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>