That’s not how any of this worked. Also not how working in a large team that develops for thousands of clients works. It wasn’t just one dev that fucked up here.
Crowd Strike Falcon uses a signed boot driver. They don’t want to wait for MS to get around to signing a driver if there’s a zero day they’re trying to patch. So they have an empty driver with null pointers to the meat of a real boot driver. If you fat finger a reg key, that file only containing the 9C character, points to another null pointer in a different file and you end up getting a non bootable system as the whole driver is now empty.
If you don’t understand what I just said here’s some folk that spent good time and effort to explain it.
floofloof@lemmy.ca 1 month ago
If the company makes it possible for an individual developer to do this, it’s the company’s fault.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
Exactly. All of our code requires two reviews (one from a lead if it’s to a shared environment), and deploying to production also requires approval of 3 people:
And it gets jointly verified immediately after deploy by QA and customer support/product owner. If we want an exception to our deploy rules (low QA pass rate, deploy within business hours, someone important is on leave, etc), we need the director to sign off.
We have <100 people total on the development org, probably closer to 50. We’re a relatively large company, but a relatively small tech team within a non-tech company (we manufacture stuff, and the SW is to support customers w/ our stuff).
Prox@lemmy.world 1 month ago
Are “product” (PM, PO) and “engineering” (people who write the code) one and the same where you work? Or are they separate factions?
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 1 month ago
No, separate groups. We basically have four separate, less-technical groups that are all involved in some way with the process of releasing stuff, and they all have their own motivations and whatnot:
PM, PO, and QA are involved in feature releases, PM, QA, and support are involved in hotfixes. Each tests in a staging environment before signing off, and tests again just after deploy.
It seems to work pretty well, and as a lead dev, I only need to interact with those groups at release time. If I do my job properly, they’re all happy and releases are smooth (and they usually are). Each group has caught important issues, so I don’t think the redundancy is waste.
My industry has a pretty high cost for bad releases, since a high severity bug could cost customers millions per day, kind of like CrowdStrike, so I must assume they have a similar process for releases.