Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

To Patch or Not to Patch: Motivations, Challenges, and Implications for Cybersecurity

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2502.17703 v1 pith:PTV53LQY submitted 2025-02-24 cs.CR cs.AIcs.CYcs.HC

classification cs.CRcs.AIcs.CYcs.HC
keywords patchsecuritypatchingdisincentivesorganizationsteamschallengescybersecurity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

As technology has become more embedded into our society, the security of modern-day systems is paramount. One topic which is constantly under discussion is that of patching, or more specifically, the installation of updates that remediate security vulnerabilities in software or hardware systems. This continued deliberation is motivated by complexities involved with patching; in particular, the various incentives and disincentives for organizations and their cybersecurity teams when deciding whether to patch. In this paper, we take a fresh look at the question of patching and critically explore why organizations and IT/security teams choose to patch or decide against it (either explicitly or due to inaction). We tackle this question by aggregating and synthesizing prominent research and industry literature on the incentives and disincentives for patching, specifically considering the human aspects in the context of these motives. Through this research, this study identifies key motivators such as organizational needs, the IT/security team's relationship with vendors, and legal and regulatory requirements placed on the business and its staff. There are also numerous significant reasons discovered for why the decision is taken not to patch, including limited resources (e.g., person-power), challenges with manual patch management tasks, human error, bad patches, unreliable patch management tools, and the perception that related vulnerabilities would not be exploited. These disincentives, in combination with the motivators above, highlight the difficult balance that organizations and their security teams need to maintain on a daily basis. Finally, we conclude by discussing implications of these findings and important future considerations.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. VulnGym: Evaluating Vulnerability Management Strategies against Advanced Persistent Threats

    cs.CR 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A shared-network RL simulator shows importance-based patching cuts APT goal success far more than CVSS or centrality policies under limited defender budget.

Pith tools