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."

2 of 303 comments (clear)

  1. Well then... by Bendebecker · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Maybe M$ shoudl concentrate more on amking better software dso it doesn't need to be patched so much!

    --
    There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
    most of us won't be able to afford it.
    -- Lemmy
  2. Re:Cost of not patching? by freeweed · · Score: 2, Redundant

    Because this is Slashdot, where if you suggest migrating *anything* to Linux, you automatically get modded up. Even if it's an organization running on Commodore 64s, 'install Linux' is somehow insightful.

    Considering the ease of use and effectiveness of the latest Samba exploit, anything thinking Linux machines are somehow magically more secure and cheaper than Windows machines is kidding themselves. It's all about how you configure/maintain them.

    --
    Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.