The old paradox of Microsoft security updates. The more frequent they are, the more they look like they’re staying on top of things. While at the same time showing the world there are a lot of frikkin’ security holes in Windows all the time.
Part of my job used to involve explaining patch supersedence to leadership so that they had a clear idea of why a totally different patch needs to be loaded to address a vulnerability reporting a different patch number in the scanner.
I used to have to explain it to them too, but could usually get them to understand by referencing the CVE and the breakdown from the MS security updates guide.
The old paradox of Microsoft security updates. The more frequent they are, the more they look like they’re staying on top of things. While at the same time showing the world there are a lot of frikkin’ security holes in Windows all the time.
Update kbmorbillionnumbersandletters:
Fixes issue in update kbevenmorenumbersandletters
Part of my job used to involve explaining patch supersedence to leadership so that they had a clear idea of why a totally different patch needs to be loaded to address a vulnerability reporting a different patch number in the scanner.
Tenable (or how our security folks have our scans configured) doesn’t seem to get that.
I used to have to explain it to them too, but could usually get them to understand by referencing the CVE and the breakdown from the MS security updates guide.
My favourite is:
Them: We want less red in the pie chart. Fix that remote vulnerability.
Me: We don’t even have that component enabled. It’s reporting on a DLL file version, not the vulnerability itself.
Them: Just lower our vulnerability score.
(Me wondering if I deploying dozens of fully-patched systems would have the same proportional effect)