Firewall Wizards mailing list archives
Re: FW: CISCO PIX Vulnerability
From: Darren Reed <darrenr () reed wattle id au>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 1998 00:07:31 +1000 (EST)
In some email I received from Adam Shostack, sie wrote: [...]
Absolutely. I said 'buying' a DES product is stupid, and I'll stand by that. If you have a DES product deployed, its probably time or past time to replace it, but if you have proper management solutions in place, that might be hard. Given the management processes I've seen in most places, replacing your old hardware with something newer will be unlikely to cause a reduction in the quality of the KM process.
What's the chance of that old hardware not being Y2K compliant and the new hardware being Y2K compliant ? :-) Darren
Current thread:
- CISCO PIX Vulnerability Damir Rajnovic (Jun 03)
- Re: CISCO PIX Vulnerability lum (Jun 04)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- FW: CISCO PIX Vulnerability Hal (Jun 15)
- Re: FW: CISCO PIX Vulnerability Adam Shostack (Jun 16)
- Re: FW: CISCO PIX Vulnerability Rick Smith (Jun 17)
- Re: FW: CISCO PIX Vulnerability Perry E. Metzger (Jun 18)
- Re: FW: CISCO PIX Vulnerability Rick Smith (Jun 18)
- Re: FW: CISCO PIX Vulnerability Perry E. Metzger (Jun 23)
- Going Public with Brute Force (was: CISCO PIX) Rick Smith (Jun 23)
- Re: FW: CISCO PIX Vulnerability Adam Shostack (Jun 16)
- Re: FW: CISCO PIX Vulnerability Adam Shostack (Jun 23)
- Re: FW: CISCO PIX Vulnerability Darren Reed (Jun 24)
- RE: FW: CISCO PIX Vulnerability Rick Smith (Jun 17)
- RE: FW: CISCO PIX Vulnerability Ted Doty (Jun 18)
- Re: FW: CISCO PIX Vulnerability Joseph S. D. Yao (Jun 26)