Security Basics mailing list archives

RE: Cisco Workaround

From: "Terry Baranski" <tbaranski () mail com>
Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 20:58:55 -0400

I don't think you have to put all the access-list in.  I believe 
that the hack requires a certain combination of packets to the 
four ports, so leaving one or two of them open should still prevent 
the hack.


This was an initial assumption made by many that is apparently not
accurate (per an individual who wrote an exploit for this bug).

-Terry


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Current thread:

Re: Cisco Workaround jamesworld (Jul 23)
- RE: Cisco Workaround Ghaith Nasrawi (Jul 25)
  - RE: Cisco Workaround (comment on actually using those protocols) jamesworld (Jul 28)
  - RE: Cisco Workaround David Gillett (Jul 28)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Cisco Workaround Naman Latif (Jul 23)
- RE: Cisco Workaround Todd Mitchell - lists (Jul 23)
- RE: Cisco Workaround Charlie Winckless (Jul 23)
- Re: Cisco Workaround DOUGLAS GULLETT (Jul 23)
  - RE: Cisco Workaround Terry Baranski (Jul 24)
  - Re: Cisco Workaround Paul Kincaid (Jul 24)
  - RE: Cisco Workaround Dave Gilmore (Intrusense) (Jul 24)
  - Re: Cisco Workaround Kurt Seifried (Jul 24)
    - RE: Cisco Workaround David Gillett (Jul 24)
  - RE: Cisco Workaround Wolfpaw - Dale Corse (Jul 24)
  - RE: Cisco Workaround Byrne Ghavalas (Jul 24)
  - Re: Cisco Workaround john (Jul 24)
  - Re: Cisco Workaround joshua sahala (Jul 24)
  - Re: Cisco Workaround Jac (Jul 24)
- Re: Cisco Workaround Luis Enrique Londono (Jul 23)

(Thread continues...)