Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

To be fair, most corporations signed up for Crowdstrike as a way to address some issues. I'm sure it wasn't cheap and CS was probably better at security than an IT admin at a 50 person shop.


But what's worse, hundreds of maybe insecure companies or creating a big single point of failure?


Globally or locally?

To each individual company, it’s better to have the big single point of failure. That’s the problem.


Much like the RSA attack, now we get to see how Crowdstrike handles damage control.


Yeah, it wasn't cheap.

It's still not enough.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: