Talk:CrowdStrike

Addition of Severe outage incidents section

@Brandon Removing my entire section saying those sources "are not appropriate" is absurd. One of the sources was Adobe.com. Can also ref https://www.neowin.net/news/crowdstrike-broke-debian-and-rocky-linux-months-ago-but-no-one-noticed/ if I forgot to, which is just as valid as some of the already cited sources. Trying to remove the history of their broken updates without further digging and citing arbitrary rules, that are decided per Wikipedia user, is revisionist history. Jericho347 (talk) 06:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not denying Crowdstrike has a poor track record of software quality, I work in information security for a large Crowdstrike customer and know this to be true. However your additions are original research that draw a conclusion that is not supported by reliable sources.

• • The resource.dopus.com source is a vendor forum post
  • The Neowin article is explicitly just repackaging a Hacker News comment and a Rocky Linux forum thread
  • The community.adobe.com source is another vendor forum post
  • And the last source is a Reddit thread

All of these sources are either directly or indirectly based on discussion forums and are not reliable sources. Brandon (talk) 13:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Flag them as unreliable source if you feel that way. Depending on who you ask, you can get someone to say the same about almost any citation/reference in Wikipedia. Such a flag is fair and lets the reader draw their own conclusions. If you think I errantly drew a conclusion not supported by the citations or prior text, feel free to suggest edits to that. Jericho347 (talk) 03:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability is project policy, the guidelines around referencing user-generated content are clear, and the burden to provide reliable sources is on those that add content. Brandon (talk)

Hello, I’m Jeff. I work for CrowdStrike and posted a COI disclosure on my user page. Based on that I'll avoid making any direct edits and instead will stick to discussions on this Talk page. I have a small edit request that I'm hoping editors can help me with:

Currently, the July 2024 incident is organized as a subsection under “Severe outage incidents” and is packaged alongside a few minor topics that are not “severe outage incidents” and are not supported by WP:RS. As noted by @Brandon:, all of these minor topics are sourced to internet forum discussions and an article that repackaged the forum discussions.

I propose the following update, and I would appreciate if editors could evaluate it:

• Elevate “July 2024 incident” back to being its own dedicated section
• Remove the three “incident” additions not supported by WP:RS

Please let me know if you can help or have any questions. Thank you, JatCRWD (talk) 21:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I've edited the section to bring the 2024 CrowdStrike incident to the foreground instead of giving undue weight to the Linux bugs/incidents/outages. The 2024 incident received massive press coverage, the others not so much. I do not feel comfortable removing the Linux content as I've already removed it once unsuccessfully and I fear losing too much hacker cred being on the same side of an argument as the CrowdStrike PR team. :) Brandon (talk) 03:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Estimated cost for Fortune 500 companies

The cost of the problem for Fortune 500 companies (excluding Microsoft) has been estimated at $5.4 billion. Such a high cost should be included in the article.

Sources:

[1]https://www.parametrixinsurance.com/in-the-news/crowdstrike-to-cost-fortune-500-5-4-billion

[2]https://www.theregister.com/2024/07/26/crowdstrike_insurance_money/ 81.131.103.168 (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 July 2024

I'd like to suggest the "July 2024 incident" section on the $10 UberEats gift cards to be updated to state that it was offered to "teammates and partners" (not "customers"), to accurately reflect the source. 68.0.145.194 (talk) 01:38, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Bad writing

"The theory held that namely, that the Ukrainian government used CrowdStrike to hack into the Democratic National Committee's servers in 2016 and frame Russia for the crime to undermine Trump in the 2016 presidential election."

This sentence doesn't make much sense, either grammatically or semantically. Perhaps somebody with a better idea of the facts could rewrite it? 2A00:23EE:1930:1B64:44D5:FAD:771F:132 (talk) 13:54, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Description section

Hello, as mentioned above I work for CrowdStrike and have posted that COI on my userpage. I have a small edit request:

The last two sentences of the description currently discuss a specific product feature, which it seems best belongs in the "Incident: 2024" section rather than as the main description of the article / company. This update below to the last two sentences summarizes the article and what the company does.

Current last two sentences:

Until July 2024 it was "best known for deploying immediate updates upon detecting threats, distributing as many as 10-12 per day." Since then it has been offering phased or staggered update rollout.

Suggested last sentence:

The company was founded in 2011 and went public on the Nasdaq exchange in 2019. JatCRWD (talk) 14:58, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@Brandon:, since you weighed in earlier, are you able to consider the suggestion above? -JatCRWD (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2024 (UTC)