Ask five different sysadmins who owns patch management, and you’ll probably get six different answers. Some say it’s IT’s job because they touch the endpoints. Others insist it’s InfoSec’s job because it’s about reducing risk. The truth? If you treat patch management like a game of hot potato, everyone loses.
Let’s break down why ownership debates keep happening, what’s really at stake, and how to define a patching plan that works.
Why the ownership fight exists
Patching sits at the intersection of uptime and risk. That makes it inherently messy.
IT’s view: Patching is operational. IT owns the devices, deploys the updates, and deals with the fallout when something breaks.
InfoSec’s view: Patching is security. Vulnerabilities are risks, and leaving them unaddressed creates exposure.
Neither side is wrong — but when roles aren’t clearly defined, patching turns into a blame game.
The cost of unclear ownership
When nobody knows who owns patching, problems multiply:
Delays: Each team waits for the other to move first, leaving systems exposed.
Finger-pointing: Outages become “their fault.” Breaches become “your fault.”
Duplicate work: IT and InfoSec both run scans, but the results don’t match.
Shadow processes: Teams build their own workarounds, creating more silos.
Meanwhile, attackers don’t care whose “job” patching is. They only care about whether your systems are vulnerable.
Who should own patch management?
Here’s the short answer: IT should own execution, InfoSec should own validation.
IT executes: They deploy the patches, monitor impact, and maintain uptime.
InfoSec validates: They identify vulnerabilities, set priorities, and verify closure.
Think of it as a relay race, not a tug-of-war. IT carries the baton through deployment. InfoSec ensures the handoff is clean and the finish line is crossed.
Best practices for shared patch management
If you want patching that doesn’t spark endless debates, try these practices:
Define roles clearly: Write down who’s responsible for scanning, testing, deploying, and verifying. Ambiguity breeds conflict.
Agree on SLAs: Critical vulnerabilities patched within 72 hours of testing. High within 7 days. Medium/low within cycles. Adjust as needed, but document it.
Centralize reporting: One dashboard for both teams. If IT says you're 95% patched and InfoSec says 80%, trust evaporates.
Automate where possible: Tools like PDQ Connect cut down manual work and give both sides visibility.
Escalate exceptions: When a patch can’t be applied, log it with clear ownership. Decide together when and how to revisit.
Review and iterate: Run retrospectives after patch cycles. What worked? What failed? What needs adjustment?
Keep endpoints patched & secure
Deploy custom or prebuilt software packages, automate maintenance tasks, and secure your Windows devices — no matter where they are.
Why leadership matters
Even the best processes fail if leadership doesn’t reinforce them. Leaders need to:
Back joint goals over siloed wins.
Fund tools that both teams can use.
Recognize patching success as a shared achievement.
Without leadership support, IT and InfoSec risk sliding back into old patterns.
The future of patch ownership
With hybrid work, SaaS sprawl, and constant zero days, patch management isn’t getting simpler. Ownership will matter even more. The organizations that thrive will be the ones that stop debating “whose job is this?” and start asking “how do we do this together?” The truth is, patch management doesn’t belong to IT or InfoSec. It belongs to the business. And the business only wins when both teams play their parts.
