Security Basics mailing list archives

Re: Cisco Workaround

From: joshua sahala <jsahala () fusiontel com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 10:27:49 -0400

On Wednesday 23 July 2003 15:16, DOUGLAS GULLETT wrote:

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.  That might be a good question for Cisco TAC...they should be
willing to help even if you "misplaced" your SmartNet contract
information.  ;-)

Doug


it can be any combination of them, or just one type - this bug doesn't 
discriminate ;)

/joshua



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

Current thread:

RE: Cisco Workaround, (continued)
- 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)
- Re: Cisco Workaround bryan_khoo (Jul 24)
- RE: Cisco Workaround dave kleiman (Jul 24)
- Re: Cisco Workaround igenge2 (Jul 24)
- Re: Cisco Workaround Stephane Nasdrovisky (Jul 24)
- RE: Cisco Workaround Jofre, Sebastian (Jul 24)
- RE: Cisco Workaround Tim Donahue (Jul 28)
  - RE: Cisco Workaround Ghaith Nasrawi (Jul 28)
- RE: Cisco Workaround Noonan, Wesley (Jul 28)

(Thread continues...)