"Edge cases" and "conditions" are some of my trigger phrases. Given enough time or users, they are inevitable and passing them off as rare to avoid dealing with them, especially when you're aware of their existence, drives me up the wall.
Unless it's an edge use case you're not supporting, don't sell me your cost avoidance on any production systems.
And edge case is just that though? Something that hadn't been thought of, and makes stuff break, then you can figure out a fix.
I don't know any dev that would agree with "passing them off as rare to avoid dealing with them" - rather, "it's a low priority, but it needs fixing" or "ok, this is an edge case, but holy crap its a bad one"
That's 'bottom of a locked filing cabinet in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying "Beware of the Leopard"'-level stuff compared to the clickbait headline, though.
No, it is designed to be suggestive -- to shift attention and perhaps even blame. And of course the BBC picked up on it for clickbait reasons. Brilliant (but perhaps evil) PR by Fastly.
Customer configuration is an irrelevant detail that should have been left out until a full RCA. What does it matter that it was valid? So an invalid configuration would have meant it was indeed the _customer's_ fault??
A more fair treatment would have been, "a customer pentested us and won".
It could just as easily have been tested extensively but no testing is 100% guaranteed, especially in a world wide service as complex as a CDN. People who think perfect code comes purely from testing are delusional.
It suggests it only as long as someone doesn't read the article.
The way I read it, they were trying to communicate the fact that a customer fiddling with their own configuration brought down large swathes of the internet for everybody else. That absolutely deserves to be in the headline.
That's not clickbait, it's editiorial discretion. A customer's actions did take down Fastly for other customers. What about that is misleading or untrue?
reply