In the article it says Southwest used 3.1, not Delta (though, that's apparently incorrect according to other posters).

And Southwest had two crew-management outages in 2022[0], so let's not sing their praises for escaping the CrowdStrike disruption. Southwest has been widely critized for under-investment in technology, Delta on the other hand purchased one of the best security products on the market and that backfired.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Southwest_Airlines_schedu...

>Delta on the other hand purchased one of the best security products on the market and that backfired.

It looks like it wasn't a good security product after all...

Delta put all their eggs in one basket and had no DR capability

What basis do you have for saying that? It is likely their DR was running on a mirror of their production systems, and was similarly impacted by the Crowdstrike outage. So they fell back to Windows Servers similarly stuck in a boot-loop.

Keep in mind there was no way to opt out or delay CS Channel updates.

> Keep in mind there was no way to opt out or delay CS Channel updates.

Do CS updates somehow work over airgaps? You know, the kind that production systems have to prevent any access to or from external networks? Well... some production systems anyway.

What's your point? An air gapped disaster recovery system would be useless. An airline operations application has to connect to a bunch of other external systems to be of any use.

If your DR system is susceptible to the same faults as your main system it’s not a DR system.

It would be like claiming raid1 is a backup.

Or it would be like claiming my backup isn’t a backup because both systems run openssh, so a remote code execution vuln there could take down both systems.

Any DR system will have to accept some risks, and those don’t necessarily invalidate it in general, just make it insufficient for some scenarios.

Conversely, if they ran the main system on windows with crowdstrike and the DR one on poorly configured linux with no security software, they probably would have needed more sysadmins, had more trouble maintaining software for both, and been vulnerable to risk from both linux and windows bugs, so I feel like they made the right tradeoff in general.

I’m sure you, who can deride this DR system, have devised your own system such that it is resilient to a meteor destroying the earth.

> I’m sure you, who can deride this DR system, have devised your own system such that it is resilient to a meteor destroying the earth.

That reminds me one of Corey Quinn's comfortable AWS truths.

https://x.com/QuinnyPig/status/1173371749808783360

> If your DR plan assumes us-east-1 dies unrecoverably, what you're really planning for is 100 square miles of Northern Virginia no longer existing. Good luck with that ad farm in a nuclear wasteland, buddy!

As HN itself discovered a couple of years ago when a set of same-manufacturer, same-batch disks within both RAID arrays and backup server failed within a few hours of one another:

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32048148>

<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32031243>

One idea: build a DR system and turn it off. Ideally it would be cloneable, but even without that ability, one could test it every few months to make sure it boots adequately quickly and then turn it back off. The attack surface of a bunch of computers or instances that are powered down is pretty low.

Better yet, alternate between them every month or two.

I chased through this chain the other day...

https://www.tomshardware.com/software/windows/windows-31-sav...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedreed/2024/07/20/meltdown-wha...

> A story on the website govtech.com on Friday asked the question, “Why isn’t Southwest affected by the CrowdStrike/Microsoft outage?

> “That’s because major portions of the airline’s computer systems are still using Windows 3.1, a 32-year-old version of Microsoft’s computer operating software,” the website said. “It’s so old that the CrowdStrike issue doesn’t affect it so Southwest is still operating as normal. It’s typically not a good idea to wait so long to update, but in this one instance Southwest has done itself a favor.”

The govetech.com article is https://www.govtech.com/question-of-the-day/why-isnt-southwe...

which linked to https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/southwest-cloudstrik...

which linked to an earlier Forbes article - https://www.forbes.com/sites/hershshefrin/2022/12/31/can-sou...

> The December 2022 scheduling fiasco was the result of skimping on information technology. I am old enough to remember when Microsoft introduced a new operating system called Windows 95, to replace its predecessor operating system Windows 3.1. The 95 in Windows 95 refers to the year of its introduction: 1995. By some accounts, major portions of Southwest’s scheduling system for pilots and flight attendants is built on the Windows 95 platform. That platform is now more than 25 years old.

Southwest does not run Windows 3.1:

“That’s it. That’s where all these stories can trace their origin to. These few paragraphs do not say that Southwest is still using ancient Windows versions; it just states that the systems they developed internally, SkySolver and Crew Web Access, look ‘historic like they were designed on Windows 95’.”

https://www.osnews.com/story/140301/no-southwest-airlines-is...

The other day, I saw a screen capture from Tom's Hardware and so chased the series of links and quotes to try to find the earliest one that had reporting on it that was the source. That was the chain that I found.

I am not claiming that they run Windows 3.1 or Windows 95 ... but rather "this is where that story was sourced from" because everyone kept linking to somewhere else. The relevant XKCD is https://xkcd.com/978/

Funny enough, this cycle is close to what the Russian disinformation machine does deliberately to spread bullshit.

Is that actually true, or just something that's repeated until people believe it?

Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woozle_effect

Yes, is there some evidence beyond the claims of "intelligence officials"?

I see what you did there.

Russian approaches are well known and documented. None of this is new, and wasn't even really that new in 2016, it's just become better known.

Essentially modern versions of Soviet-style disinformation campaigns, but augmented with new technology (social media), and without the ideological hindrances of a Communist government (e.g. sell hard to both Right and Left).

RAND Corp calls it "the Russian Firehose" model: https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PE198.html

Similar approaches are also used by NK, Indian, Chinese, and other national-tier disinfo campaigns. This contrasts with models used by the West, which are often less about creating a disinformation clusterfuck, and more of a "watch our Disney / BBC / Scandinavian TV & movies and their implied messages about freedom and human rights and shit".

Not too sure they are. The "experts" insisted that Russia colluded with Trump to "hack the election", that they somehow faked or planted or were responsible for various laptop and email leaks, etc., all such things which have since been found to be false or at best no real evidence has ever been produced in support of.

Obiously Russian, Chinese, and all other governments engage in information campaigns, and obviously the US government knows a lot about what they are. But we the public does not necessarily have the same information. It's not really possible to distinguish the "well known and documented (by the military and espionage industrial complex)" operation of foreign countries from domestic propaganda developed by those corporations and agencies to influence their own citizens.