RE: [Full-Disclosure] Automating patch deployment

[David Vincent <david.vincent@mightyoaks.com>]

> > The good thing about SUS is that you can set it up to not 
> > push out the packages until you approve them.  The SUS box 
> > downloads all the critical updates and then they sit in queue 
> > until you tell them it's ok to push them out.  I think that's 
> > the best way to handle the situation.  Sure it creates a 
> > little admin work, but I think the advantage is clear.  
> 
> The bad thing about SUS is that it uses Windows Update 
> technology which
> means it can be incorrect when determining if a box needs a 
> patch.  This
> means you can *look* like you're patched when you're not.
> 
> To me, that is unacceptable behavior.

c'mon folks.

if you rely on only one tool to make sure you're patched you deserve what
you get.  security is like an onion - layers upon layers!

-d

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html