Six Years of Patch Tuesdays
Nice article summing up six years of Microsoft Patch Tuesdays:
The total number of flaws disclosed and patched by the software maker so far this year stands at around 160, more than the 155 or so that Microsoft reported for all of 2008. The number of flaws reported in Microsoft products over the last two years is more than double the number of flaws disclosed in 2004 and 2005, the first two full years of Patch Tuesdays.
The last time Microsoft did not release any patches on a Patch Tuesday was March 2007, more than 30 months ago. In the past six years, Microsoft had just four patch-free months -- two of which were in 2005. In contrast, the company has issued patches for 10 or more vulnerabilities on more than 20 occasions and patches for 20 or more flaws in a single month on about 10 occasions, including yesterday.
I wrote about the "patch treadmill," pointing out that there are simply too many patches and that it's impossible to keep up:
Security professionals are quick to blame system administrators who don't install every patch. "They should have updated their systems; it's their own fault when they get hacked." This is beginning to feel a lot like blaming the victim. "He should have known not to walk down that deserted street; it's his own fault he was mugged." "She should never have dressed that provocatively; it's her own fault she was attacked." Perhaps such precautions should have been taken, but the real blame lies elsewhere.
Those who manage computer networks are people too, and people don't always do the smartest thing. They know they're supposed to install all patches. But sometimes they can't take critical systems off-line. Sometimes they don't have the staffing available to patch every system on their network. Sometimes applying a patch breaks something else on their network. I think it's time the industry realized that expecting the patch process to improve network security just doesn't work.
Patching is essentially an impossible problem. A patch needs to be incredibly well-tested. It has to work, without tweaking, on every configuration of the software out there. And for security reasons, it needs to be pushed out to users within days -- hours, if possible. These two requirements are mutually contradictory: you can't have a piece of software that is both well-tested and quickly written.
Before October 2003, Microsoft's patching was a mess. Patches weren't well-tested. They broke systems so frequently that many sysadmins wouldn't install them without extensive testing. There were jokes that a Microsoft patch was indistinguishable from a DoS attack.
In 2003, Microsoft went to a once-a-month patching cycle, and I think it's been a resounding success. Microsoft's patches are much better tested. They're much less likely to break other things. And, as a result, many more people have turned on automatic update, meaning that many more people have their patches up to date. The downside is that the window of exposure -- the time period between a vulnerability's release and the availability of a patch -- is longer. Patch Tuesdays might be the best we can do, but the whole patching system is fundamentally broken. This is what I wrote last year:
The real lesson is that the patch treadmill doesn't work, and it hasn't for years. This cycle of finding security holes and rushing to patch them before the bad guys exploit those vulnerabilities is expensive, inefficient and incomplete. We need to design security into our systems right from the beginning. We need assurance. We need security engineers involved in system design. This process won't prevent every vulnerability, but it's much more secure -- and cheaper -- than the patch treadmill we're all on now.
Posted on October 19, 2009 at 3:38 PM • 60 Comments