CrowdStrike 表示 IT 問題需要時間來解決

CrowdStrike, a prominent cybersecurity firm, has acknowledged that it may take a significant amount of time to resolve the ongoing IT issues that have arisen following a recent software update. This update inadvertently triggered a global outage, leading to widespread disruptions across various sectors, including aviation, banking, and healthcare. The incident has resulted in the cancellation of thousands of flights, leaving many travelers stranded and causing chaos in numerous businesses. The update, which was automatically deployed to customers overnight, caused Microsoft systems to crash, displaying blue error screens that indicated a serious malfunction. As employees returned to work on Friday morning, they found that their computers were unable to restart, leading to a backlog of unresolved issues. George Kurtz, the CEO of CrowdStrike, expressed his regret over the situation, stating, 'We are deeply sorry for the impact that we've caused to customers. ' He explained that while some systems are being rebooted successfully, others may require more time to recover. The resolution process is not automatic; it necessitates a manual intervention known as a 'fingers on keyboards' solution. This means that IT personnel must physically attend to each affected computer to restore functionality. Kevin Beaumont, a cybersecurity researcher, highlighted the challenges involved, noting that impacted systems must be started in 'Safe Mode' to remove the faulty update. This process is labor-intensive and could take days for organizations with large numbers of computers. CrowdStrike is recognized as one of the leading names in cybersecurity, boasting a customer base of approximately 24,000 worldwide. In a communication sent to clients, Kurtz clarified that the outage was not the result of a cyberattack but rather a defect in a 'content update. ' He assured clients that the company is committed to transparency as they work to resolve the incident and prevent future occurrences. The term 'content update' suggests that the changes made were intended to be minor, possibly involving simple adjustments like a logo or font change. However, this raises concerns about how such a seemingly small update could lead to extensive damage. One IT manager, who preferred to remain anonymous, shared insights into the recovery process, stating that while fixing computers is relatively quick once technicians are on-site, the challenge lies in reaching all the machines. Responsible for 4,000 computers in an educational institution, he mentioned that his team is working tirelessly to address the issues. They have successfully restored their servers using alternative methods, but many personal computers remain problematic. Experts in the field have indicated that the manual recovery process will be particularly daunting for large organizations with thousands of computers, especially those lacking sufficient IT resources. Smaller businesses that do not have dedicated IT teams or rely on outsourced IT support may also face significant challenges. In contrast, larger companies like American Airlines appear to be addressing the issues more swiftly. Interestingly, it seems that many organizations in the United States may be less affected, as computers that are not yet powered on can be started to download the corrected software. However, this still requires some level of manual operation. Beaumont pointed out that this incident represents one of the most significant IT failures caused by a cybersecurity vendor. Ironically, customers who were affected were simply following standard advice to install security updates promptly. While there have been instances in the past where security companies have mistakenly sent out problematic updates, the scale and impact of this incident are unprecedented. Although this situation has caused considerable disruption, it is worth noting that it does not compare to the WannaCry cyberattack of May 2017, which was a malicious attack that exploited vulnerabilities in older versions of Microsoft Windows. That attack affected an estimated 300,000 computers across 150 countries and had a particularly severe impact on the UK's National Health Service, disrupting medical services for days. In contrast, the recent outages are the result of an error rather than a deliberate attack.