Talk:CrowdStrike/Archive 1

Nice advertisement for CloudStrike!
Excellent 2-pager. Should have pix of company headquarters & headshots of execs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.5.64.73 (talk) 15:38, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Products?
This article makes barely a mention of the products that, presumably, pay for all the stuff that is discussed. Is that a deliberate omission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.155.93.34 (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

CrowdStrike's fake quotes and fake information about claimed Russia hack
I suggest to either adjust or balance CrowdStrike's claims in this article. Because according to the Washington D.C. based Voice of America (VOA) which is the largest U.S. international broadcaster and also according to the not-for-profit and independent Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), CrowdStrike were recently exposed with their misattribution of quotes and fake information. In other words, CrowdStrike lied to you. CrowdStrike, the cyber-security firm that initially claimed Russia hacked the DNC and tilted the 2016 election in Donald Trump’s favor, is being accused of misattribution of quotes in a December report. CrowdStrike have since walked back key and central claims in said report, calling their credibility into serious question. (Note: it seems only VOA is reporting on this for some reason, VOA has had their own credibility issues) SwiftChancellor (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Related articles and sources (Although three sources are posted here, the second two just reference the VOA article. Yes, the same VOA that oddly attempted to support Spicer's inauguration crowd size assertions: https://twitter.com/sarahkendzior/status/822948250550411265) SwiftChancellor (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
 * http://www.voanews.com/a/cyber-firm-rewrites-part-disputed-russian-hacking-report/3781411.html
 * http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/03/23/cybersecurity-firm-that-attributed-dnc-hacks-to-russia-may-have-fabricated-russia-hacking-in-ukraine/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francewhoa (talk • contribs) 00:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
 * http://www.globalresearch.ca/fool-me-once-dnc-ally-crowdstrike-claimed-two-cases-of-russian-hacking-one-at-least-was-fake/5581368

Related video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKJ7SRJuz-A&feature=youtu.be

Francewhoa (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)


 * That article doesn't mention Wikileaks at all, so this is not the really the best place to discuss it. But in any case, my response is: the VOA news article is a good source for the article Fancy Bear, where it is already appropriately cited. The VOA article or something like it might also be appropriate for the CrowdStrike article, so long as we were extremely careful to follow the source and avoid undue emphasis. (We would, for instance, have to note CrowdStrike's defense, that its update to the report "does not in any way impact the core premise of the report..."). Citation in almost any other article (except maybe Russian military intervention in Ukraine (2014–present), in which the original report isn't even mentioned) would be a violation of a whole bunch of principles, including, variously, WP:SYNTH, WP:UNDUE, and WP:COATRACK. Neutralitytalk 00:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi all :) For those interested to join or continue this discussion, I suggest we resume in that other talk page. This would centralize discussion related to that news about CrowdStrike who walked back some of their key and central claims. Thanks to contributor Neutrality for that suggestion :)
 * Francewhoa (talk) 01:25, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is a good place to discuss it because whether Wikileaks was specifically mentioned at all or not, the fact is it's a central component of what CrowdStrike was investigating so to say it's not appropriate to the article is ridiculous. As for "does not in any way impact the core premise"...) that's the typical dissembling by entities caught making false claims and conclusions. It's not a "defense." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.239.232.139 (talk) 21:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Michael Alperovitch/ Papa Bear/ Fancy Bear

 * "Michael Alperovitch – Russian Spy with the Crypto-Keys - Essentially, Michael Alperovitch flies under the false-flag of being a cryptologist who works with PKI. A public key infrastructure (PKI) is a system for the creation, storage, and distribution of digital certificates which are used to verify that a particular public key belongs to a certain entity. The PKI creates digital certificates which map public keys to entities, securely stores these certificates in a central repository and revokes them if needed. Public key cryptography is a cryptographic technique that enables entities to securely communicate on an insecure public network (the Internet), and reliably verify the identity of an entity via digital signatures. Digital signatures use Certificate Authorities to digitally sign and publish the public key bound to a given user. This is done using the CIA’s own private key, so that trust in the user key relies on one’s trust in the validity of the CIA’s key. Michael Alperovitch is considered to be the number one expert in America on PKI and essentially controls the market."

COI edit requests
Hi! CrowdStrike is a client of mine, and I'd like to request some updates to this article.

The rest of the requests are in the "Russian hacking investigations" section...
 * First up, would love some feedback on what needs to be done to this article to get the template removed. Happy to propose some wording tweaks, but I'm genuinely not sure where the issue is and don't want to waste anyone's time with superfluous requests.
 * 1) Adding this to the end of the first paragraph as some additional context:
 * 2) Deleting the word "erroneously" from the second sentence of the second paragraph. This statement is unsourced, and as the rest of the section breaks down the nuances of how this assessment played out, I think "erroneous" is too definitive in its framing.
 * 3) Deleting  from the end of the second paragraph. The first source, Medium, is WP:SPS. The second source is useful for backing up the previous sentence, but does not corroborate this statement.
 * I kept the second source. As you said, it backs up the sentence CrowdStrike found a hacked variation of POPR-D30 being distributed on Ukrainian military forums that utilized an X-Agent implant. and the Budapest University of Technology and Economics is a reliable source for a statement like this.
 * 1) In the third paragraph, replacing  with , which is less redundant and, I believe, more neutral.
 * Rephrased this to The International Institute for Strategic Studies rejected CrowdStrike's assessment of hacking causing losses to Ukrainian artillery units, saying that their data on Ukrainian D30 howitzer losses was misused by CrowdStrike in their report. which I think best represents what the source says.
 * 1) Replacing the final, unsourced sentence –  – with   (Ref name already in use in article.)
 * ✅ with minor modifications. I trust AP's assessment.
 * 1) Replacing the final, unsourced sentence –  – with   (Ref name already in use in article.)
 * ✅ with minor modifications. I trust AP's assessment.

Due to my COI, I won't be editing the article directly. I appreciate any help or feedback! Thank you. Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * See my responses above. feminist (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Any thoughts on the template? Trying to be thoughtful and specific in how I go about rectifying whatever needs to be fixed to address it. Mary Gaulke (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

new COI edit requests
Hi again! As disclosed above, CrowdStrike is a client of mine. I'd like to request a few more updates to this article.

1. Firstly, I'm still hoping for some guidance about what this article needs in order to get the template removed. I want to work with the community on this, and honestly, I'm not certain right now where the issue is in the current article.

2. Updating the history section for a) improved chronology, b) additional context, c) neutral language, d) combining a duplicate ref, and e) adding a new "Funding" subsection into which I moved existing info, plus incorporating some of the major items from the "Industry recognition" section as prose. Additions are highlighted and deletions are struck through:





















CrowdStrike was co-founded by entrepreneur George Kurtz (CEO), Dmitri Alperovitch (CTO), and Gregg Marston (CFO, retired) in 2011. In 2012, Shawn Henry, a former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) executive who led both the FBI's criminal and cyber divisions, was hired to lead sister company CrowdStrike Services, Inc., which is focused on proactive and incident response services. In June 2013 the company launched its first product, CrowdStrike Falcon.

The company gained recognition for providing threat intelligence and attribution to nation state actors conducting economic espionage and IP theft. In May 2014, supported by CrowdStrike's reports, the United States Department of Justice charged five Chinese military hackers for economic cyber espionage against United States corporations. Similarly, the firm is known for uncovering the activities of Energetic Bear, an adversary group with a nexus to the Russian Federation that conducts intelligence operations against a variety of global victims with a primary focus on the energy sector.

Following the very public Sony Pictures hack, CrowdStrike produced attribution to the government of North Korea within 48 hours and demonstrated how the attack was carried out step-by-step. In 2014, CrowdStrike played a major role in identifying members of Putter Panda, the state-sponsored Chinese group also known as PLA Unit 61486, as the perpetrators of a number of cyberattacks on U.S. infrastructure and defense as well as on European satellite and aerospace industries.

In 2014 and 2015, CRN Magazine named the company to its Top Emerging Vendors list. In May 2015, the company released Researcher Jason Geffner's discovery of VENOM, a critical flaw in open source hypervisor called Quick Emulator (QEMU), which is used in a number of common virtualization products. This vulnerability could allow attackers to access sensitive personal information. In October 2015, CrowdStrike announced that it had identified Chinese hackers attacking technology and pharmaceutical companies immediately before and after President Barack Obama and Chinese President Xi Jinping publicly agreed not to use cyberspies as part of  economic espionage against each other. The alleged hacking would have been in violation of that agreement.

In 2016, the company was ranked #40 on the Deloitte Fast 500 North America list, and Inc. named CrowdStrike as one of America’s 500 fastest-growing companies.

CrowdStrike released research in 2017 showing that 66 percent of the attacks to which the company responded that year were fileless or malware-free. The company also compiled data on the average time needed to detect an attack and the percentage of attacks detected by organizations themselves. In 2017 and 2018, CrowdStrike was listed on LinkedIn’s Top Companies: Start Ups, on the Forbes Cloud 100,  and as one of the CNBC Disruptor 50.

In February 2018, CrowdStrike reported that in November and December 2017 it had observed a credential harvesting operation in the international sporting sector, with possible links to the cyber attack on the opening ceremonies of the Winter Olympics in Pyeongchang. That same month, Crowdstrike released research showing that 39% of all attacks observed by the company were malware-free intrusions. The company also named which industries attackers most frequently targeted.

In January 2019, CrowdStrike published research reporting that Ryuk ransomware, used by cyber actor Grim Spider to target businesses, had accumulated more than $3.7 million in cryptocurrency payments since it first appeared in August. That March, the company released a version of its Falcon product for mobile devices and launched the CrowdStrike Store, which opens the Falcon platform to third-party applications.

Also in 2019, CrowdStrike released its 2018 Global Threat Report, which ranked cybercriminals in order of fastest actors to operate within a network, with Russia coming in first. The company also revealed that it tracked 81 named state-sponsored actors in 2018, and at least 28 were conducting active operations throughout the year. The research showed that of the sophisticated attacks that the company attributed to nation-states, China was responsible for the plurality: more than 25 percent.

According to the company, its customers include 44 of the Fortune 100 and 37 of the 100 top global companies.

Funding
In July 2015, Google invested in the company's Series C funding round, which in total raised $100 million. Series D in May 2017 brought in $100 million, and Series E in June 2018 brought in $200 million. In total, as of May 2019, the company has raised more than $480 million in funding. In June 2018, the company said it was valued at more than $3 billion. Investors include Telstra, March Capital Partners, Rackspace, Accel Partners and Warburg Pincus.

3. "Russian hacking investigations" may make more sense as a subsection of "History".

4. Deleting the "Industry recognition" section, since the major items were incorporated into "History".

5. Adding a new "Corporate affairs" section:



6. Updating the products parameter of the infobox:

Happy to mock up what all the edits would look like in effect if it's helpful – I've received varying feedback on doing so in the past. Due to my COI, I won't be editing the article directly. Thank you for your help or feedback! Mary Gaulke (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Thank you for thoroughly stating your request (although it is a lot to take in).  First, in order to remove the advertisement tag, the article will need a thorough scrub of WP:PUFF, WP:PEACOCK, and WP:PROMO.  Please review the information in those links, as it will help explain better than I what it is we see in the article that seems promotional.  Then, please review your edit request with that guidance in mind.  Once your updated revision request is ready, please add this code ->  <- (paste as plain text) to your reply, and I'll get a notification that you're ready for me to look over the updated request.  Thank you!  Orville1974  (talk) 02:59, 20 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply! I know it's a lot; happy to receive any feedback about how to make it more digestible/easier to review and reformat accordingly. Also, to clarify, not all of this request is related to the tag, but since it's the item you mentioned, I'll dig in a little more:


 * I've reviewed WP:PUFF, WP:PEACOCK, and WP:PROMO in detail and taken an intensive look at the article, and I can't find any examples of any specific issues identified in those policies:
 * Positive or exaggerated adjectives that aren't tied to any kind of source. Closest I can see is:
 * "high-profile" to describe the attacks mentioned in the lead, which is objectively true – each of those attacks has its own detailed Wikipedia article backed up by extensive media coverage
 * "was instrumental" in "History" – our request specifically removes this wording
 * Absence of criticism or industry context
 * "Russian hacking investigations" goes into detail regarding criticisms, including citations from industry pubications
 * Claims of objective superiority
 * Excessive or comprehensive detail
 * In fact we're requesting this be addressed by revising the "Awards and recognition" listing and integrating only the most major items into the "History" narrative
 * No comprehensive listing of products or company announcements
 * No use of non-reliable sources except for very basic information
 * None of the "words to watch" listed at WP:PEACOCK are used, and per above, I believe the article also follows the spirit of this rule
 * And as someone who has been working on Wikipedia for five years, I have a lot of familiarity with WP:PROMO especially and do not see anything in this article that qualifies as advocacy or advertising


 * I hope that's helpful. Thank you again for your time! Mary Gaulke (talk) 19:33, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

NSS Controversy?
I'm not sure why this article doesn't at all bring up the legal action between CrowdStrike and NSS labs. It seems like pertinent information and I would edit it in myself but this article is so closely monitored by CrowdStrike that any edits I make would likely be immediately reverted as as conspiracy theories or baseless propaganda. I'd like to make a request for a section about the NSS Labs controversy and the conclusions of that, or lack-of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.78.118 (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I want to be 100% clear, as a representative of CrowdStrike: I never directly edit this article, and since the company has engaged me, to my knowledge no one at CrowdStrike has directly edited the article either. If I saw any direct COI interference occurring, I would take steps to revert it myself and address it with my client. Best wishes! Mary Gaulke (talk) 02:20, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

CrowdStrike and U.S. Impeachment Hearings
I have not followed this story or CrowdStrike in detail, but have noted how frequently Mr. Trump is mentioning CrowdStrike recently. Trump made the claim on Fox and Friends via telephone today, that "...the owner of CrowdStrike is Ukranian." One assumes he refers to one of multiple owners, who is a U.S. citizen born in Moscow and raised in the U.S.

I don't know if someone has the bandwidth and expertise to address some of this without politicizing it, but it could be helpful, if facts are better known by anyone. Conspiracy theories seem to appear here on the Talk page, so this is concerning, plays into messy narratives that make the truth hard to decipher.

I support the World Wide Web Foundation's international movement to apply principles of integrity to Internet use. https://contractfortheweb.org/

Change of Headquarters to Austin, TX
Hi, in December 2021 CrowdStrike moved its headquarters to Austin, Texas: https://www.crowdstrike.com/blog/crowdstrike-changes-principal-executive-office-to-austin-texas/

Can an editor:
 * Change the headquarters location to  in the first sentence of this article
 * Change the headquarters location to  in the infobox
 * Delete the categories at the bottom of the article "companies based in Sunnyvale, California" and "Technology Companies based in the San Francisco Bay Area" and add Category:Companies based in Austin, Texas

I am asking because I have a financial conflict of interest so even though this is a small and uncontroversial edit request, I prefer to refrain from editing directly. Thanks, -JeffreyArthurVA (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅.-- Vulp  ❯❯❯  here!  15:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Crowdstrike tries to hide its own software vulnerabilities via NDA
https://www.modzero.com/modlog/archives/2022/08/22/ridiculous_vulnerability_disclosure_process_with_crowdstrike_falcon_sensor/index.html 84.186.127.225 (talk) 14:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)