Am 06.05.2015 um 13:04 schrieb lhecking at users.sourceforge.net: > >> You have several hundred more Critical or Important security updates >> outstanding. If that box touches the Internet in any way, it is likely >> compromised. Just in the last 6 months there are 21 Important or >> Critical updates. > > That is an important qualifier: *If* that box touches the Internet in any way. > Although one might add that attacks on the LAN can be nastier since there > usually is local access. +1 > While I'm all for keeping machines current, there are production > environments where upgrading is a huge pain or outright impossible. updating vs upgrading? and such "impossible" cases are rare compared to the majority of EL OS installations. Saying that because the implicitness should be systems in a current state and not contrariwise. > Where any upgrades need to undergo a rigorous QA process. the solution: automation > Where an outdated environment including equally outdated production > tools needs to be maintained, on the chance e.g. that a customer > return requires reworking an old part. I would consider it part of > list etiquette to not second-guess those who for one reason or another > make a conscious decision to stick to a particular environent. they are also unconscious decisions based on missing information :-) > I will no doubt be told that CentOS 5.4 = CentOS 5.11 = CentOS 5, ie. the > same OS, but this is not strictly true. For example, it would appear that > autofs breakage and performance loss is at a minimum in 5.4. > > There :) regressions exist also in cases where some one stick on an old version. I remember that nscd was consuming the whole memory - fixed in later minor OS versions ... :-) -- LF