• Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian said the massive IT outage earlier this month that stranded thousands of customers will cost it $500 million.
  • The airline canceled more than 4,000 flights in the wake of the outage, which was caused by a botched CrowdStrike software update and took thousands of Microsoft systems around the world offline.
  • Bastian, speaking from Paris, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Wednesday that the carrier would seek damages from the disruptions, adding, “We have no choice.”
  • brianary@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    Even load-balancing multiple servers in a homogenous network, where patches are only deployed in phases is better (and a best practice) than what, to outside observers, appears to have been everything going down due to a mass update everywhere, all at once.

    • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Even load-balancing multiple servers in a homogenous network, where patches are only deployed in phases is better (and a best practice) than what, to outside observers, appears to have been everything going down due to a mass update everywhere, all at once.

      This is where reason gets subjective. If you’re solving for resiliency against a bad patch, then absolutely, do a small test deployment before pushing everywhere. This is a balance that whatever is being patched is less of a risk than the patch itself.

      However, look at what is being patched in this case: AV/malware protection. In this case, you’re knowingly leaving large portions of your fleet open to known, documented, and in-the-wild, vulnerabilities. In the past 10 years we’ve seen headlines littered with large organizations being downed by cryptolocker style malware. Only doing a partial deployment of this AV/malware protection means you’re intentionally leaving yourself open to the latest and greatest crytolocker (among other things). This is a balance where the risk of whatever being patched is more of a risk than the patch itself.

      Seeing as we’ve only really had this AV/malware scanner problem hit the headlines in the last 10 or 15 years, and cryptolocker/malware nearly monthly for the last 10 to 15 years, it would appear on the surface that pushing the patches immediately actually the better idea.