Slashdot Mirror
The Costs of Patching
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."
Rather than throwing away an otherwise perfectly good pair of pants, patches have allowed me to fix them and extend their life. In some cases, patches can even be fashionable. Sewing is a great skill that all geeks should learn.
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.
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!!!!
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
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.
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
RedHat's up2date works pretty well so long as you stick to their RPM releases of the software you want to keep updated.
It works well for me, and all I need to stay on top of are things I build be hand (typically Webserver and its ilk plus kernel), but all my libraries stay nice and fresh.
SPAM
Yeah and? Today is Thursday, May 1 10003.
Trolling is a art,
apt-get upgrade
That's what I do, and I'm not sure what all the fuss is about. Things get fixed, usually before I ever knew they were broken, deamons get restarted, nothing gets interrupted, life goes on ... If I took the trouble to make it a cron job, I'd never even know.
Is Mr Fiebig telling us that things don't go so smoothly if you use MS products? Or that MS can't keep up with a bunch of amatures? Do MS patches break non-MS apps? Could all this be why so many worms and viruses manage to spread across unpatched MS products? Could it be that MS patches are as bad as the bugs they fix? SAY IT AIN'T SO, CRAIG!
See what I've been reading.