Comment on Microsoft points finger at the EU for not being able to lock down Windows
kureta@lemmy.ml 3 months agoBut in this case Microsoft certified the driver. If they knew the driver included an interpreter that can run arbitrary code, they shouldn’t have certified it because they can not fully test it. If they didn’t know, then their certification test are inadequate. Most of the blame lies with the security software. If Microsoft didn’t certify it, they would have had zero fault.
conciselyverbose@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
Certifying a driver is not an endorsement.
It is a verification that it is legitimately from who it claims to be from. Microsoft has zero fault, period.
kureta@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
sandalbucket@lemmy.world 3 months ago
For the Nth time, crowdstrike circumvented the testing process
umami_wasbi@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
I had a read about the WHQL (which I assumes what certified means). It uses the Windows HLK to perform a series of tests, which submited to Microsoft, and only then the driver will be signed.
While certification isn’t endorsement, the testing and the resulting certification implies basic compatibility and reliability. And causing bootloops and BSODs is anywhere but close to “basic compatibility and reliability.”
punkfungus@sh.itjust.works 3 months ago
Crowdstrike bypassed WHQL because the update was not to the driver, it was to a configuration file that then gets ingested by the driver. It’s deliberate so they can push out updates for developing threats without being slowed down by the WHQL process.
And that means when they decide to just send it on a Friday with a buggy config file, nobody is responsible but Crowdstrike.
umami_wasbi@lemmy.ml 3 months ago
Oh wow. Then that’s definitely CS in fault. What a brilliant idea they have.