Read Time: 4 minutes
Microsoft recently announced that certain Windows Server 2022 February updates caused unexpected issues, specifically preventing some virtual machines from rebooting properly after patch installation. This announcement stands out for two key characteristics: its practical usefulness and its remarkable rarity.
Vulnerability remediation teams certainly appreciate advance warning about potentially disruptive patches, and would welcome such communications more frequently. However, this raises a critical question: does notifying professionals about patches with disruption histories materially change their behavior or processes?
Since most remediation teams already assume patches will likely cause disruptions, knowing that a specific patch has a problematic history provides limited additional value for reducing organizational cyber risk. This resembles police warning communities that an armed robbery suspect is "dangerous and shouldn't be approached"—most people already assume as much.
We propose a fundamentally different approach.
Vulnerability remediation teams consistently cite two primary reasons for slow patching: insufficient resources and fear of operational disruption. While these appear distinct, they're actually closely interconnected manifestations of the same underlying issue.
Resources—specifically skilled personnel—are required for comprehensive patch deployment processes: testing in staging environments, validating functionality, and carefully deploying to production with team members available to reverse updates or manage disruption fallout. This elaborate process stems from a single motivation: constant fear of breaking critical systems.
If remediation teams felt confident—or substantially less concerned—about patches causing network or system downtime, they would require fewer resources for patch deployment and achieve significantly faster remediation cycles. Therefore, the two most cited patching barriers represent essentially one fundamental problem: fear of disruption.
Rather than identifying problematic patches, we can revolutionize remediation by providing teams with comprehensive data about patches with proven safe deployment histories. This information possesses genuine potential to transform behavior and address both factors that prevent aggressive patching strategies.
Consider the implications: if we could assure remediation professionals that specific patches won't cause disruptions, they could conceivably skip extensive testing protocols and eliminate the need for on-call personnel during deployment windows. Theoretically, such patches could be designated for automatic updates, redirecting scarce remediation resources toward genuinely problematic patches while dramatically reducing Mean Time to Remediate (MTTR) and quickly closing vulnerability windows that threat actors exploit.
Scaling this approach across hundreds or thousands of vulnerabilities could decrease organizational cyber risk exponentially.
The volume of data required to convince remediation teams to trust automatic patch deployment with minimal precautions will likely be substantial and vary significantly between organizations. Risk tolerance, regulatory requirements, and operational criticality all influence decision-making thresholds.
However, as we emphasize at IT Agent, this represents a human challenge rather than a technical limitation. Current vulnerability remediation environments see fewer than 2% of patches rolled back due to disruption issues. Yet extreme caution triggered by patching's problematic history—when that 2% figure was substantially higher fifteen years ago—continues informing contemporary remediation policies.
As in virtually every professional field, data represents the key to overcoming entrenched perceptions. Historical experiences, while valuable for learning, shouldn't dictate present-day strategies when underlying realities have fundamentally changed.
Modern patch quality has improved dramatically compared to early 2000s standards. Vendor testing processes, quality assurance protocols, and deployment methodologies have evolved substantially. Yet many organizations maintain policies designed for historical risk profiles that no longer reflect current realities.
IT Agent addresses this perception gap through comprehensive crowdsourced patch intelligence. Our platform aggregates anonymized deployment data from thousands of patch installations, providing remediation teams with unprecedented visibility into patch safety profiles.
When planning deployments, teams can access detailed histories showing how many times specific patches have been applied and their disruption rates. Patches with extensive safe deployment histories enable more aggressive scheduling, while those with problematic patterns warrant additional caution and testing.
This data-driven approach transforms vulnerability management from a fear-based reactive process into a confident, strategic security practice. By leveraging community intelligence, organizations can maintain rapid patching cycles while preserving operational stability.
The traditional approach of treating all patches as equally risky creates unnecessary delays and resource inefficiencies. Modern patch management requires sophisticated risk assessment based on actual deployment data rather than historical assumptions.
IT Agent's platform enables this philosophical shift by providing the evidence necessary to support aggressive patching strategies. Organizations can finally realize the benefits of rapid vulnerability remediation without compromising operational excellence—transforming cybersecurity from a reactive burden into a proactive competitive advantage.
Powerful, self-serve product and growth analytics to help you convert, engage.
Dive into the heart of innovation with our 'Coding Chronicles' blog section. Explore a rich tapestry of articles, tutorials, and insights that unravel.
