I work at a medium size company with hundreds of Linux servers and none of them get updated. Because it's more important that they keep running as they are than to have the latest updates. I bet this is very common for most companies.
There is nothing more important than security patches on a system.
I used to work at an FMI, which’s motto was “keep things stable”. Even the ciso department bought that crap.
Until we hired a white hat hacker. The only thing given was the name of the company. He managed to get into the building, access an employee’s workstation and install a root kit on one of the most important financial message tracking systems (you know, the one that instructs other systems to transfer money), using a security bug, which would have been patched if they kept a regular (security) update cycle. After shit hit the fan, many people were fired and an update cycle was introduced.
No system is important enough to not patch. And if you believe it is, you’re wrong.
Yeah, but that just takes way too much work. You think I really care about the company's/bank's money if I'm not getting paid enough for that job? Security patches can also introduce new problems, like x changes, so y doesn't work, so the main app doesn't work... and what, then I have to manually edit code, introduce the thing that x relied on so that y can work again?
I'm sorry, but this is not your average IT department's job... or if it is, I expect a damn good compensation for it.
I've updated and rolled back snapshots because of shit like this... nah, not gonna try and figure out what the problem was... at least not for the salary I'm currently getting paid. If it burns, it burns, so be it.
If it's important that it keeps running then it should just be redundant and taking one node down for an update shouldn't be an issue. I know this is wishful thinking for a lot of services but I refuse to be on call for something if the client can't be bothered to make it redundant.
Jup same here. We have a colleague that constantly reminds everyone that we're not properly patched (even running eol versions) but there's always something to be done that's a higher priority.
Exactly. Shit needs to just work, period. Why? Because otherwise, I'm the one getting 2AM calls... and I would be OK with that if I'm properly compensated for it... which I'm not.
Typically monthly or quarterly patching depending on severity and DMZ exposures. When log4j or shellshock hit it was patch once the patch was released and tested
If it's a personal server that can manage being down for 15min or so. You could just setup auto updates with email if anything goes wrong and reboot off hours. Containers also make it less risky although it does fail to update every once in a great while.
What they are referring to is people just don't update their server because during that time they wouldn't be able to make a profit. This goes more to middle siszed businesses but happens rather often
I find this to be least acurate with debian.. on other distros a patch may or may not install a new version of that package. that can bring changes to the behavior.
On debian stable the security issues are backported. So you can patch and be sure that there is no changes to the behavior of the system. It is basically the reason all vm's i manage are debian stable.
It is also true they never crash. But that is expected of linux. It is the extreme reliabillity that is the debian killer feature for me.
That was 1st about the forced restarts (Linux always only told you that it is necessary, but let you decide when to do it) and 2nd about the commomness of it happening on Windows (restarts are necessary more often on Windows).