Overcoming Open Source Patching Delays: Strategies for Faster Security Updates

Post Views: 10

The Widespread Adoption of Open Source Software Exacerbates Patching Challenges

Enterprise security teams have come to rely heavily on open source software across their infrastructure, development pipelines, and production applications. Despite its ubiquity, open source remains a significant challenge for security teams, particularly when it comes to patching. A recent report highlights the struggles organizations face in keeping their open source components up to date, with patch delays, version sprawl, and aging platforms posing major operational risks.

Open Source Adoption Driven by Development Practices

The report, which surveyed enterprise organizations, found that open source adoption is driven primarily by development practices rather than operating system strategy. As a result, development teams often adopt open source components, such as programming languages, frameworks, and tooling, without fully considering the security implications. These components can become deeply embedded in production systems, making it difficult for security teams to track and manage them.

Artem Karasev, senior product marketing manager at TuxCare, noted that the biggest challenge facing security teams is not identifying vulnerabilities, but rather deploying patches quickly without disrupting production. “Too many teams realize they are exposed long before an incident, but still get hit because patches do not make it into deployment in time,” he said.

Linux Remains a Widely Used Operating System

The report found that Linux remains a widely used operating system in enterprise environments, with Ubuntu and Debian being the most popular distributions. However, many organizations struggle to manage their Linux fleets, particularly as they grow in size and complexity. This can lead to a common scaling problem, where organizations start with manageable Linux deployments but eventually require more formal lifecycle planning and centralized patch governance.

Challenges of Migrating Away from End-of-Life Linux Distributions

The report also highlighted the challenges of migrating away from end-of-life Linux distributions, such as CentOS. While some organizations have opted to purchase extended lifecycle support, others have chosen to migrate to alternative distributions, such as AlmaLinux and Rocky Linux. Karasev noted that this kind of lifecycle drift can create compounding problems across security and operations.

Cybersecurity Incidents Involving Known Vulnerabilities

The survey found that nearly half of respondents had experienced a cybersecurity incident in the past year, with larger organizations reporting incidents at higher rates than smaller ones. The report also found that many incidents involve known vulnerabilities that have not been patched, with about six in 10 incident-affected organizations reporting that their most recent incident occurred when a patch existed but had not been applied.

Karasev emphasized that patching delays remain a major contributor to security exposure, often due to operational constraints such as change management requirements, downtime windows, and the need to validate patches against production dependencies. He noted that many organizations need to build patching programs that prioritize production uptime expectations, with staged rollouts and rollback options treated as standard operating practice.

Shifting Expectations of Auditors and Buyers

The report also highlighted the shifting expectations of auditors and buyers, who are increasingly demanding more direct technical validation of patching work. Karasev noted that this trend is driving organizations toward more system-based evidence of patching, with growing pressure for software procurement and supply chain controls. “The focus is shifting to the dependency layer, pushing controls into CI/CD and component governance, because that is where open source risk accumulates,” he said.