• MagicShel@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    If this somehow works, good on Microsoft, but what the fuck are they doing on boot cycles 2-14? Can they be configured to do it in maybe 5? 3? Some computers have very long boot cycles.

    • vinniep@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      64
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s nothing magical about the 15th reboot - Crowdstrike runs an update check during the boot process, and depending on your setup and network speeds, it can often take multiple reboots for that update to get picked up and applied. If it fails to apply the update before the boot cycle hits the point that crashes, you just have to try again.

      One thing that can help, if anyone reads this and is having this problem, is to hard wire the machine to the network. Wifi is enabled later in the startup sequence which leaves little (or no) time for the update to get picked up an applied before the boot crashes. The wired network stack starts up much earlier in the cycle and will maximize the odds of the fix getting applied in time.

      • MagicShel@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        1 year ago

        That makes sense with how the article said “up to 15 times” which does sort of indicate it’s not a counter or strictly controllable process. Thank you!

    • azerial@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Just imagine if it’s a build farm with hundreds of machines. Jesus. That’s a hell I wouldn’t even wish on my worst enemy.

  • zephorah@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 year ago

    We did get 7 computers back by 1am last night just by constantly rebooting.

    That said, 40 out of 47 never came back. So clearly something more is needed.

  • gwindli@lemy.lol
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    there’s an easy fix. it could be done with a single boot attempt if M$ hadnt made it so needlessly difficult to enter safe mode

    • Norgur@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Many of the machines in question will have safe mode walled off for security reasons anyway.

      • gwindli@lemy.lol
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        fair enough. i can see that disabling safe mode would be a decent security measure. but by the time that kind of exploit is used, you’ve already got bad actors inside your network and there are much easier methods available to pivot to other devices and accounts.

          • Scary le Poo@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well then obviously you could opt to restrict safe mode on laptops only, or laptops and desktops allowing you to get your server infrastructure up quickly so at least the back end is running properly.

            Ffs.

            • jarfil@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Servers with KVM access, could have it compromised, letting bad actors enter safe mode.

                • jarfil@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Doesn’t need to be fully compromised, but it isn’t unusual for the access credentials to some portion, to be stored on an easier to compromise system. Disabling safe mode on a server, prevents stuff like a single compromised laptop, from becoming a full server compromise.