I found the article unbearable and just a convoluted way to say: this incident would have had a lot less impact if CrowdStrike had less customers or more competitors. A real page filler without any insight or solutions, just look at this paragraph, completely void of anything useful.
> This time, the digital cataclysm was caused by well-intentioned people who made a mistake. That meant the fix came relatively quickly; CrowdStrike knew what had gone wrong. But we may not be so lucky next time. If a malicious actor had attacked CrowdStrike or a similarly essential bit of digital infrastructure, the disaster could have been much worse.
Gee, the damage from an honest mistake (what does the author even base that on) is most likely easier to fix than the damage done by a malicious actor with bad intent. I feel so enlightened!
> This time, the digital cataclysm was caused by well-intentioned people who made a mistake. That meant the fix came relatively quickly; CrowdStrike knew what had gone wrong. But we may not be so lucky next time. If a malicious actor had attacked CrowdStrike or a similarly essential bit of digital infrastructure, the disaster could have been much worse.
Gee, the damage from an honest mistake (what does the author even base that on) is most likely easier to fix than the damage done by a malicious actor with bad intent. I feel so enlightened!