Which of the following is a reason to use manual patch installation instead of automated patch management?

Question

Options

• AThe cost required to install patches will be reduced.
• BThe time during which systems will remain vulnerable to an exploit will be decreased.
• CThe likelihood of system or application incompatibilities will be decreased.
• DThe ability to cover large geographic areas is increased.

• A
  2% (1)
• B
  2% (1)
• C
  91% (42)
• D
  4% (2)

Explanation

Manual vs. Automated Patch Management

Manual patch installation is preferred when there is a higher risk of compatibility issues, because IT administrators can carefully test each patch in a controlled environment before deploying it to production systems, reducing the chance that a patch will break an existing application or cause system instability (making C correct).

Why the distractors are wrong:

• A (cost reduction) – Manual patching is actually more expensive in terms of labor and administrative time than automated solutions
• B (decreased vulnerability window) – Automated patching reduces the time systems remain vulnerable by deploying patches quickly and at scale; manual patching is slower
• D (geographic coverage) – Automated patch management excels at covering large, geographically dispersed environments; manual patching is impractical at scale

Memory Tip: Think of manual patching as the "careful surgeon" approach - it's slower and more resource-intensive, but you have precise control over what gets installed and when, making it ideal when compatibility is a concern. When you see "manual," associate it with control and compatibility testing, not speed or cost savings.

No community discussion yet for this question.