Re: [Full-disclosure] Getting Off the Patch

[Christian Sciberras <uuf6429@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'm getting a bit annoyed reading over and over arguments which I've
highlighted some time ago anyway (
http://www.mail-archive.com/full-disclosure@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg44454.html
).

The real question, what is the *direct* alternative to patching?

Don't say "sandboxing" because it doesn't always work.
And don't tell me about only installing the system critical issues only -
that's called "update by priority".
Also, please remember that we are talking against patching, not discussing
where patching works(/ is better) or not so I would expect any serious
arguments to completely exclude patching.

Regards,
Chris.





On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 9:05 PM, coderman <coderman@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 11:43 AM, phocean <0x90@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > ... how is this new ? It has been the best
> > practice of good system/security administrators for years.
> >
> > And it doesn't look like a "no patching" policy yet...
>
>
> sure, .. though you've made me sad considering how few organizations
> do "best practice, good system/security administration".
>
> not new, still difficult?   (~_~;)
>
>
>  that leaves consensus:
>    "no patching" elusive, yet to be observed in real-world. (e.g.
> yeti or bigfeets)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/