Around the same time, Cloudflare’s chief technology officer Dane Knecht explained that a latent bug was responsible in an apologetic X post.
“In short, a latent bug in a service underpinning our bot mitigation capability started to crash after a routine configuration change we made. That cascaded into a broad degradation to our network and other services. This was not an attack,” Knecht wrote, referring to a bug that went undetected in testing and has not caused a failure.
Fail open vs fail closed. Bot detection is a security feature. If the security feature fails, do you disable it and allow unchecked access to the client data? Or do you value Integrity over Availability
Imagine the opposite: they disable the feature and during that timeframe some customers get hacked. The hacks could have been prevented by the Bot detection (that the customer is paying for).
Yes, bot detection is not the most critical security feature and probably not the reason someone gets hacked but having “fail closed” as the default for all security features is absolutely a valid policy. Changing this policy should not be the lesson from this disasters.
You don’t get hacking protection from bots, you get protection from DDoS attacks. Yeah some customers would have gone down, instead everyone went down… I said that instead of crashing the system they should have something that takes an intentional decision and informs properly about what’s happening. That decision might have been to clo
You can keep the policy and inform everyone much better about what’s happening. Half a day is a wild amount of downtime if it were properly managed.
So you agree that if this were controlled instead of open crahsing everything them being able to make an informed decision and opening or closing things, with the suggestion of opening in the case of not detection is the correct approach. What’s the point of your complaint if you do agree? C’mon.