That sounds like an argument towards Microsoft not allowing third party drivers like this, or at least strongly discouraging them and making it clear that it breaks the warranty. Didn't Apple do this with deprecating kexts? (maybe that's not applicable, I don't do a lot of macOS dev)
Auditing every data file update seems just as error/system failure prone as Crowdstrike's process was. I don't see a clear reason why Microsoft would have any better incentive than Crowdstrike here.
I do think that maybe the commercial OS vendor has _some_ support responsibilities to at least warn and discourage customers from using the product in dangerous ways? I mean, it's not like we're talking about a couple people installing bad kernel drivers here, we're talking about a worldwide incident. WHQL seems like an admission that Microsoft knows they need to keep dangerous drivers out of the ecosystem.
Let's say MS does not allow third party drivers at all. Then they would have a monopoly over software drivers and system software like security systems. I doubt regulators would want that.
Auditing every data file update seems just as error/system failure prone as Crowdstrike's process was. I don't see a clear reason why Microsoft would have any better incentive than Crowdstrike here.
I do think that maybe the commercial OS vendor has _some_ support responsibilities to at least warn and discourage customers from using the product in dangerous ways? I mean, it's not like we're talking about a couple people installing bad kernel drivers here, we're talking about a worldwide incident. WHQL seems like an admission that Microsoft knows they need to keep dangerous drivers out of the ecosystem.