Computer Outage

[TexTaxToo]

19 hours ago, Lee B said:

The most amazing thing to me is reading that some IT departments are having to deal with this faulty update one computer at a time.

Apparently, the only way to fix the issue quickly on computers with the BSOD was to reboot each computer into safe mode and delete a configuration file.

[Medlin Software, Dennis]

Just now, TexTaxToo said:

Apparently, the only way to fix the issue quickly on computers with the BSOD was to reboot each computer into safe mode and delete a configuration file.

That is what I read as well. The file was a sort of tattletale file, which is used to compare to or check for the item believed to be nefarious. Sort of what is known in consumer security as a signature file. This is a basic stupid mistake, to have one data file able to bring down the entire system. We are not talking about a piece of data such as a tax record, which has to be there, but clearly a separate data file which is not needed to use the product (as proved by the "fix"). Simple code would have prevented this. 100%, the company will say missing the file means there was tampering, but a warning message while annoying, would have sifficed.

[Catherine]

Don't know if it's true, but got a kick out of this one.

[Medlin Software, Dennis]

SWA is said to use software which "looks" like it was designed for Windows 95, but there is no one with proof they are using a non current OS. What is certain is they are not using CrowdStrike's Falcon software at all, or in a way they cannot work past when Falcon fails.

[Lee B]

18 minutes ago, Medlin Software, Dennis said:

SWA is said to use software which "looks" like it was designed for Windows 95, but there is no one with proof they are using a non current OS. What is certain is they are not using CrowdStrike's Falcon software at all, or in a way they cannot work past when Falcon fails.

The point is that SWA has a decades long history of under investing in IT technology which has been widely know throughout the airline industry for many years.

 

[Medlin Software, Dennis]

Just now, Lee B said:

The point is that SWA has a decades long history of under investing in IT technology which has been widely know throughout the airline industry for many years.

Getting somewhat lucky not using Falcon was good. Their choices for internal software such as crew and flight scheduling is another story. Investing in the latest is not always productive, especially in these cases where the internal software is likely custom. Custom software is a dark hole. Think the Tom Hanks movie Money Pit. There is only one "user" doing the real world testing, and those who know how and can program/update it tend to shrink over time, especially if outsourced to the lowest bidder.

In the real world, there are absolutely cases where custom software is the only solution, but one has to either pay for in house employees to create/manage it, or accept it is obsolete as soon as the contract is completed.

SF CA school district is a good example of custom payroll software boondoggle - with the add on it never properly worked and all the finds were wasted.

[Lee B]

Well the Windows 95/Windows 3.1 stories are debunked:

 Thom Holwerda  2024-07-23  

"Let’s start with the actual source of the claim that Southwest Airlines was unaffected by CrowdStrike because they’re still using Windows 3.11 for large parts of their primary systems. This claim is easily traced back to its origin – a tweet by someone called Artem Russakovskii, stating that “the reason Southwest is not affected is because they still run on Windows 3.1”. This tweet formed the basis for virtually all of the stories, but it contains no sources, no links, no background information, nothing. It was literally just this one line.

It turned out be a troll tweet. A reply to the tweet by Russakovskii a day later made that very lear: “To be clear, I was trolling last night, but it turned out to be true. Some Southwest systems apparently do run Windows 3.1. lol.” However, that linked article doesn’t cite any sources either, so we’re right back where we started.

Southwest uses internally built and maintained systems called SkySolver and Crew Web Access for pilots and flight attendants. They can sign on to those systems to pick flights and then make changes when flights are canceled or delayed or when there is an illness.

“Southwest has generated systems internally themselves instead of using more standard programs that others have used,” Montgomery said. “Some systems even look historic like they were designed on Windows 95.”

SkySolver and Crew Web Access are both available as mobile apps, but those systems often break down during even mild weather events, and employees end up making phone calls to Southwest’s crew scheduling help desk to find better routes. During periods of heavy operational trouble, the system gets bogged down with too much demand."

↫ Kyle Arnold at The Dallas Morning News

"That’s it. That’s where all these stories can trace their origin to. These few paragraphs do not say that Southwest is still using ancient Windows versions; it just states that the systems they developed internally, SkySolver and Crew Web Access, look “historic like they were designed on Windows 95”. The fact that they are also available as mobile applications should further make it clear that no, these applications are not running on Windows 3.1 or Windows 95. Southwest pilots and cabin crews are definitely not carrying around pocket laptops from the ’90s."

 

A classic example of online media repeating misinformation.

It's getting really hard to tell the difference between fact and fiction

 

 

[Medlin Software, Dennis]

1 minute ago, Lee B said:

A classic example of online media repeating misinformation.

It is relatively easy, at present, to spot the AI (fake) articles because of wonky grammar, and sometimes spelling (especially names). A recent famous one was a person who uses AI to post things to get revenue saying a certain quick serve chain was going to shut down in CA. Their one AI generated fake post was repeated and modified thousands of times and many believed it.

Getting accurate news is tough. One has to be an investigative reporter to check sources, compare articles, then a good old sanity check, and when needed, visit something like Snopes.

[Catherine]

Please note I said flat-out I had no idea if it was true or not (and frankly the comment about a Commodore 64 tends strongly to the "false" category) but simply that I thought it was amusing. Figured we could all use a smile; that's all.