Full Disclosure mailing list archives
Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues
From: "Geoincidents" <geoincidents () getinfo org>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2004 22:21:15 -0500
----- Original Message ----- From: "Clayton Kossmeyer" <ckossmey () cisco com>
downloads. The reasons for this are many, but one of the major ones is that SPs/ISPs want to control what versions of software are deployed within their networks.
I can certainly understand an ISP's desire to control this, however I AM THE ISP. I've got Alltel the DSL provider on one side and Cisco the hardware provider on the other side and all I wanted to do was get a secure version of CBOS and both Alltel and Cisco were giving me the runaround with neither of them accepting responsibility for maintaining the security of the device. So here I am the ISP trying to make sure I can secure the devices on my network after receiving a warning from Cisco and Cisco won't give me the patch. Well that makes a lot of sense.
Having said that, there is an exception and escalation process for situations like yours.
Yes I know, but you should also know I can't dedicate a day or two of my life to downloading a stupid security patch. It should not be this difficult to get security patches from Cisco. Cisco provides the majority of equipment that makes the internet function, that dominance comes with a responsibility to make sure people can get patches when an exploit is discovered. I don't care about a new version, patch the old one like MS does for all I care. Just put the darn patches where everyone can get at them without having to beg and escalate.
If you feel as though your case is not being addressed urgently enough, you can call the TAC at any time, referencing your case number, to have the priority raised or the case escalated further.
That's fine for support issues but we are talking about security patches, these should not require we open any sort of ticket or have a contract or anything of the sort. Patches should be available to everyone free of charge and readily available for download.
I'll follow up with you unicast and we can figure out which image you'll need.
I appreciate it, but I've already downloaded the update from a non cisco source and applied it. I didn't need anyone at cisco to spend any time on me, all I needed was the patched image file. I don't know who calls the shots at cisco but they really should realize that when it's important enough to release a security bulletin, end users, dsl providers, isp's, none of them have a choice anymore, it's either update or die so what's the point of restricting access to the patched versions? Geo. _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html
Current thread:
- new internet explorer exploit (was new worm) Jelmer (Mar 29)
- Addressing Cisco Security Issues Geo. (Mar 29)
- Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Jason Dodson (Mar 29)
- Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Micheal Patterson (Mar 29)
- Re: Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Exibar (Mar 29)
- RE: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Burton M. Strauss III (Mar 29)
- Re: RE: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Michael Reilly (Mar 29)
- Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Geoincidents (Mar 29)
- Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Jason Dodson (Mar 29)
- Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Clayton Kossmeyer (Mar 29)
- Re: Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Luke Norman (Mar 29)
- Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Geoincidents (Mar 29)
- RE: Addressing Cisco Security Issues Lou Zirko (Mar 29)
- Re: Addressing Cisco Security Issues neal rauhauser (Mar 29)
- Addressing Cisco Security Issues Geo. (Mar 29)
- AW: new internet explorer exploit (was new worm) Ron Stiemer (Mar 29)
- Message not available
- Re: new internet explorer exploit (was new worm) Nick FitzGerald (Mar 30)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: new internet explorer exploit (was new worm) Drew Copley (Mar 29)
- Re: new internet explorer exploit (was new worm) Berend-Jan Wever (Mar 29)
- Re: RE: new internet explorer exploit (was new worm) Valdis . Kletnieks (Mar 29)
- RE: [inbox] Re: RE: new internet explorer exploit (was new worm) Exibar (Mar 29)
- RE: new internet explorer exploit (was new worm) Thor Larholm (Mar 29)
- Re: RE: new internet explorer exploit (was new worm) Tim (Mar 29)