specific packages to use or not use. It's a work tool you get handed as part of a job. So whether CrowdStrike runs on it or not is not your decision and you aren't allowed (and usually not capable) to change that.
That's an entirely different situation from one where you get a PC to do with as you please and set up yourself, or a private machine.
Plus we're mostly talking endpoint devices for non-technical users with many of these difficult-to-fix devices as techs have to drive out to them. The users expect a tool, and they get a tool. A Linux would be customized and utterly locked down, and part of that would be the endpoint protection software.
We tried to fight against having to install Crowstrike on our Linux servers but got overruled by upper management without discussion. I assume we are not the only ones with that experience in the world due to the need to check a checkbox for some flimsy audit.
Essentially no one has crowdstrike on their personal machines. Not Windows users, Mac users, or Linux users. So it's corporate/large organization culture that matters. And they absolutely use it.
...unless it's running software that uses signed 32-bit timestamps, or stores data using that format.
The point about the "millennium bug" was that it was a category of problems that required (hundreds of) thousands of fixes. It didn't matter if your OS was immune, because the OS isn't where the value is.
Probably not. Most Linux admins know their systems and are able to navigate out of the situation with ease. But also most people don't use any corporate off-the-shelf software, because there are better options that are freely available.
Furthermore a Linux installation is dedicated and slim for one single purpose. The flexibility creates diversity.
No. They don't. They always need Microsoft support to solve situations and upgrades. You can also ask simple questions that they cannot answer. Try Active Directory: how to run AD in a secure fashion? Or: What services do rely on DCs in our company?
I think the shower thought is centered around IF a ubiquitous bug that required physical access to the machine to resolve occurred simultaneously across all Linux machines.
If you couldn't remotely resolve the issues, regardless of your competence, simply the WALK to each machine and hooking up a KVM to each one would take a long time.
There won't be such case is my argument. No one patches a system "for fun" and automatically there except they really set it up like that. It would be only one kind of a case in one company.
Furthermore, you cannot compare Linux systems. A modem firmware with busybox is not the same as a Debian PC desktop. It works differently and has only the kernel in common. And in both cases they aren't patched at the same time. They are not even the same version, hell not even the same platform.
E.a. nothing will ever break like this. If it does, it will be one single case of a single IT department.
If all of the parts of the internet that the average person finds useful goes down, then it matters little that technically "the internet" is not down. If it can't be useful then it is as good as "down".