Auto updating can be a problem. Take a look at the CrowdStrike fiasco a couple years back.
Comment on Cheap or free periodical externals scans
moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 4 days ago
Instead of trying to automatically scan your environment, it’s probably better to figure out how to automatically update applications first. CVE’s eventually get patched.
KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 days ago
exu@feditown.com 4 days ago
That’s why you have regular snapshots, backups and monitoring
moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 4 days ago
If your software updates between stable releases break, the root cause is the vendor, rather than auto updating. There exist many projects that manage to auto update without causing problems. For example, Debian doesn’t even do features or bugfixes, but only updates apps with security patches for maximum compatibility.
Crowdstrike auto updating also had issues on Linux, even before the big windows bsod incident.
neowin.net/…/crowdstrike-broke-debian-and-rocky-l…
It’s not the fault of the auto update process, but instead the lack of QA at crowdstrike. And it’s the responsibility of the system administrators to vet their software vendors and ensure the models in use don’t cause issues like this. Thousands of orgs were happily using Debian/Rocky/RHEL with autoupdates, because those distros have a model of minimal feature/bugfixes and only security patches, ensuring no fuss security auto updates for around a decade for each stable release that had already had it’s software extensively tested. Stories of those breaking are few and far between.
prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 4 days ago
Although I do it this way a lot of people don’t. Updates break things sometimes. Bug no no for production
sznowicki@lemmy.world 4 days ago
Having one didn’t mean the other is not useful.