Skip to main content

The Internet is Unpatched – It’s Not Hard to See Why

It’s brutal. We have Internet Explorer vulnerabilities that need a chart to explain, a Mac OS X update that’s larger than a bootable Solaris image, a Java security update, two Firefox Updates, Adobe and Foxit! PDF readers that apparently are broken, as designed, and three flagship browsers that rolled over and died in one contest.

Responsible network administrators and home users have been placed into patch hell by software vendors that simply are not capable of writing software that can stand up to the Internet.

  • There is no operating system or platform that has built in patch management technology that is both comprehensive and easy for network administrators and home users to understand or use.
  • There is no reason to expect that even if software vendors were actually able to release good code, that the release would make it out to users desktops.
  • Some vendors (Microsoft) have robust and easy to use patch distribution systems, but those systems only distribute patches for their software. Each other vendor must re-invent the software distribution wheel, and each does it in a random and arbitrary way, with flags, popups, silent installs, noisy installs, click here to continue, arbitrary re-boots…

It’s not a Microsoft problem, it’s not an Adobe problem, it’s a software development problem, and as far as I can tell, all vendors have the problem.

So how did I get on this rant (other than the pathetic display of incompetence by the worlds major software vendors the last few months few decades)?

Google Analytics.

Presumably this blog is frequented by more-technical-than-average users. I can’t imagine non-technical users being interested in my most frequented posts on Structured System Management, MTTR, MTBF & Continuous Deployment. I would also assume that because the blog should only be interesting to techies:

  1. the distribution of browsers should be skewed towards Chrome and Firefox or other ‘nerdy’ browsers
  2. the operating systems should be weighted toward Linux and OS X
  3. the readers of this blog should be fully patched

Guess which two out of the three are correct?

Firefox & Chrome add up to more than IE:


The operating systems tend to be Linux and OS X heavy compared to the market as a whole:


And the readers of this blog tend to be fully patched:



[Hint – any Flash version other than r45 is out of date. Y’all are nerds, so y’all already knew that, right?].

If technical people either cannot or are not keeping up with patches, why would we expect ordinary users to keep up?

Broken, as designed.


  1. Silent updates for the vast majority of users is the only way, even if it's a slightly evil way of doing things. The more hassle an update involves the more likely a user is to ignore/skip the update.

    Just looking through my sets of Analytics stats, older Chrome versions die out pretty quickly, you occasionally an unpatched version - but in general the lifecycle of a release is pretty obvious.

    Any inconvenience which allows a user to ignore an update (even as minor as click here to continue) will result in old versions lingering on.

  2. If vendors would silently update existing software without 'adding features' or piggybacking toolbars and crapware, I'd agree.

    The randomness of upgrade popups is such that users are as likely to approve malware installs as they are to approve a valid update.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Cargo Cult System Administration

Cargo Cult: …imitate the superficial exterior of a process or system without having any understanding of the underlying substance --Wikipedia During and after WWII, some native south pacific islanders erroneously associated the presence of war related technology with the delivery of highly desirable cargo. When the war ended and the cargo stopped showing up, they built crude facsimiles of runways, control towers, and airplanes in the belief that the presence of war technology caused the delivery of desirable cargo. From our point of view, it looks pretty amusing to see people build fake airplanes, runways and control towers  and wait for cargo to fall from the sky.
The question is, how amusing are we?We have cargo cult science[1], cargo cult management[2], cargo cult programming[3], how about cargo cult system management?Here’s some common system administration failures that might be ‘cargo cult’:
Failing to understand the difference between necessary and sufficient. A daily backup …

Ad-Hoc Versus Structured System Management

Structured system management is a concept that covers the fundamentals of building, securing, deploying, monitoring, logging, alerting, and documenting networks, servers and applications. Structured system management implies that you have those fundamentals in place, you execute them consistently, and you know all cases where you are inconsistent. The converse of structured system management is what I call ad hoc system management, where every system has it own plan, undocumented and inconsistent, and you don't know how inconsistent they are, because you've never looked.

In previous posts (here and here) I implied that structured system management was an integral part of improving system availability. Having inherited several platforms that had, at best, ad hoc system management, and having moved the platforms to something resembling structured system management, I've concluded that implementing basic structure around system management will be the best and fastest path to…

The Cloud – Provider Failure Modes

In The Cloud - Outsourcing Moved up the Stack[1] I compared the outsourcing that we do routinely (wide area networks) with the outsourcing of the higher layers of the application stack (processor, memory, storage). Conceptually they are similar:In both cases you’ve entrusted your bits to someone else, you’ve shared physical and logical resources with others, you’ve disassociated physical devices (circuits or servers) from logical devices (virtual circuits, virtual severs), and in exchange for what is hopefully better, faster, cheaper service, you give up visibility, manageability and control to a provider. There are differences though. In the case of networking, your cloud provider is only entrusted with your bits for the time it takes for those bits to cross the providers network, and the loss of a few bits is not catastrophic. For providers of higher layer services, the bits are entrusted to the provider for the life of the bits, and the loss of a few bits is a major problem. These …