From the point of view of a lay person Microsoft was caught asleep at the wheel. It allowed high levels of privileged access to their customers' systems. Anti-malware software ought to be monitored and scrutinised by Microsoft's own security teams no matter that it was the customers who wanted to/were told to use CrowdStrike. But I guess they spend too much on silly fidget-widgets like OpenAI to have a budget to watch the bottom line.

If I design and sell a car and you electrocute yourself replacing a head unit cutting wires - despite warnings from me saying "I don't recommend replacing the head unit, it could be dangerous. I've provided you one with basic functionality" - can you reasonably argue that I should have made it harder to replace head units, or been out auditing third party head units on the market?

Your argument is anti software freedom. My Windows computer (or any other OS I choose to put on) should be able to run whatever code I instruct it to. The flip side of that coin is that the consequences are mine from doing so.

A car manufacturer cannot stop you from cutting the wires, an OS vendor can monitor what is going on with your computer in real time so they are more than capable of implementing a process for verification of third-party software.

With modems in modern cars, a car manufacturer could absolutely monitor wire resistence and "shut down" a wire remotely. Most people would agree however that's unnecessary and invasive.

not only allowing, but approving? they signed driver, right?

linux also allows, by approval is decentralized

Based on a simular comment you've made, I think there is some confusion for you as to what driver signing actually is. It's a certificate of Authority to identify the Distributer of the driver as legitimate or not.

Indeed, this messup was signed, so correctly it was signed. As for the code/behaviour. It's nothing to do with signing.

>by approval is decentralized

Translation: it's up to whoever is the sysadmin is, which probably was responsible for crowdstrike being installed in the first place. Such "approval" would have made no difference in preventing this disaster.

how 8.5M devices got approval to install? may they came with hard to disable windows autoupdate?

>how 8.5M devices got approval to install

What makes you think that it was installed via windows update? The driver was part of crowdstrike's EDR software, Falcon. It's installed by sysadmins on corporate devices. That's how it got on 8.5M devices. It's not something that gets auto-installed when you run windows update.

gpt said it could be updated by ms https://chatgpt.com/share/8eca1a08-062f-4474-9310-95444bab67...

That's irrelevant when crowdstrike admitted it's caused by them.

this isnt a good contribution to this site