|
Posted by Gerry Hickman on September 29, 2006, 7:12 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
I don't think there's a perfect answer to this, but you need to pick a
strategy and stick to it.
In a big organization, you need an Audit mechanism to know if all your
machines are at level "X". You can't go round just putting on patches
that "look" interesting and avoid others you don't like, unless you've
got a rock-solid system to document it all.
The way we run it right now is to apply ALL patches, ALL updates and ALL
public hotfixes (except WGAa and the malicious software tool). We test
them first, and if we can't find any problems we blast them out to every
machine and laptop.
paulc2480 wrote:
> What is the best practice for installing patches that are not listed as
> "Critical" or "Security" related? Does Microsoft have an official stand on
> this?
>
> Some would say push them all to be safe and fix any potential issues. On
> the other side it has been said that by pushing patches for problems that
> don't specifically affect you it creates a greater chance that something else
> might be broken. Any references containing recommendations or best practices
> on this subject? Thanks!
--
Gerry Hickman (London UK)
| 
XML site map