August 2025 Windows Patch: No Widespread SSD Bricking Detected

Microsoft’s latest public update on the mid‑August patch storm is straightforward: after investigation, the company says the August 2025 cumulative rollup did not cause a widespread failure mode that “breaks” SSDs, but the episode still exposes fragile cross‑stack dependencies and persistent risks for users who handle large, heavy I/O work on diverse storage hardware.

Background / Overview​

The Windows servicing wave on August 12, 2025 delivered the combined Servicing Stack Update (SSU) plus Latest Cumulative Update tracked by the community as KB5063878 for Windows 11 version 24H2 (OS Build 26100.4946). Within days, hobbyist testers and professional outlets published reproducible test recipes showing a clear operational fingerprint: during sustained large sequential writes (commonly reported around the tens‑of‑gigabytes mark), some NVMe drives would become unresponsive, disappear from the operating system, and in a minority of reports return with corrupted or inaccessible files after reboot.
That community reporting prompted Microsoft to open an investigation and work with storage partners. Controller vendor Phison completed lab validation and published a test summary saying it dedicated substantial lab hours and test cycles to the reported drives and could not reproduce a universal failure, while Microsoft’s internal testing and telemetry similarly reported no platform‑wide increase in disk failures tied to the update. Despite those vendor statements, a small but alarming set of field reports remains, and several practical mitigations have been circulated to reduce immediate risk.

---

What happened — the symptom profile explained​

Independent test benches and community reproductions converged on a repeatable failure pattern that made the incident credible and urgent.

• Symptom: an NVMe SSD that is targeted by a large, sustained write operation simply stops responding to the OS. It may disappear from File Explorer, Disk Management and Device Manager. SMART and vendor utility telemetry can become unreadable or return errors.
• Typical trigger profile reported by testers: sustained sequential writes on the order of tens of gigabytes (commonly cited ~50 GB), usually to drives that were already partially used (often reported as >50–60% full).
• Outcome variability: many affected drives returned to service after a reboot with little or no permanent damage; a minority remained inaccessible and required vendor tools, firmware reflash, imaging or RMA-level recovery. A few user reports claim severe data loss on multi‑terabyte drives.
• Affected hardware patterns: early reports disproportionately showed drives built on Phison controller families — including some DRAM‑less designs that rely on NVMe Host Memory Buffer (HMB) — but other controller families and models also appeared in isolated incidents.

This combination of a reproducible workload that triggers the problem and a split between community repros and vendor non‑reproducibility framed the issue as a classic cross‑stack compatibility incident: a host‑side change (OS update) interacting with specific firmware/driver/configuration factors on a subset of hardware can expose latent controller bugs that were previously invisible.

---

Microsoft and vendor responses​

Microsoft’s public posture over the last week has followed a clear sequence: acknowledge reports, attempt internal reproduction, engage partners, solicit affected user telemetry, and publish service guidance while monitoring for further evidence. The company’s stated position is that its internal testing and telemetry have not shown a platform‑wide spike in disk failures or file corruption tied to KB5063878, and that it has found no confirmed link between the security update and the kinds of hard‑drive failures reported on social media.
SSD controller vendor Phison published a lab validation summary that reported hundreds to thousands of cumulative test hours across many cycles on drives that were claimed to be impacted. Phison said its lab campaign was unable to reproduce the reported failures and that no partners or customers had reported similar RMA spikes during their testing window.
Both positions—Microsoft’s telemetry and Phison’s lab work—are important and encourage measured response, but they do not close the investigation for two reasons:

• Telemetry and lab matrices have limits. Telemetry looks for statistically significant increases across millions of devices; rare edge cases in specific configurations may not surface as a telemetry spike. Lab matrices can miss particular combinations of motherboard firmware, BIOS settings, chipset drivers, thermal state, and workload timing that exist in the field.
• Anecdotal reproducibility at the hands of credible testers remains a signal. Multiple independent test benches published repeatable recipes that triggered drive disappearance under consistent conditions; these hands‑on reproducible results cannot be dismissed outright.

Given that split, Microsoft and vendors have pursued the pragmatic path: continue triage, invite affected users to provide detailed logs through official support channels, publish interim guidance to reduce exposure risk, and keep firmware/testing loops open.

---

Technical hypotheses: why an OS update can expose a controller bug​

Storage subsystems are co‑engineered systems: the OS storage stack, NVMe driver, chipset/PCIe root complex, firmware on the SSD controller, NAND management code, and even thermal/power management interact in tight timing windows. Several plausible mechanisms explain why a seemingly unrelated OS patch could make a drive hang under heavy sequential writes:

• Host Memory Buffer (HMB) timing and allocation: DRAM‑less controllers rely on HMB to offload some metadata and caching to host RAM. Changes in how Windows allocates or schedules HMB usage, or different timings for buffer flushes, can expose firmware races that previously went unnoticed.
• OS‑level I/O scheduling and buffered write behaviour: updates that modify kernel I/O scheduling, buffered writes, or caching/flush semantics could cause controller timeouts when added latency or ordering differences occur during heavy sustained transfers.
• Controller firmware edge cases: some firmware has implicit assumptions about host behavior (timing windows, queue depths, or error handling). If the host deviates just enough during extreme workloads, the controller may enter a non‑recoverable hang state.
• Thermal and power envelopes: sustained large writes generate heat; combined with higher NAND/programming activity on a partially full drive, thermal throttling can create timing anomalies or trigger conservative fixes in firmware that leave the controller unresponsive.
• Memory leaks or OS buffering faults: community test reports suggested situations involving hibernation or very large hiberfil.sys allocations may have contributed to specific RAW conversion incidents on large HDDs; similar host memory anomalies could affect SSD behavior under stress.
• BIOS/chipset/driver interplay: motherboard BIOS versions, platform-specific SATA/NVMe controller drivers, and chipset firmware can create unique host environments that differ from vendor test labs.

The upshot: the incident is not necessarily a single‑line root cause; it may be a confluence of host update behavior, specific firmware versions, platform drivers and workload conditions.

---

What we know (verified points)​

• KB5063878 was released as part of the August 12, 2025 servicing wave for Windows 11 24H2.
• Community testers reproduced a failure fingerprint: drives disappearing under sustained large sequential writes on partially full NVMe media.
• Microsoft investigated and reported no telemetry‑driven increase in disk failures and asked affected users to submit precise diagnostics.
• Phison reported large internal testing totals (multiple thousands of cumulative hours and thousands of cycles) and stated it could not reproduce the issue in its labs.

These are not disputed facts; they are the backbone of the current public narrative and have been independently reported by multiple outlets and hands‑on testers.

---

What remains uncertain or unverifiable right now​

• The exact cause for every reported field incident. Many individual user reports differ in hardware, firmware revision, and workload, so a single universal root cause has not been published.
• Whether specific reports of permanent controller damage or irrecoverable bricking are directly attributable to the KB update, firmware bugs alone, or preexisting drive health issues. Some user accounts describe catastrophic data loss on large HDDs or SSDs; those remain subject to vendor forensics and are not yet consolidated into a broad, verified failure signal.
• The definitive test matrix and logs behind vendor lab claims. Vendor statements about testing hours and cycles are credible but not third‑party audited in public; they are company disclosures that help understanding but do not substitute for independent forensic publication.
• Whether a targeted firmware update, a Windows hotfix, or both will be the long‑term remedy for every configuration. In past incidents, solutions have come as coordinated firmware updates plus host mitigations.

Flagged claims: any numeric thresholds like “50 GB” written or “60% full” are useful heuristics derived from reproducible community recipes, but they are not absolute safety boundaries. Treat them as investigative cues, not ironclad rules.

---

Practical guidance for users (short‑term risk reduction)​

If you run Windows 11 and rely on local NVMe or HDD storage for critical data, follow these conservative, practical steps now:

• Back up critical data immediately. Use the 3‑2‑1 rule where possible (three copies, two different media types, one offsite).
• If you have not installed KB5063878 and your daily work involves large sustained writes (game installs, mass archive extraction, cloning, large video exports), consider pausing or staging the update until vendor guidance is available for your SSD model.
• If you already installed the update, avoid heavy sequential writes on systems with drives that match model/firmware patterns seen in community reproductions. Break large transfers into smaller batches.
• Keep SSD firmware and vendor utilities up to date. Check the OEM/Vendor support pages and apply firmware updates only after backing up data. Firmware flashes carry risk—never flash without a backup.
• If a drive disappears during a write:
• Stop further write activity immediately.
• Do not repeatedly reboot blindly; capture logs if you can.
• Use vendor tools to collect SMART and controller logs.
• Image the drive for recovery attempts and vendor forensics before reformatting.
• If you’re in an enterprise:
• Stage KB deployment in a test ring that represents production hardware, including storage, before mass rollout.
• Inventory endpoints for potentially affected models and pause broad deployment where necessary.
• Use WSUS, SCCM, or MDM controls to withhold updates while you run workload tests.

These steps are conservative but pragmatic; backups and staged rollouts are the single best defenses against unexpected update‑related data loss.

---

For power users and technicians: investigative checklist​

• Reproduce carefully: use controlled test rigs with identical firmware/BIOs/drivers and the same sustained sequential write workload to check for reproductions.
• Capture full logs: enable verbose disk and kernel tracing (Event Tracing for Windows, Windows Performance Recorder), collect vendor tool dumps and SMART logs, and snapshot machine firmware versions and driver versions.
• Image before repair: if a drive becomes inaccessible, create a forensic image and hand it to the vendor or a qualified data recovery service before attempts to reformat or reflash the drive.
• Validate firmware: confirm exact firmware string and test after upgrade in a safe environment. Keep records of which firmware revisions were tested.
• Consider thermal mitigation: for high‑performance NVMe modules, heatsinks or proper airflow reduce thermal variables and may prevent thermal‑state‑dependent anomalies.

---

Critical analysis — strengths and weaknesses of the current narrative​

Strengths

• Rapid community reproducibility: independent testers produced repeatable failure recipes quickly, which focused vendor and Microsoft investigation on a credible workload window.
• Vendor engagement: Phison and other suppliers engaged swiftly and ran validation work, reducing the risk of unchecked blame and enabling data‑driven triage.
• Microsoft telemetry and formal channels: Microsoft’s use of telemetry and the Feedback Hub helps contain noise and prioritize instrumentation for real incidents.

Weaknesses and risks

• Lab non‑reproducibility is not exoneration. A failure pattern that depends on a narrow set of timing and thermal conditions may be missed by even extensive lab tests that do not exactly replicate a field platform.
• Telemetry blindness to rare but severe edge cases. Telemetry aggregates signal across millions of devices and can miss small‑population, high‑impact issues that nonetheless destroy data for individual customers.
• Communication noise: overlapping issues—install errors affecting WSUS/SCCM, streaming regressions affecting NDI/OBS, and storage disappearance stories—create confusion for users and administrators trying to triage which KB applies to which symptom.
• The data‑loss dimension: storage failures that truncate or corrupt data during writes are the most serious kind of regression. Even if a small percentage of drives are affected, the cost to users with critical local data can be catastrophic.

Big picture: Microsoft’s public denial of a platform‑wide causal link is important for calm, but it does not relieve vendors and the ecosystem of the responsibility to converge on root cause and remediation. The incident underscores how modern OS servicing is a systems engineering problem that must include robust cross‑vendor stress testing for worst‑case I/O workloads.

---

Longer‑term implications for Windows servicing and SSD vendors​

• Pre‑release testing needs more representative coverage. The sheer diversity of SSD controllers, firmware versions and OEM combinations argues for larger, more representative stress suites in pre‑release validation, including heavy sequential write loops to partially full drives in thermal chambers and a variety of BIOS/driver states.
• Better diagnostic telemetry and logging hooks. Vendors and Microsoft should collaborate on richer, privacy‑respecting traces that can capture controller hang fingerprints without flooding telemetry pipelines. That includes clearer signals when a device disappears from the OS stack mid‑IO.
• Faster coordinated mitigation paths. Past incidents show that the healthiest path is a coordinated firmware rollout plus, if necessary, a host‑side mitigation or KB block until firmware is applied. Microsoft has used blocks or staged rollouts before; refining that process for storage edge cases would shorten remediation cycles.
• End‑user education: maintain backups, stage updates, and split large transfers during the post‑patch window. That risk management posture should be standard practice for prosumers and IT teams alike.

---

Recommended immediate actions for administrators and vendors​

• Administrators: withhold KB5063878 broadly until representative fleets have been stress‑tested; use pilot rings that include storage hardware diversity and heavy I/O tests.
• Vendors: publish precise affected‑model lists with firmware versions and reproducible test recipes; where firmware fixes are required, provide clear firmware upgrade instructions and version‑to‑version delta notes.
• Microsoft: continue to collect detailed support cases and publish known issue guidance where appropriate. If a targeted remediation (host fix, driver update, or telemetry change) is identified, publish a clear KB article and, if needed, roll back the update for affected configuration fingerprints.

---

Conclusion​

The short answer to the panic headline is: Microsoft and a major controller vendor report no evidence of a broad, update‑driven mass “bricking” of SSDs after the August 2025 Windows patch, and their lab and telemetry checks so far provide reassurance that this is not a universal fault. The longer, more important takeaway is that even with sophisticated telemetry and large lab campaigns, the modern storage stack remains fragile at the edges. Rare but severe failure modes—triggered by a precise blend of firmware, host drivers, platform firmware, thermal conditions and workload patterns—can still occur.
The responsible posture for users, prosumers and administrators is unchanged: back up critical data immediately, stage updates until representative hardware has been validated under realistic workloads, avoid heavy sequential writes on freshly patched machines, and follow vendor guidance for firmware updates and diagnostics. Vendors and Microsoft must continue to collaborate openly, publish detailed forensic findings when available, and provide reproducible mitigations so that both the rare edge cases and the common flows remain safe for everyone.

---

Source: Neowin Microsoft: No, Windows 11 update did not break your SSD

 

[ChatGPT]

Microsoft and Phison say the August Windows 11 patches did not “brick” SSDs, but the episode exposes a narrow, reproducible failure fingerprint, lingering forensic questions, and practical actions every Windows user and IT team should take now.

Background / Overview​

In mid‑August 2025 a cluster of social‑media posts and enthusiast test benches claimed that two Windows 11 packages — commonly tracked as KB5063878 (the August cumulative update) and KB5062660 (a related preview/optional build) — could cause some SSDs to vanish from Windows during heavy, sustained writes, occasionally leaving those drives inaccessible or exhibiting data corruption. The earliest widely circulated report appears to have come from a Japanese user who published repeatable test steps and logs; hobbyist benches quickly amplified the claim and collated lists of affected models and controller families.
Vendor and platform responses arrived within days. Microsoft opened an internal investigation, solicited telemetry and diagnostic logs through Feedback Hub, and coordinated with storage partners. Phison, the NAND controller vendor most frequently named in early lists, launched an extensive lab validation campaign and later published a summary saying it “was unable to reproduce the reported issue” after thousands of lab hours. Microsoft’s public update concluded it “found no connection between the August 2025 Windows security update and the types of hard drive failures reported on social media.”
Independent specialist outlets reported both the early community reproductions and the vendor findings, and multiple reputable outlets subsequently confirmed that Microsoft and Phison saw no platform‑wide telemetry spike or reproducible, update‑level cause. (bleepingcomputer.com, tomshardware.com)

---

What users actually reported​

The reproducible symptom fingerprint​

Community benches converged on a concise operational fingerprint that made the initial claims technically plausible:

• A sustained, large sequential write (examples: extracting a 50+ GB archive, installing a modern, multi‑tens‑GB game, or copying large backup images).
• Target SSDs that were already substantially used — commonly reported around 50–60% full.
• Mid‑write, the drive would suddenly disappear from File Explorer, Device Manager and Disk Management.
• Vendor tools and SMART readers were sometimes unable to interrogate the drive until a reboot or deeper vendor‑level intervention.
• In many cases a reboot restored visibility; in a small number of reports drives remained inaccessible and required reflashing, vendor tools, or RMA.

Those repeatable benches are not trivial: independent hobbyists reproduced similar behaviour across multiple machines and drive brands using the same workload pattern, which is why vendors treated the reports seriously and launched formal investigations.

Which hardware was named​

Early lists named a variety of consumer SSD products and controllers: Phison families appeared often in community collations, alongside InnoGrit and other vendors. Both DRAM‑equipped and DRAM‑less (HMB‑reliant) designs were present in anecdotal lists, though enthusiasts flagged that DRAM‑less models sometimes failed at lower write volumes in those benches. The sample set, however, remained small relative to the installed base, and the distribution of models was not sufficient to prove a single universal cause.

---

What Phison and Microsoft tested and said​

Phison’s validation campaign​

Phison publicly stated it conducted an intensive validation campaign after being alerted on August 18, dedicating more than 4,500 cumulative testing hours and approximately 2,200 test cycles to drives called out by the community. In its public summary the company said it was “unable to reproduce the reported issue” and that it had not seen partner or customer RMA spikes consistent with a mass failure. Phison encouraged good thermal practice for heavy sustained workloads while continuing to monitor partner feedback. (tomshardware.com, windowscentral.com)
These numbers — thousands of hours and multiple thousands of cycles — are large enough to give confidence the vendor exercised many stress combinations, but lab conditions rarely cover every environmental permutation of real‑world deployments (thermal setups, specific NAND batches, host firmware, power delivery differences, and driver variants). Phison’s data matters, but it does not render every community reproduction impossible.

Microsoft’s service alert​

Microsoft’s public message, issued as a service alert and reported by specialist press, was similarly cautious: its telemetry and internal tests did not identify a correlation between the August Windows 11 update and a fleet‑level increase in disk failures or file corruption. Microsoft said it could not reproduce the failures on fully updated systems and committed to continue collecting reports and investigating new cases. That phrasing is important: it’s a negative finding from telemetry and internal repro attempts, not an absolute denial that rare field failures occurred for some users. (bleepingcomputer.com, theverge.com)

---

Technical analysis — plausible mechanisms and why the truth sits in the middle​

The empirical picture produced by forum logs, vendor notes, and independent reporting points to a conditional, cross‑stack interaction rather than a simple, deterministic Windows bug that instantly bricked a broad class of SSDs.

Why heavy sequential writes matter​

Sustained, large sequential writes exercise storage subsystems along code paths and physical constraints that everyday desktop workloads rarely trigger. The combination of extended DMA activity, host‑buffering, sustained NAND program/erase cycles, aggressive garbage collection, and elevated thermal load can expose latent firmware race conditions, command timeouts, or buffer over‑commitment in controllers.

• DRAM‑less drives that rely on the Host Memory Buffer (HMB) change where metadata and mapping tables are held; intense sequential writes can create pressure on HMB usage and timing.
• Extended writes can push a controller into prolonged garbage‑collection phases, where flawed firmware state machines or unexpected power/thermal events could cause lockups or lost command responses.
• NVMe command timeouts or failed queue handling underload may lead the host to treat a device as non‑responsive, causing it to disappear from enumeration until a reset or reboot.

Where the OS can contribute — and where it usually doesn’t​

Host‑side changes (including updated storage drivers, filesystem buffering behavior, or memory management) can alter timing and IO patterns seen by controllers. A subtle shift in how the OS batches or flushes writes might reveal a firmware bug that previously lay dormant. That said, Microsoft’s inability to reproduce the issue in lab environments and fleet telemetry weakens the case for the update being a sole causal agent. Telemetry at scale, however, may lack the low‑level controller state needed to fully rule out rare, environment‑specific interactions.

Other plausible causes​

• A small number of defective NAND/controller batches could produce field failures that coincide with the update’s rollout, creating a misleading temporal correlation.
• Specific motherboard, BIOS, or power‑delivery quirks could interact with certain controllers under heavy writes.
• Thermal conditions (lack of heatsinks, poor airflow) might exacerbate firmware timing under stress; vendors recommended thermal mitigation as a precaution. (tomshardware.com)

---

Strengths and limits of the available evidence​

Strengths​

• Multiple independent community benches reproduced a consistent symptom set under reproducible workload conditions — a powerful triage signal that forced vendor attention.
• Phison’s public test numbers (≈4,500 hours, ≈2,200 cycles) are substantial and were reported across independent outlets, lending weight to its inability to reproduce a broad failure. (tomshardware.com, windowscentral.com)
• Microsoft’s telemetry statement is authoritative for fleet‑scale assessment: no detectable spike in disk failures or file corruption was found after the update, which undercuts the “widespread bricking” narrative. (bleepingcomputer.com, theverge.com)

Limits and open questions​

• Community reproductions used real‑world hardware permutations that may be difficult for centralized labs to mirror exactly; negative lab results are informative but not definitive.
• Microsoft did not publish a detailed, auditable post‑mortem tying specific telemetry traces to affected field units, nor did it publish a conclusive list of excluded firmware or controller SKUs.
• The absolute number of verified incidents remains small and anecdotal compared with the millions of PCs that received the update — but even rare incidents can be critical for certain workloads or users with irreplaceable data.

Because of these limits, the responsible conclusion is cautious: there’s no verified, platform‑wide causal link between the update and SSD failures, but a small class of environment‑specific failures remains plausible until every implicated variable is excluded.

---

Practical guidance for users, power users, and IT admins​

Even when a vendor investigation concludes “no link,” the prudent response is risk management — especially for machines that host valuable data or perform heavy I/O work.

• Back up now. The simplest, most durable protection against storage edge‑cases is a verified backup. Use image backups and file backups to separate physical media and retain multiple historical snapshots.
• Delay non‑security updates on irreplaceable systems. For production machines, use Windows Update for Business, WSUS, or your patch‑management tooling to stage updates in a pilot ring before full deployment.
• Avoid large, sustained write operations on drives that are >50–60% full until you verify drive behavior with vendor firmware and system BIOS updates. Community benches repeatedly flagged 50–60% used as a common precondition in reproducible failures.
• Update drive firmware and vendor utilities if an official firmware revision is available. If vendors publish advisories or firmware addresses, apply them in a controlled test ring first.
• Improve thermal management for NVMe devices: heatsinks, M.2 shields, and improved airflow—recommendations that vendors offered as a precaution—reduce the likelihood of thermal‑triggered edge failures. (tomshardware.com)
• If you experience a failure, stop writing to the device. Image the drive if possible and gather vendor logs and a Feedback Hub package for Microsoft and the drive vendor; these artifacts can be essential for root‑cause analysis.
• For enterprises: collect and centralize SMART and vendor‑tool telemetry, and instrument test rigs that reproduce the exact workload patterns (fill level + sustained write) described by the community benches before broad rollouts.

---

Forensics and how investigators should proceed​

A rigorous forensic approach must combine community reproduction, vendor lab work, and targeted field telemetry:

• Correlate the exact workload (IO size, queue depth, filesystem, SFILE flags, and total sustained transfer volume) with system state at time of failure.
• Capture vendor‑level logs (fmap, controller debug output, SMART raw) and host traces (ETW/Windows performance traces, NVMe command traces).
• Compare NAND/controller batch numbers, firmware versions, and motherboard BIOS revisions across affected and unaffected units.
• Run controlled stress tests that replicate thermal environments and fill percentages observed in the field benches.

When vendors report negative lab results, publishable forensic artifacts (even anonymized manifests) that show the range of firmware and host configurations tested greatly improve public trust and speed resolution. Microsoft and partners collected reports and investigated — but more auditable detail would help close the loop for the enthusiast community.

---

What this incident means for the Windows ecosystem​

This event is a textbook example of how modern platform ecosystems — millions of varied consumer devices, third‑party controllers, and an always‑on social cycle — can amplify a rare edge case into a headline. The technical bottom line: OS updates can alter host IO timing and workload patterns in subtle ways that reveal firmware bugs that were previously latent. That does not make updates unsafe in general; it does mean that:

• Vendors must continue to publish timely, transparent validation summaries when community benches surface reproducible failures.
• Microsoft’s telemetry and internal repro efforts are indispensable for fleet‑level assessment, but they should be complemented by richer vendor cooperation and published test matrices for the most serious incidents.
• Enthusiast reproducibility is valuable; it should be paired with careful reporting, artifact sharing, and coordinated disclosure to accelerate remediation.

Multiple outlets and vendor statements now point in the same direction: the August Windows 11 security update is unlikely to be a universal cause of SSD failures, but the community‑reported failure fingerprint was real enough to merit investigation and continued vigilance. (bleepingcomputer.com, tomshardware.com)

---

Final assessment and immediate takeaways​

• Microsoft’s official stance: after internal testing and partner coordination, Microsoft found no connection between the August 2025 Windows update (KB5063878) and the reported hard‑drive failures; it will continue to monitor reports and investigate new evidence. (bleepingcomputer.com)
• Phison’s public testing: the controller supplier invested ≈4,500 testing hours and ≈2,200 cycles and reported it could not reproduce the claimed “vanishing SSD” behavior in its lab and had not seen partner/customer RMA spikes during its testing window. (tomshardware.com, windowscentral.com)
• Community reproduction: several independent benches reproduced a consistent failure profile (sustained large writes to partially full drives leading to disappearance or corruption), which is why the issue attracted rapid attention and vendor response.

Given these facts, the right posture for users and IT teams is pragmatic caution: maintain current backups, stage updates for critical systems, apply vendor firmware where recommended, use thermal mitigation for NVMe drives under heavy workloads, and report any suspect incidents with complete diagnostic packages to Microsoft and the device vendor.
This incident should not be read as proof that Windows updates broadly damage SSDs; it is, however, an important reminder that cross‑stack complexity (OS, driver, controller firmware, NAND characteristics, and real thermal environments) can yield rare, high‑impact failures — and that the fastest path to mitigation is coordinated, auditable testing plus conservative operational practices.

---

Appendix: quick checklist (for immediate action)​

• 1.) Verify backups for critical data and create an image of any at‑risk drive.
• 2.) If running mission‑critical work, defer KB5063878 / KB5062660 in a controlled ring until vendor guidance is confirmed.
• 3.) Update SSD firmware and vendor tools if an official update is available.
• 4.) Avoid bulk 50+ GB sustained writes to consumer drives that are >50–60% full until you have confirmed drive stability.
• 5.) If a drive disappears, stop writes, capture logs, and contact the vendor with a Feedback Hub package for Microsoft if possible.

The community and vendors moved quickly: user reproducibility forced vendor testing, and the joint investigations by Microsoft and Phison rapidly reduced the likelihood of a platform‑wide disaster. That collaborative response is the correct model for handling storage edge cases — and it should be the foundation of future incident response as storage densities, controller complexity, and workload intensity continue to grow.

---

Source: Lowyat.NET Microsoft Says SSD Failures Not Linked To Windows Updates