4 ms·

And as you see here it is not easy to even patch Exchange nevermind migrating/upgrading to a newer version or migrating to Office 365. It can be done of course

And as you see here it is not easy to even patch Exchange nevermind migrating/upgrading to a newer version or migrating to Office 365. It can be done of course but maybe management did not sign off on it due to risks or downtime. Sometimes IT cannot make decisions like that especially if there is a licence cost involved that the company does not want to pay! https://web.archive.org/web/20220930183225/https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1575865934429900801.html https://web.archive.org/web/20220930183225/https://threadrea... They could very well have ran on-prem Exchange and standalone/boxed copies of Office 2013, paid for once long ago. Now come and say >"oh you have to pay again for newer versions or pay for per-user Office 365" >"why? what we have works fine, we dont need the new features" >"for security" >"thats your job" etc ect You have only worked with certain clients I hear.

technion 4y ago
I can absolutely confirm that blog describes a pretty typical experience for patching exchange.
albntomat0 4y ago
The parent comment was saying that they thought the IT systems for a law firm were managed by a lawyer in their spare time, which is different from this case you describe. Maybe the IT folks properly and accurately described the risk, and were stopped by non-IT management. Alternatively, maybe IT didn't push as hard, describe the risk properly, or want to deal with an annoying patching process. Microsoft also deserves blame for the difficult of patching, as your link describes. Either way, the real victims are the 114,979 folks who had their information stolen. If a bank gets robbed because they didn't do basic things like locking the doors or hiring a security guard, they don't get to raise their hands and say "BuT cRiMInAlS". This is literally the same as what IT does whenever they get hit by a highly publicized exploit that's had a patch for months.

technion 4y ago

I can absolutely confirm that blog describes a pretty typical experience for patching exchange.

albntomat0 4y ago

The parent comment was saying that they thought the IT systems for a law firm were managed by a lawyer in their spare time, which is different from this case you describe. Maybe the IT folks properly and accurately described the risk, and were stopped by non-IT management. Alternatively, maybe IT didn't push as hard, describe the risk properly, or want to deal with an annoying patching process. Microsoft also deserves blame for the difficult of patching, as your link describes. Either way, the real victims are the 114,979 folks who had their information stolen. If a bank gets robbed because they didn't do basic things like locking the doors or hiring a security guard, they don't get to raise their hands and say "BuT cRiMInAlS". This is literally the same as what IT does whenever they get hit by a highly publicized exploit that's had a patch for months.