Oracle’s latest Critical Patch Update comes as many security teams continue to struggle with vulnerability fatigue and competing guidance on what to patch first.
Fortra’s Associate Director of Security Research and Development, Tyler Reguly had this to say:
It’s hard not to sound like a broken record these days when talking about security updates. We’re continually seeing large numbers of vulnerabilities and we’re all starting to feel a little burnt out. It’s really making it obvious that there are various camps within our industry that are at odds when it comes to how to address these issues. On one hand, you have the patch-everything crowd. Their polar opposite is the patch-minimally crowd that insists you should focus on only things that are exploited. Finally, you have the prioritize everything, but patch only what is critical. I’m sure there are people that sit at various points across that spectrum as well.
On top of that, you have the security vendors, AI vendors, standards bodies, and governments dictating prioritization methods, patching speeds and more. What is a person to do?
Step back and find your calm. I’ve said it before and I say it again, there is a light at the end of this tunnel and the record numbers of patches for record numbers of vulnerabilities will not last. I’m confident of this. Do everything you can to avoid burning out and just work on surviving this onslaught.
My biggest problem with Oracle has always been the complexity of their installs and their patches. They are not a sysadmin’s best friend. When it comes to applications this complex, tooling is your friend. Whether that is vendor-provided tools or in-house applications, ensure that you can identify your assets, determine their patch level, and easily prioritize what needs to be patched first. If your tooling isn’t helping you achieve this, find new tooling. If you’re chopping wood and the axe just isn’t splitting the log, you don’t keep bashing it into the log hoping it will work. You get a wedge and a sledgehammer, or you sharpen the axe. The same thing is true with your security tools, if they aren’t working for you, fix them or replace them.
I can’t help but wonder how many people truly understand where risk lies. I think that CISA BOD 26-04 did a great job of helping people to understand how to prioritize based on risk. I think that a 3-day turnaround is very tight when you need to also test your patches, but it helps lay out priorities that make a real difference – is it publicly exposed, is it on the Known Exploited Vulnerabilities list, can it be automated, and does it give complete control. When you can answer these questions, you can start to identify the risk that it plays. Are there other components you can include? Sure, but this is a great start if you don’t really know what risk looks like for your organization. Once you know what risk looks like, you can start to prioritize your patches more appropriately.
Besides my usual advice of patch all the things, there needs to be a bit of a rethink about the patch regime that exists right now. Until that changes, patching all the things is the best advice that anyone has to go with.
Cyberattack knocks International Meteor Organization offline for weeks
Posted in Commentary with tags Hacked on September 16, 2026 by itnerdThe International Meteor Organization (IMO), a Belgium-based nonprofit that coordinates meteor observations worldwide, says a cyberattack dealt a “critical blow” to its aging IT infrastructure, taking much of its website and online services offline. The organization expects several weeks of partial downtime while it moves to new infrastructure and services.
IMO has restored its fireball reporting system, which allows people around the world to submit observations of unusually bright meteors, but other parts of its website remain unavailable.
The organization has not disclosed when the attack occurred, how attackers gained access or whether any information was accessed, stolen or encrypted. The incident has forced IMO to rebuild portions of its infrastructure rather than simply restore its website.
IMO has also not said whether information belonging to its members, meteor observers or other contributors was exposed.
Bronwen Aker, Report Editor, Black Hills Information Security:
“An organization that tracks space debris burning up in the atmosphere for free doesn’t seem like a juicy target for malicious hackers, so an attack against the International Meteor Organization makes little obvious sense from a financial perspective. It doesn’t make much more sense if the goal was to harvest credentials for identity theft or other forms of fraud, either.
“Without more information, there is no way to know exactly what happened. And if IMO’s infrastructure was as old and fragile as the organization suggests, they may never know. Older systems are not known for comprehensive logging, and logging is one of the things incident responders depend on to reconstruct an attack: how someone got in, what they touched, what they changed, and whether they took anything with them.
“That matters because IMO has not said how the attackers gained access or whether information was accessed, stolen, or encrypted. The absence of an answer does not necessarily mean the organization is withholding one. It may simply mean the evidence needed to answer those questions was never recorded.
“The bigger question for me is: why pick on a bunch of science geeks?
“Organizations like IMO operate on limited budgets and a great deal of volunteer effort to collect scientific observations and make that information useful to everyone. Maybe the attackers were simply scanning the Internet for vulnerable systems and happened to find one. Maybe IMO was deliberately targeted. We do not know.
“But from the outside, it has the feel of a bully knocking over the nerd simply because he can. Whatever the motive, the result is weeks of recovery work for an organization whose primary mission is watching the sky and sharing what it learns.”
This is a situation where we all need to know what happened because lots of organizations are underfunded. Which means that they are prime targets for cyber criminals. Thus they need to serve as examples to make sure we are all protected.
Leave a comment »