CrowdStrike shareholders sue over global outage, say company concealed info - National | Globalnews.ca

hagelslager , 5 hours ago

I hold no love for investors (even though pension funds rely on them, as shown by the lead plaintiff), but this seems pretty warranted if the company makes claims which are contrary to reality.

sunzu , 4 hours ago

even though pension funds rely on them, as shown by the lead plaintiff)

Bro. Pension fund is an investor category. A major one after owner class.

daddy32 , 3 hours ago

This is called “securities fraud” and I think this would be a straightforward case.

DirigibleProtein , 4 hours ago

Just give them a $10 Uber Eats card!

cbarrick , 2 hours ago

[S]hareholders said they learned that CrowdStrike’s assurances about its technology were materially false and misleading when a flawed software update disrupted airlines, banks, hospitals and emergency lines around the world.

I don’t see how they can make this argument.

Falcon is a kernel module. When kernel modules fuck up, you get kernel panics.

Sure, the layperson may not know enough about computers to recognize this, but it’s a basic enough fact about operating systems that an investor in a company like this should take the time to learn. It’s not like they hid that fact.

If you invested in a company without knowing how their product works, that’s on you.

thesmokingman , 1 hour ago

You highlighted the wrong portion of this article.

The complaint cites statements including from a March 5 conference call where Kurtz characterized CrowdStrike’s software as “validated, tested and certified.”

If the CEO is making claims that the software is tested and certified, then the CEO should be able to prove that claim, no matter where the software lives. It is very reasonable to say, at face value, the CrowdStrike testing pipeline was inadequate. There is a remote possibility that there were mitigating factors, eg some other common software update released right before from another vendor that contributed; given CrowdStrike’s assurances and understanding of where it falls in most supply chains I consider that to be bullshit. I personally haven’t seen anything convincing that shows a strong and robust CI pipeline magically releasing this issue.

Now shareholder lawsuits are bullshit in general and, as someone constantly pushed to release without fucking any confidence, I think it’s really fucking dumb to ever believe any software passes any inspection until you have actually looked at the CI/CD process in-depth.

kevindqc , 1 hour ago

I mean it was true. It’s just that here was a bug with the automated testing software that let the bogus file go through.

They could have shown their testing/certification pipeline to investors, but it wouldn’t have changed anything unless investors would have somehow been able to figure out there was a bug in what they showed them.

naonintendois , 1 hour ago

You would be surprised at how little investors know about the things they invest in. They only look at the money flow. The case will likely go nowhere though since a small gap in processes isn’t the same as a complete lack of processes that the lawsuit is implying.

blazera , 1 hour ago

Everytime cases like this pop up all I can think of is all the times people have justified investors making so much money because of the risks they take. But whenever that gamble is a loss they pull this shit

catch22 , 44 minutes ago

I wonder how many trillions of lost dollars and lives being lost it will take before critical software like this is held to a higher standard. Between airliners crashing and financial and public infrastructure being taken down by security flaws and easily found bugs even though it’s just as important as the development team that writes the code, QA and a software dev process is still treated as unimportant and something you do only if you have the time to do it.