Few things spark arguments faster than patch management. IT wants stability. InfoSec wants speed. Users just want their laptops to stop rebooting mid-meeting. The result? A patch management process that feels more like a battlefield than a workflow.
But it doesn’t have to be that way. With the right structure, patching can be predictable, reliable, and — dare we say — boring. Here’s how to build a process that satisfies both IT and InfoSec without wrecking productivity.
Why does patching cause so much drama?
Patching looks simple on paper: Vulnerability identified, patch released, patch deployed. In reality, each step is a minefield.
IT’s perspective: Patches can break critical systems. Rolling them out without testing risks downtime and angry end users.
InfoSec’s perspective: Every day a vulnerability remains unpatched increases the attack surface. Waiting weeks to test packages feels reckless.
Business perspective: Security and uptime are both critical. Nobody wins if productivity stalls or an exploit sneaks through.
This tension is why so many patching conversations devolve into the blame game.
The foundation: Shared ownership
Step one in reducing patch drama is clarifying ownership. Does IT own patching, while InfoSec just requests? Does InfoSec dictate timelines? Ambiguity guarantees conflict.
Instead, define patch management as a shared responsibility. IT executes. InfoSec validates. Both agree on timelines and exceptions. No more turf wars.
How to build a shared patching process that works
Here’s a framework that balances speed with stability:
Triage vulnerabilities together: Use CVSS scores as a starting point, but factor in business impact. A “high” vulnerability that destabilizes payroll is riskier than a “critical” vulnerability on a kiosk PC.
Test in controlled environments: IT should own test environments, but InfoSec should have visibility into results. That way, both sides understand potential trade-offs.
Define deployment waves: Start with a pilot group, then expand to departments, then deploy across your org. InfoSec gets progress updates, IT gets safety nets.
Agree on rollback procedures: If a patch breaks something, know how to revert quickly. Document who decides, who executes, and how it’s communicated.
Automate wherever possible: Manual patching invites delays. Tools like PDQ Connect let you automate vulnerability patching and reporting so both teams trust the data.
Centralize your Windows device management
With PDQ Connect, gain real-time visibility, deploy software, remediate vulnerabilities, schedule reports, automate maintenance tasks, and access remote devices from one easy-to-use platform.
How to set realistic timelines
“Patch it yesterday” isn’t realistic. Neither is “we’ll get to it eventually.” Instead, define SLAs both sides can agree on:
Critical patches: Deployed within 72 hours of testing.
High patches: Within 7 days.
Medium/low patches: Bundled into scheduled cycles.
These aren’t universal rules — adjust for your environment. The point is consistency. When everyone knows the expectations, arguments fade.
How reporting reduces finger-pointing
Nothing fuels tension like conflicting reports. If InfoSec says 30% of endpoints are unpatched and IT swears it’s 10%, you’ll waste days arguing instead of fixing.
Solution: a single source of truth. Whether it’s PDQ Connect or another tool, align on one dashboard. Both sides see the same numbers and disputes shrink.
When to make exceptions the exception
Not every patch can be applied on schedule. Legacy apps, vendor restrictions, and business-critical systems sometimes force exceptions. The key is documenting them:
Who requested the exception
Why it was granted
When it will be revisited
Transparency keeps exceptions from becoming loopholes.
Culture shift: From “us vs. them” to “we”
Even the best process fails if the culture doesn’t shift. Patching shouldn’t be InfoSec barking orders or IT dragging its feet. It should be collaboration.
Some ideas:
Joint retrospectives: After a patch cycle, review what worked and what didn’t.
Shared wins: Celebrate milestones together — like closing out a zero day in record time.
Cross-team education: Teach InfoSec why testing matters. Show IT why speed matters.
When both sides understand each other, the process sticks.
Patching doesn’t have to be painful. With shared ownership, automation, realistic timelines, and clear reporting, IT and InfoSec can move from finger-pointing to fist bumps.
After all, neither side wants downtime or breaches. We all just want a process that’s fast, stable, and transparent — and that’s possible with the right approach.
