Can “Automated vulnerability remediation” actually work at scale?Solved

Participant
Discussion
4 weeks ago Jan 05, 2026

Serious question for people managing large fleets. 

Everyone talks about automated vulnerability remediation like it’s the end of patch panic forever. Detect CVEs, auto-fix, move on. Sounds great on slides. 

But once you cross, say, 40k or 50k devices, does this actually hold up? Between OS patch delays, app dependencies, reboot timing, and users being users… I’m struggling to picture automation not causing chaos somewhere. 

Curious how others see this. Is automation really orchestration, or just faster alert fatigue? 

Replies (2)

Marked SolutionPending Review
Participant
4 weeks ago Jan 06, 2026
Marked SolutionPending Review

I was skeptical too, honestly. 

From what I’ve seen, the automation that works isn’t the “fix everything instantly” kind. It’s more about chaining things together intelligently. Vulnerability detection feeding directly into patch policies, update windows, and compliance actions without someone babysitting every step. 

When it’s done right, it doesn’t feel flashy. It just quietly removes a lot of manual decision making that used to eat up our week. Still, plenty of edge cases though, especially with mixed device types. 

Marked SolutionPending Review
Participant
4 weeks ago Jan 06, 2026
Marked SolutionPending Review

I think the word “automated” trips people up. 

In our environment, it’s less about auto-healing and more about response speed. Vulnerabilities stop being static reports and start influencing how devices are treated. Patch eligibility, access restrictions, update prioritization, that sort of thing. 

Does it solve everything? No. But at scale, even cutting response time from weeks to days is a big deal. Automation doesn’t replace judgment, it just makes sure judgment isn’t needed for every single device. 

Save