Agent vs. agentless patch management |
 |
EXPERT RESPONSE FROM: Jason Chan
|
|
|
|
| > |
QUESTION POSED ON: 07 September 2005
We are looking at a more robust patch management solution in the mold of BigFix Enterprise Suite or Shavlik HFNetChkPro. We had been relying on Automatic Updates for the 1000 or so desktops and laptops we support, but we had a few problems with Zotob and decided to look into a more complete solution (budget suddenly became available). We do have a few users who occasionally work from home and while most of the PCs are Windows XP we have about 10-15% Windows 2000 OSs. The big difference between those two products above is agent based vs. agentless, what are the pros and cons of each approach?
|
|
| > |
EXPERT RESPONSE
This is a common topic of debate in patch management circles. Some general pros of agent and agentless patch management include:
Pros of agentless:
Ease of deployment (no software to install on host computers)
Reduced licensing costs
Reduced management effort
Pros of agents:
More operational control
Agents typically enhance scanning and monitoring capabilities
Can often patch a wider range of applications
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search and Browse the Expert Answer Center
Search and browse more than 25,000 question and
answer pairs from more than 250 TechTarget industry experts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
