CrowdStrike Fires Back at Delta, Claims Airline Ignored Help During Major Outage
CrowdStrike Holdings Inc. CRWD has issued a strong response to Delta Air Lines Inc.’s DAL decision to seek damages from the cybersecurity firm and Microsoft Corporation MSFT following a major system outage last month. CrowdStrike asserts that Delta ignored their offer of assistance during the crisis.
Key Takeaways:
- CrowdStrike claims Delta ignored their offer to help during the outage. The company’s CEO, George Kurtz, personally reached out to Delta’s CEO, Ed Bastian, but received no response.
- CrowdStrike accuses Delta of creating a "misleading narrative" by blaming them for the outage. They argue that Delta’s threats of legal action shift the responsibility away from their own decisions and actions during the incident.
- The system outage caused significant disruption to Delta’s operations, resulting in thousands of flight cancellations. This led to a federal investigation into the airline and a reported $500 million charge due to the cancellations.
- Delta’s CEO previously criticized Microsoft’s platform for its “fragility" and praised Apple Inc. for its stability following the outage.
The Controversy Unfolds: CrowdStrike’s Response
In a letter from CrowdStrike’s legal counsel, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, they state that the company’s CEO “personally reached out to Delta’s CEO to offer onsite assistance, but received no response." The letter further criticizes Delta’s pursuit of legal action, calling it a “misleading narrative” that places blame on CrowdStrike while ignoring the airline’s own role in the situation.
The letter argues that Delta, in seeking damages, will have to explain to the public and its shareholders why CrowdStrike took decisive, transparent, and constructive action, while Delta did not. This statement suggests that CrowdStrike is confident in its actions during the outage and believes that Delta is attempting to deflect responsibility.
The Impact of the Outage: Disruption and Costs
The system outage at Delta resulted in thousands of flight cancellations, causing widespread disruption for travelers and damaging the airline’s reputation. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) launched an investigation into the outage, highlighting the severity of the situation and the potential implications for the airline.
Delta reported a significant financial burden due to the cancellations, with a $500 million charge attributed to the disruption. This demonstrates the enormous cost of the outage and the pressure facing Delta to address the situation.
Delta’s Perspective: A Shift in Blame
Delta’s CEO, Ed Bastian, publicly expressed his dissatisfaction with Microsoft’s platform following the outage, stating that it is "probably the most fragile platform within that space." He contrasted it with Apple Inc.’s platform, which he believes is significantly more stable.
By publicly criticizing Microsoft, Delta appears to be placing the blame for the outage on the technology provider. However, CrowdStrike’s response suggests that Delta’s actions during the incident were also a contributing factor, and that their decision to seek damages from both Microsoft and CrowdStrike is an attempt to deflect responsibility from their own actions.
A Fight for Cybersecurity Responsibility: Who is to Blame?
The dispute between Delta and CrowdStrike raises crucial questions about responsibility in cybersecurity incidents.
- While it is clear that technology companies like Microsoft play a vital role in securing systems, ultimately, the responsibility for network security lies with the organization using the technology.
- In this case, Delta is a large company with extensive resources and expertise in managing its IT systems. It is unclear why the airline did not respond to CrowdStrike’s offer of assistance during the outage.
The legal battle between the two companies will likely involve a detailed examination of both CrowdStrike’s and Delta’s actions in the lead-up to and during the outage. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the cybersecurity industry, setting a precedent for liability in future incidents.
It is important to note that this is an ongoing story and the situation is constantly evolving. It remains to be seen how this legal battle unfolds and what impact it will have on the cybersecurity industry.
