Patching is often regarded as one of the standard cybersecurity hygiene measures. Every second article or video talks about applying patches and updates quickly and regularly to keep the systems protected. However, lately, cybersecurity experts have been preaching that patching should not be regarded as an automatic reaction. They are, in fact, saying that there are times when patching does more harm than good. Yes, you read that right. There are times when it is better not to patch at all. Let’s see what these situations are.

Assessing Your Risk Factors

When you read the notification of a new patch, your first instinct is to install it immediately to prevent threat actors from exploiting the vulnerability. However, your knee-jerk reaction should be to take a step back and assess your IT infrastructure’s risk threshold.

By doing so, you will discover multiple vulnerabilities and security loopholes across your infrastructure. This is because new vulnerabilities are published at a rapid rate, causing organizations fatigue and confusion about which vulnerability to prioritize so that they can limit their overall exposure and risk.

With so many vulnerabilities, it is normal to get stressed and anxious, thinking that each of them needs immediate attention. But think about it logically— if all the vulnerabilities are given an equal risk value, then wouldn’t patching become an overwhelming task? That’s exactly why it is recommended that you prioritize the risk involved with each vulnerability. This helps resolve the main question of what to resolve first and what shouldn’t be patched at all.

The Right Way to Prioritize Your Company’s Vulnerabilities

To prioritize security vulnerabilities, you must know your assets across the organization so that you can identify and monitor the attack surface. However, many organizations are inefficient at actively monitoring their attack surface. The common reasons for the inability to properly monitor the attack surface are the use of shadow IT, unsafe third-party vendors, rapid digital transformation, not discovering emerging threat vectors, etc.

An attack surface management program helps you see what technologies are connected to your network and which assets need protection. Key features of such a program include:

• Full visibility across all types of IT environments.
• Quick spot changing cybersecurity needs.
• Tracking unauthorized software in real time.
• Detecting and fixing hidden vulnerabilities.

The more you understand the systems connected to your network, the better you’ll know what assets you have and how important they are. By setting risk levels for each asset, it becomes easier to decide which vulnerabilities must be fixed right away and which ones can wait—or even be left alone.

Halting and Slowing the Patching Process

Every organization’s patching process is unique, depending on its infrastructure and risk tolerance. For one organization, patching the vulnerability immediately may be best, while for another, waiting for a week may be the best time to shrink risk for the most important assets.

Patch management drills sort their assets into tiers, starting with the most critical systems that can’t afford any downtime. Less important systems are placed in lower tiers and can wait longer for updates.

However, it’s important to recognize and consider the following situations in which you need to slow down or call off the patching process-

• When a critical project is running and can’t be interuppted.
• If the patch is buggy or is causing issues with other software.
• If the vulnerable software is used in only a few places and can be isolated.
• In cases where other security measures can reduce the risk.
• When the risky part of the software isn’t actually being used.
• If patching isn’t worth the cost or effort- like if the software is outdated and needs a full rewrite anyway.

Rethinking Cyber Insurance in a High-Risk World

With the rising number of vulnerabilities and the constant threat of cyber incidents, many organizations are reevaluating how to make the most of their cyber insurance. Securing a policy now often involves strict audits and meeting specific eligibility criteria.

One concern is whether a selective patching approach—fixing only the most necessary vulnerabilities—could impact insurance coverage. However, the focus of insurers today is shifting. Rather than digging into every detail of internal data, they are increasingly looking at the organization’s overall cybersecurity posture.

If a company can demonstrate strong security hygiene, effective risk management, and clear documentation of their patching decisions, it may still qualify for coverage—and potentially even benefit from lower premiums. The key is showing that the strategy is intentional, well-managed, and backed by other protective controls.

I hope you liked the blog. If you are looking for someone to write such comprehensive yet easy-to-digest cybersecurity content for your website or email campaigns, please reach out to me at daksh@turtlewords.com. I would love to collaborate with you on long-term freelance contracts.