Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Costs of Patching

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the we-all-have-t1s-now-anyway-right dept.

prestidigital writes "vnunet has a brief but interesting article in which Craig Fiebig, general manager of Microsoft's security business unit, is quoted as saying "In dollar terms, patching is the most expensive security measures and keeping your antivirus descriptions up to date is the least." That seems like an important statement coming from a company who's patches are possibly responsible for 45% of traffic on some networks."

6 of 303 comments (clear)

  1. Cost of not patching? by rhfrommn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The difficult question is whether the costs of patching outweigh the costs of NOT patching. There's a lot to be said for "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" sometimes.

    However, with security patches usually you have no choice. The only decision for some security patches is how long do you wait before deploying it. Don't wanna be the first ones to put a bad patch on now, do we?

    --
    My motto is: Never give up - unless it's harder than you want it to be.
  2. NEW MATH by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    responsible for 45% of traffic

    But spam is responsible for, what was it Taco, 60% of traffic on networks?

    I'm at 105% utilization already!

    BTW, it's just as costly, if not more, to have to rebuild your linux kernel, SSL, apache webserver, or samba installation when a bug is found there.

    Quit pretending that MS has some sort of monopoly on software bugs. "Bad code" is a patentless technique used ubiquitously.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:NEW MATH by aridhol · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Don't forget the 70% that is porn.

      Let's face it. There's no real way to know for sure what is on those wires unless you monitor them. And I don't think anybody here wants to open that can of worms.

      --
      I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
  3. Nothing new there by Timesprout · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The software industry has known for years that the later you find a bug the more expensive and messy it is to resolve

    --
    Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
    What truth?
    There is no dupe
  4. Not suprising by Neophytus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    People who say 'they should have patched' do not understand the stress that installing a patch however critical on a few hundred servers, then in many cases rebooting them, can put in a commercial environment.

  5. MS patches are creepy... by allanj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've applied my fair share of patches from MS, but lately I've become really nervous about doing so. I'm always thinking "what kind of DRM will they include in this one?". It's gotten to the point where I will NOT apply patches for anything but server products, and only reluctantly so. Call me paranoid if you wish, but I can't really shake that feeling. Hey MS, great way to promote security - making users reluctant to apply patches...

    --
    Black holes are where God divided by zero