OT & IoTOT Patching
Industrial systems cannot be patched on a Tuesday. We map vulnerabilities to your actual assets, work with vendors to validate patches, schedule them into maintenance windows and put compensating controls around everything else.
01Overview
OT patch management is the controlled process of identifying vulnerabilities in industrial systems, deciding whether and when to patch each one, testing and applying updates in planned maintenance windows, and using compensating controls where a patch cannot be applied.
Updates may need vendor approval, can change process behaviour, and often require downtime that the plant cannot afford.
Legacy systems may have no patch. We use isolation, virtual patching, monitoring and allow-listing.
By exploitability, exposure, asset criticality and the process impact of both the flaw and the patch.
Operations and security together, with decisions recorded.
02What we do
Each step is documented for audit.
You cannot patch what you cannot see.
What you receive
An inventory tied to vulnerabilities.
Match known vulnerabilities to your actual versions and exposure.
What you receive
A short, real list of risks.
Patch, mitigate or accept, with an owner and a date.
What you receive
Decisions you can defend.
Vendor validation and testing on a staging or simulator environment.
What you receive
Patches that do not surprise the plant.
Patching inside planned shutdowns and maintenance windows.
What you receive
Fewer emergency changes.
Protect what cannot be patched.
What you receive
Risk reduced without touching the device.
03How it works
Repeated each maintenance cycle.
Keep the asset and version list current.
Match advisories to assets.
Patch, mitigate or accept.
Validate with the vendor and in a lab.
Apply in the planned window.
Confirm and record.
04Reference
A simple model to start a discussion with operations.
| Situation | Typical decision | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Exploited vulnerability, exposed asset, patch available | Patch in next window, mitigate now | High likelihood and impact |
| Vulnerability on an isolated asset with no path from outside | Mitigate, patch at next shutdown | Low exposure |
| End-of-life system, no patch | Isolate and monitor, plan replacement | Patching not possible |
| Patch not validated by the vendor | Wait for validation, add compensating controls | Risk of process disruption |
| Low severity, no exposure | Accept and record | Cost exceeds benefit |
05Technology
We work with the vendors you run.
Logos are trademarks of their respective owners and are shown to indicate platforms we work with.
06Saudi Arabia and the GCC
Auditors expect a documented process, not perfection.
Vulnerability management and secure configuration are control areas, and OT environments are expected to manage them in a way that respects safety.
Risk acceptance and compensating controls need evidence, owners and review dates.
Maintenance windows in the Kingdom are planned around production and seasonal demand. We plan with them.
07Why GoAgile
Because patches that break production are worse than the vulnerability.
Talk to a security specialistDecisions made with plant engineers.
Vendor validation and lab testing.
Segmentation and virtual patching.
Every decision recorded.
Credentials
08Clients
Organisations in regulated sectors choose GoAgile because security is delivered by the team that also builds and runs their infrastructure.
Tier-1 Saudi bank
Banking
National energy operator
Oil, gas and power
Government authority
Public sector
Regional telecom operator
Telecommunications
Healthcare group
Hospitals and clinics
Retail and e-commerce group
Retail
Ports and logistics operator
Logistics
Insurance company
Insurance
Fintech and payments provider
Financial technology
Industrial manufacturer
Manufacturing
Plant networks had grown without a clear map, and remote access for vendors was a concern.
Result: A mapped, segmented network with a prioritised remediation plan the plant team could schedule.
Scanners produced thousands of findings and no one knew which mattered.
Result: The critical backlog shrank and reporting became a monthly routine.
The bank needed evidence that its people, processes and detection would hold up against a realistic attacker, in line with SAMA expectations.
Result: Detection gaps were fixed, playbooks were updated and the board received a plain-language report.
Client names are withheld for confidentiality.
09Related services
Each service stands alone and works better with the others.
Tell us your sites and vendors. We will propose a patch and mitigation programme.
Plan OT patching10Questions answered
Tell us about your environment and what you need. We will respond with a scoped proposal, not a brochure.
Specialists who do this work every week, reporting in Arabic and English.