Home page logo
/

bugtraq logo Bugtraq mailing list archives

Re: snmp problems still alive...
From: drajnovi () CISCO COM (Damir Rajnovic)
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 14:47:54 +0000


Hello there,

Since I am mentioned here it deserves a reply.

At 18:18 15/02/2000 -0500, John Comeau wrote:
Cisco 1924s for sure have "public" as rw string and "private" for ro,
and I'm about 80% sure the 2924 does too.

Many Cisco routers have an snmp "feature" with security ramifications
which Damir Rajnovic has agreed to post to Bugtraq (as of Jan. 1), but I
guess Cisco's lawyers have to hash it out for a few more weeks before
he'll be allowed to. If he doesn't, I will - jc

I still own a reply to John and wider audience and I am aware of that.
It is true that John found a 'feature' that is cause of some concern
and the only reason why I did not disclose it is that is not fixed jet.
I am assuring you that lawyers do not have anything with that. A fix
is a documentation fix. I was assured by people who are writing that
part of code (SNMP) that this particular behavior is according to the
specification (SNMPv3).

Mind you, I am not downplaying significance of that issue but merely
stating the facts.

Cheers,

Gaus
==============
Damir Rajnovic <psirt () cisco com>, PSIRT Incident Manager, Cisco Systems
<http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/707/sec_incident_response.shtml>
Phone: +44 7715 546 033
4 The Square, Stockley Park, Uxbridge, MIDDLESEX UB11 1BN, GB
==============
There is no insolvable problems. Question remains: can you
accept the solution?


  By Date           By Thread  

Current thread:
[ Nmap | Sec Tools | Mailing Lists | Site News | About/Contact | Advertising | Privacy ]