mailing list archives
Re: Cisco, haven't we learned anything? (technician reset)
From: Gadi Evron <ge () linuxbox org>
Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 01:30:52 +0200
This reminds me of Ciscogate but not for obvious reasons. That was a bad
event for everybody involved.
It reminds me of the very issue Mike Lynn discussed:
Remote exploitation for Cisco is possible, while so far Cisco disclosed
all these problems as DoS vulnerabilities.
I am not saying Cisco did that on purpose, but in THIS case they CAN set
my mind at ease.
Why don?t they?
I did not change my mind, but to be fair, I have to add:
After writing this I’ve been made aware that this product was from a
company Cisco bought not so long ago. This very same issue happened
before (and more than once)... in one recent example with another
company Cisco bought named Riverhead.
It is true Cisco's PSIRT is one of the best to work with among vendors,
even Mike Lynn said that Cisco PSIRT are some of the more decent people
he worked with - "I've never had a problem with PSIRT".
It is also true that Cisco can't find out about these until after they
buy the companies, still, Cisco f*cked up, more than just once or twice,
and we call it. This kind of a so-called "vulnerability" should not
happen, or be disclosed, continually, in this particular fashion.
Checking into new investments security-wise, especially with security
products and external QA may help solve such issues in the future.
Re: Cisco, haven't we learned anything? (technician reset) Gadi Evron (Jan 12)
Re: Cisco, haven't we learned anything? (technician reset) Fergie (Jan 12)
- Re: Cisco, haven't we learned anything? (technician reset), (continued)