"We see people looking for a tool that will solve all their problems, but what you need is a process; it's not just about the tool," says Felicia Nicastro, senior network systems consultant for International Network Services, a consulting firm that . . . . "We see people looking for a tool that will solve all their problems, but what you need is a process; it's not just about the tool," says Felicia Nicastro, senior network systems consultant for International Network Services, a consulting firm that kicked off a patch management service in September. Nicastro says the biggest mistake companies make is leaving out the processes, such as diligent monitoring for new patches coupled with detailed evaluation, testing, deployment and validation that a team or individual manages. "This typically isn't a task for one person. It has to involve the security group, the operations group and the developers," she says. "So what also makes patching tough is a lack of resources." . Effective patching relies on a systematic methodology; discover key tactics for proficient update administration.. Patch Management, Security Processes, System Updates, Network Security, Patch Evaluation. . LinuxSecurity.com Team
ROI (return on investment) is a key concept in IT spending today. The board is much more likely to spend money on IT, if ROI can be demonstrated in a reasonable period of time. It's a very sensible, sound business idea. Yet, many companies are actually practicing what could be called negative ROI - they choose IT products which cost them more money the longer they have them. In the current business environment, this could be described as corporate stupidity.. . .. ROI (return on investment) is a key concept in IT spending today. The board is much more likely to spend money on IT, if ROI can be demonstrated in a reasonable period of time. It's a very sensible, sound business idea. Yet, many companies are actually practicing what could be called negative ROI - they choose IT products which cost them more money the longer they have them. In the current business environment, this could be described as corporate stupidity. I'm talking about the vexed question of security patches. Using software which requires frequent patching because of security problems, means you're pouring money down the drain. It creates a situation in business akin to anarchy. What's more, it's a situation which is totally unnecessary because there are solutions to the problem. When a security patch alert is issued you have two options. You can stop whatever it is that you are doing, no matter how important or crucial, and you can spend the day (or next several days) applying patches to servers. Or you can decide that what you had intended to do before you knew about the patch, is vital and cannot be postponed. You then hope nothing will happen. Other factors come into play as well. Installing patches is boringly repetitive and an uninspiring chore, which usually requires expensive, skilled technical staff (probably in short supply) to carry it out. Servers often have to be brought down, so the natural tendency is to postpone patching. The thinking may be to wait until the next patch is required and install both of them together. Whenyou postpone patching, as many people do, you are accepting insecurity as a way of life. . Cost-effectiveness is crucial in tech; selecting the right software updates can help avoid avoidable company costs.. Security Management, Cost-Effective IT Solutions, IT Spending. . Anthony Pell
Get the latest Linux and open source security news straight to your inbox.