Read time: 4 minutes

Airline passengers stranded for days. Emergency services disrupted for hours. Retail operations halted by failing point-of-sale systems. Global supply chains thrown into chaos. The fallout from CrowdStrike's content update continues to ripple across industries worldwide, its full impact still being measured. Yet despite the immediate devastation, the most concerning consequences of this incident may still lie ahead.

The cybersecurity community—and now the broader public—understands what happened: CrowdStrike pushed a content update that caused over 8 million Windows devices to crash. This type of update, as CrowdStrike's CEO noted, happens frequently and has been part of their standard operations for "many, many years." What's crucial to understand is that this update wasn't addressing a security vulnerability. Instead, CrowdStrike was updating its threat intelligence to protect against new endpoint threats—exactly what an EDR (Endpoint Detection and Response) solution is designed to do.

This process mirrors how antivirus vendors release new signature databases to defend against emerging threats. It's fundamentally different from traditional security patches that fix specific software vulnerabilities that attackers could exploit.

Why This Distinction Matters

Political strategists understand how public perception shapes reality. When a politician known for intelligence makes a verbal slip, it barely registers. But when someone perceived as less sharp makes the same mistake, it reinforces existing narratives and can damage their reputation over time.

The CrowdStrike incident threatens to create a similar dynamic in IT operations. The real danger lies in how this event will likely be conflated with security patch deployments, reinforcing the persistent—though largely outdated—belief that patches frequently cause system failures.

This narrative ignores two critical facts: first, the CrowdStrike update wasn't a security patch, and second, modern patches rarely cause operational disruptions. IT Agent and other managed service providers see this reality daily—contemporary patching processes are far more reliable than many IT professionals realize.

The Hidden Long-term Risk

The most troubling potential outcome of this incident is that it may provide justification for IT operators to delay critical security patches. Many IT professionals already approach patching with excessive caution, and the CrowdStrike outage could amplify these concerns, giving threat actors more time to exploit the vulnerabilities those patches are designed to eliminate.

The risk calculation around patching has fundamentally changed over the past two decades. Twenty years ago, cautious patching made sense: updates frequently caused disruptions, and the threat landscape was less sophisticated. Cybercriminals were fewer in number, their tools were less advanced, and monetizing successful attacks was far more difficult without cryptocurrency.

Today, that equation is completely inverted. Threat actors have multiplied exponentially, their tools have become increasingly sophisticated, and patches rarely cause operational issues. Modern IT management solutions, like those provided by IT Agent, have made patch deployment more reliable and predictable than ever before.

Media Mischaracterization Amplifies the Problem

Media outlets frequently describe the CrowdStrike incident as the result of a "security update," inadvertently reinforcing misconceptions about modern patching. This mischaracterization threatens to undo years of progress in security hygiene and risk management.

The Unintended Consequences

Some commentators have posed the hypothetical question: "What if this were an actual cyber attack?" While this incident had nothing to do with a cyber attack, the question inadvertently highlights a genuine concern. A knee-jerk reaction to delay security patches in response to this incident could create far more opportunities for threat actors to exploit unpatched vulnerabilities.

Over time, this delayed patching approach could generate more chaos and disruption than the CrowdStrike incident itself. The irony is stark: an event that had nothing to do with security patching could ultimately compromise security by discouraging the very practices that protect against real threats.

Moving Forward

Organizations must distinguish between the CrowdStrike content update and traditional security patching. While the former caused unprecedented disruption, the latter remains a cornerstone of effective cybersecurity. IT professionals and managed service providers like IT Agent understand this distinction and continue to advocate for timely, well-managed patch deployment.

The real tragedy of the CrowdStrike outage won't be measured in the immediate disruption it caused, but in the security compromises that may follow if organizations abandon sound patching practices based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what actually happened.

‍