Microsoft released this week information about an issue in their OS that has made hundreds of applications that run on Windows vulnerable to attack.
As you know from reading this blog, I work for Fiberlink, a company that operates a “Mobility-as-a-Service” platform called MaaS360. The marketing tag line for this platform is “See. Know. Go.”
According to Wikipedia: A bridge is a structure built to span a valley, road, body of water, or other physical obstacle, for the purpose of providing passage over the obstacle.
There has been much security industry angst lately over some of the serious vulnerabilities introduced to the threat landscape by our friends at Apple, Adobe and Google. In particular, Adobe Flash and Acrobat have caused great concern and have focused the spotlight on applications as being a source of vulnerabilities. This is in opposition to the old school thinking that the operating system is the culprit and that all things bad come from Microsoft.
In the last two posts we looked at statistics about patch management processes and four patch management capabilities that are missing from most patch management systems. In this post I want to look at how MaaS360 provides four capabilities that overcome these shortcomings.
In our previous post we presented some statistics showing that most organizations are not happy with their current patch management processes and tools. Today I am going to highlight four patch management capabilities that are missing from most patch management systems, that I think are responsible for some of this dissatisfaction.
Everyone agrees that patch management is core process for information technology groups. But they also agree that most organizations don’t do it very well.