The cat so fast he's a streak 
https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/22/windows_crowdstrike_kernel_eu/
The M$ propaganda claim is that they tried to replace security kernel drivers with an API which would have offered all the same functionality as kernel access with far more safety but the mean EU said they couldn't. What really happened is M$ created two apis one for their own security software and one for all third party software:
Microsoft shall ensure on an ongoing basis and in a Timely Manner that the APIs in the Windows Client PC Operating System and the Windows Server Operating System that are called on by Microsoft Security Software Products are documented and available for use by third-party security software products that run on the Windows Client PC Operating System and/or the Windows Server Operating System.
The settlement never said MS could never implement an API like this just that they needed the api to be open and documented for other anti viruses to use. Despite these apis being apperently so good M$ threw a tantrum as they couldn't have a special API locked all to themselves. They released this security api and if it was so good they could have easily moved their own security software to it and locked down the kernel. But it was dogshit so they had to let everyone back into the kernel despite the instability it caused.
!linuxchads !fosstards !nonchuds M$ has been spreading lies about the crowdstrike incident and EU settlement to turn people against anti trust by blaming their tantrum on the EU. In win10 they also finally made security apis with functions necessary to replace kernel level ones, so again they were never banned from doing this they just threw a tantrum and claimed they were even tho the settlement is public. Frick Dave's Garage 
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Works for Apple
I'm perfectly fine with giving the OS vender preference for internal APIs, kicking third-party drivers to user space would absolutely be a boon for security.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
M$ could have done that had they actually developed their apis like they did in win10. They literally just threw a tantrum in the vista era. You could argue M$ deserves to give their own programs priority access but the specific claim the EU banned the use of apis is false; Third party venders had to use the kernel since M$'s apis were so shit. The fact M$ press material pushed that when they have the settlement publicly available is absurd and just a way to turn the public against any future anti trust action.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You don't think a threat of EU legal action might have a chilling effect on API development?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
M$ claimed they had a perfectly functional API for third parties. EU said "well you can use it too then" M$ then chimped out and just let everyone use the kernel since it sucked until they started deving it. Id have less of a problem if M$ and its shills like Dave hadnt claimed then and now that they had a perfectly functional third party api, but then the second they had to use it all of a sudden wasnt good enough.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
You can't write every functionality of the OS in user space.
It's not inconsistent to expect the company writing the entire operating system to have privileged access to the APIs that third parties lack exactly for the security issues that caused this fallout in the first place.
It's almost like legislating technical decisions is really r-slurred and should be handled by market competition.
I'm not sure which article or comment I saw it in so take it with a grain of salt, but Crowdstrike actually could've used an API that did parsing properly and not hard crash the system but their programmers were incompetent enough to use the wrong API.
So just to clarify, Crowdstrike's programmers had the right API to use and still fricked it up.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
okay so i dont understnd the code stuff but you need to see it from a legal perspective.
Their primary product (windows), and other products (internet browser, security software) that also have separate commercial or markets.
It does not matter technically: if they themselves are producing software to their platform, they need to have a free playing field.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Yes the legal involvement from the government means we can expect more failures caused by perverted market incentives.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
Just because theyre all jeets that have microsoft flair on that codecel gossipsite, doesnt they have more to do with each other than with rando 3rd party codecel company #1488.
Trusting their own codecels to be more professional than 3rd party codecels seems to be the reason this whole shitshole happened, after all.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Those codecels already wrote the operating system you're using. If you think they're shitty and bad at their job, stop using it.
How did you you come to this conclusion?
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
I doubt the codecels (jeet or otherwise) writing the core OS shit are the same ones that write whatever shit program that caused the problem. Thats my point. If they get their paycheck from microsoft or McAfee (rip king
) doesnt matter, they dont have any more understanding of it just because they also work for microsoft.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context
More options
Context