Vulnerability Development mailing list archives
Re: Cisco Catalyst switches
From: BlueBoar () THIEVCO COM (Blue Boar)
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 23:39:54 -0700
Too true. I will take this opportunity to remind folks that if I have your SNMP write community, I 0wn you. Some network vendors (not Cisco so far as I know) are dumb enough that if I have the read community, I also 0wn you, because they make the write string available via the read string. Duh. Now that's enough of the smart-ass replies. :) BB suid () SUID KG wrote:
: It would be interesting if there was a vulnerability that allowed you to : break the VLAN definitions.. I know many companies that practically run : their entire networks together into several Catalysts via VLANS :)SecureWhat about redefining the VLANs in the config? Of course that would require getting control of the switch.WARNING: Users who have administritive access to your systems may perform administritive functions!!!! :P~~ suid
Current thread:
- Re: Cisco Catalyst switches, (continued)
- Re: Cisco Catalyst switches Jay Tribick (Jun 13)
- Re: Cisco Catalyst switches Andy Murren (Jun 13)
- Re: Cisco Catalyst switches rpc (Jun 13)
- Re: Cisco Catalyst switches Rostislav Opocensky (Jun 13)
- Re: Cisco Catalyst switches Saso (Jun 13)
- Re: Cisco Catalyst switches Mudge (Jun 14)
- Re: Cisco Catalyst switches Jeremy Guthrie (Jun 14)
- Problems with: xcdroast, gatos, xkobo, xbill, iagno, ++ Elias Levy (Jun 14)
- Re: Cisco Catalyst switches Mudge (Jun 14)
- Re: Cisco Catalyst switches suid () SUID KG (Jun 13)
- Update on TopLayer Advisory nawk (Jun 13)
- Re: Cisco Catalyst switches Blue Boar (Jun 13)
- Re: Cisco Catalyst switches Martin Hamilton (Jun 14)