TL;DR: A patch management process works best when IT and InfoSec share responsibility for risk prioritization, testing, deployment, exceptions, and reporting. IT protects stability and executes rollouts, while InfoSec helps prioritize vulnerabilities and validate risk. A documented workflow makes patching faster, safer, and more predictable.
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.
Stop the turf war
Check out our on-demand IT vs. InfoSec webinar and see how PDQ Connect can help both sides play on the same team.
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.
Who owns the patch management process?
IT and InfoSec should share ownership of the patch management process. IT owns testing and deployment execution, InfoSec validates vulnerability risk and remediation status, and both teams approve timelines, exceptions, and escalation criteria.
Manage Windows & macOS devices from anywhere
With PDQ Connect, get real-time visibility into remote and local devices, deploy software, remediate vulnerabilities, automate routine maintenance, and remotely troubleshoot endpoints from one easy-to-use platform.
How do IT and InfoSec build a shared patching process?
IT and InfoSec should use one documented patching process with shared triage, representative testing, phased deployment, rollback criteria, and common reporting. The technical workflow may differ by operating system, but ownership and risk decisions should not.
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.
How does patching change in a mixed Windows and macOS environment?
Use the same governance process across both operating systems, but adapt packaging, testing, and verification to each platform. Windows deployments may use MSI or EXE packages and PowerShell, while macOS deployments may use PKG or DMG files and Bash or Zsh scripts.
Connect and inventory devices: Make sure Windows and macOS endpoints report their operating system, installed software, version, and deployment status to your management platform.
Prepare OS-specific packages: Use the appropriate installer and script type for each platform. For macOS software distributed outside the App Store, confirm that vendor packages are properly signed and notarized when applicable.
Test representative systems: Include the Windows versions, macOS versions, hardware types, and application dependencies that exist in production. If your fleet includes both Intel and Apple silicon Macs, test both.
Deploy to a mixed pilot group: Select Windows and macOS devices that represent real departments, hardware configurations, and user workflows.
Roll out in phases: Apply the same risk-based SLA across the organization, but track each operating system separately. A macOS-specific failure should not automatically stop a successful Windows rollout.
Verify and prepare to roll back: Confirm the installed version, deployment result, failure reason, and user impact for each operating system. Document the rollback or remediation process before expanding the deployment.
For example, to deploy an application to a mixed pilot group, create a Windows package and a macOS package, target both to the same pilot ring, and review installation results by operating system. Promote each package to the next deployment ring only after its version and success rate have been verified.
What patching timelines should IT and InfoSec use?
Use risk-based patching SLAs that start when a vulnerability is identified or a vendor fix becomes available. Testing should occur within the SLA, rather than delaying when the SLA clock begins.
Example SLA targets:
Critical or actively exploited vulnerabilities: Deploy or mitigate within 72 hours.
High-risk vulnerabilities: Deploy within 7 days.
Medium- and low-risk vulnerabilities: Bundle into scheduled patch cycles.
Adjust these targets for asset exposure, exploitability, business impact, and documented exceptions.
How does shared reporting reduce patching conflict?
Shared reporting reduces conflict by giving IT and InfoSec the same device scope, compliance definitions, timestamps, and deployment results. Use one dashboard, and agree on what counts as patched, failed, exempt, and offline before comparing compliance percentages.
How should patching exceptions be handled?
Every patching exception should be documented, approved, time-limited, and reviewed. Record:
The affected asset and vulnerability
The requester and business reason
Any compensating controls
The risk owner and approver
The expiration and review dates
Transparency keeps exceptions from becoming permanent 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.
IT and InfoSec patching process FAQs
Do I need Jamf?
You don't necessarily need Jamf to manage Macs in a Windows shop. A cross-platform tool may be enough if your main requirements are patching, software deployment, inventory, scripting, reporting, and remote troubleshooting across Windows and macOS. Consider an Apple-focused MDM such as Jamf (or SimpleMDM) when deeper Apple enrollment, configuration profile, security policy, or device lifecycle controls are core requirements.
How do IT teams deploy apps across mixed endpoints?
Create separate Windows and macOS packages, assign them to a representative mixed pilot group, verify the installation by operating system, and then expand successful deployments through broader rollout rings. Keep targeting, scheduling, and reporting centralized even when the installers and scripts differ.
Should Windows and macOS follow the same patching timeline?
Generally, yes. Use the same risk-based SLAs for Windows and macOS, but allow for different testing, packaging, and deployment requirements. Track results separately by operating system so an issue affecting one platform does not unnecessarily delay a successful rollout on the other.
How do you verify patches across Windows and macOS devices?
Use a shared reporting dashboard to confirm the installed version, deployment status, failure reason, and compliance state for each device. Review results by operating system, remediate failed installations, and verify the updated version before marking the patch cycle complete.
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.
