RE: Cisco Workaround

[Ghaith Nasrawi <libero () aucegypt edu>]

Olivir has suggested here to deny packets terminating on the router. I'm just 
wondering if that  would deny traceroute commands passing through these 
routers??

As for Wesley, don't you believe that cisco should be responsible on providing 
a high quality of support to its customers since they paid $$$$$$$$$$$$$


./Ghaith
===============

Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday





-----Original Message-----
From: Noonan, Wesley [mailto:Wesley_Noonan () bmc com] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 12:27 AM
To: 'gillettdavid () fhda edu'; 'Ghaith Nasrawi'
Cc: firewalls () securityfocus com; security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: Cisco Workaround

I've got to agree with David here. There is no reason that Cisco, or any
other large company should be expected to provide workarounds that address
the distinct minority of their install base. They should focus on the
majority of situations. The workaround they recommended did precisely that.
I know of no one that is actually using any of the protocols listed in the
workaround. That's not to say that someone isn't, but that someone is simply
the very small minority.

If companies had to worry about stuff like that and make sure that their
solutions fit every situation without any problems, they would never manage
to develop anything.

Wes Noonan, MCSE/CCNA/CCDA/NNCSS/Security+
Senior QA Rep.
BMC Software, Inc.
(713) 918-2412
wnoonan () bmc com
http://www.bmc.com


-----Original Message-----
From: David Gillett [mailto:gillettdavid () fhda edu] 
Sent: Monday, July 28, 2003 10:40
To: 'Ghaith Nasrawi'
Cc: firewalls () securityfocus com; security-basics () securityfocus com
Subject: RE: Cisco Workaround

  They have.  They've been amazingly responsive about providing fixed
code versions for some frighteningly-old equipment.  The *Workaround*
is just a quick and dirty fix for those who need some time to schedule 
the code upgrade installations.

David Gillett


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ghaith Nasrawi [mailto:libero () aucegypt edu]
> Sent: July 25, 2003 08:33
> Cc: firewalls () securityfocus com; security-basics () securityfocus com
> Subject: RE: Cisco Workaround
>
>
> Well, my question is; what the hell if I was using any of these
> protocols?? Didn't cisco think of that?? They should have suggested a
> more decent solution.
>
>
> ./Ghaith
> ===============
>
> Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jamesworld () intelligencia com
> [mailto:jamesworld () intelligencia com]
>
> Sent: Wednesday, July 23, 2003 6:48 PM
> To: Alvaro Gordon-Escobar
> Cc: firewalls () securityfocus com; security-basics () securityfocus com
> Subject: Re: Cisco Workaround
>
> Alvaro,
>
> No.  The protocol blocked by the access-list is protocol 53
> not protocol
>
> TCP or protocol UDP port 53.
>
> If you need further info, let me know,
>
> -James
>
>
>
> At 09:15 7/23/2003, Alvaro Gordon-Escobar wrote:
> > will this access list modification prevent my internal DNS
> server from
> > updates to it self from my telco's DNS server?
> >
> > access-list 101 deny 53 any any
> > access-list 101 deny 55 any any
> > access-list 101 deny 77 any any
> > access-list 101 deny 103 any any
> > !--- insert any other previously applied ACL entries here
> > !--- you must permit other protocols through to allow normal
> > !--- traffic -- previously defined permit lists will work
> > !--- or you may use the permit ip any any shown here
> > access-list 101 permit ip any any
> >
> > Thanks in advance
> >
> > ~alvaro Escobar
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ----
> > -------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> -----
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ---
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> ----
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> -------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------

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


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